What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Marco1]

Dont you love it when the global warming agitators demand "peer review or bust" yet set up their modelling computers on a phone conversation with a deluded Indian or based on fraudulent data or pure propaganda by the friends of the wilderness and other organisations of similar disrepute?

Best of all is the dismissal of authors with more credentials then one could dream in two life times because "they are being paid by this or that industry"

Let's be clear if I had anytying to do with coal mining petroleum or any other fossil energy industry or was heavily dependent on it I would be trowing money out the window in favour of any author I could seek to counteract the concerted actions of governemts of the world who have colluded to create this histeria and fish in it for trillions.
The industry is paying you? Good for you!! keep at it, the alarmist have the backing of most governemts, the UN, and the media. This is the modern day version of the Inquisition and unless you are annointed by god, you are ****.
It is sickening and I would gladly hit the fast forward button if I had one to skip the 5 years it will take for the global warming argument to be defeated for good.

[kistinie]

you do not need to wait 5 years
AGW is already close to dead and cold, cold as solar cycle 24

http://www.spaceweather.com/

http://www.spaceweather.com/images20...g8hd45ekgt6rj7

[Boston]

thats funny Marko
cause it was the deniers who complained I was not presenting peer reviewed work and then proceded to present multiple works that were not peer reviewed
I just called em on it
and
that was mentioned even by FM ( an avowed denier ) in his last that none of the rebuttals were peer reviewed
(if the shoe fits)

maybe if you had ever been through the referee process you might be able to better understand it

also any paper published must have a preamble stating clearly that no competing interest existed within the confines of the study
so being paid my a conflicting interest instantly negates the unbiased nature that is the heart of any good science
real science by real scientists does not allow what amounts to bribery
obviously

what real science does is offer blind grants to given researchers and allow them to formulate there own study path and conclusions regardless of the funding source, thats where the grant writers come into play, they specialize in being a liaison between the science and the funding so as to keep the science pure


cheers
B

[kistinie]

Originally Posted by Boston

maybe if you had ever been through the referee process you might be able to better understand it

On your side do you understand what stratosphere is and does ?

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

try living in those conditions for a while and see how much you would support the notion that co2 is just plant food

Try a classroom in whatever school, where CO2 concentrations usually are well above 1000 ppm and can reach up even to 5000 ppm, or then a greenhouse.

And please, please, don't slip down the ridiculousness and scorning slope again. You performed well for a single post, but your nature is bringing you back again to your usual nonsense. Think a bit before posting, at least to not put your lack of knowledge and poor reasoning in evidence.

All the best.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Boston

thats funny Marko
cause it was the deniers who complained I was not presenting peer reviewed work and then proceded to present multiple works that were not peer reviewed
I just called em on it .........

cheers
B

Sorry B, this was not an attack on you, I happen to be pissed off for many small reasons, the non existing global warming just one of them. I just heard on the radio someone who was pontificating on to how the future will be, fingers firmly pressed on the cristal ball.
With a nasal pufty voice he was telling that in order to save energy the future urban garden will include raising animals for slauther, goat, lamb, chicken etc. and he believed it.
How much longer will we be subject to the antidevelopers the retrograde and the deluded pseudo hippie who see the future as a medioeval dirt road village with squeeky battery charging paddles on the roof and a waxed paper bag packing system to dipose of the pee and poo of the family?

[kistinie]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Sorry B, this was not an attack on you, I happen to be pissed off for many small reasons, the non existing global warming just one of them. I just heard on the radio someone who was pontificating on to how the future will be, fingers firmly pressed on the cristal ball.
With a nasal pufty voice he was telling that in order to save energy the future urban garden will include raising animals for slauther, goat, lamb, chicken etc. and he believed it.
How much longer will we be subject to the antidevelopers the retrograde and the deluded pseudo hippie who see the future as a medioeval dirt road village with squeeky battery charging paddles on the roof and a waxed paper bag packing system to dipose of the pee and poo of the family?

Marco
This is to my mind an answer to the problem you underline.
Batteries and New Battery Technologies

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

oh by the way
that is a perfect example of Naomi Oreske's error in her paper "beyond the Ivory Tower" when she simply misquoted her search words. Its an honest mistake that in no way negates the substance of the conversation

But anyone who has used a search engine knows that altering the search string can change everything! A simple search (as Peiser demonstrated) using the correct search string revealed hundreds of papers that Oreske's original paper contended do not exist!

How is this not a negation of the assertions in her paper?

Jimbo

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Try a classroom in whatever school, where CO2 concentrations usually are well above 1000 ppm and can reach up even to 5000 ppm, or then a greenhouse.

And please, please, don't slip down the ridiculousness and scorning slope again. You performed well for a single post, but your nature is bringing you back again to your usual nonsense. Think a bit before posting, at least to not put your lack of knowledge and poor reasoning in evidence.

All the best.

hey now we all have our foibles
mine is bogus scientists taking bribes for papers
that and agnotism

as I suggested lets stick to the paper at hand and not muddy the water with guys who we both know are on the take

basically Im happy to discuss any honest science but the usual suspects are most definitely not going to be getting much time or energy

my interest in this paper lies in that it does not nescesarily attack the previous thinking on the subject as much as it offers a new explanation for the data

as I mentioned in one of my previous

good science does not attack an existing theory as much as it presents a better use of the existing data in a more elegant explanation
rebuttals are generally held for the obvious errors in some individuals work and as such are often not published so as to allow the person an oportunity to correct there own errors ( as is only polite )
example being Oreskes in her paper

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER
ORESKES

this guy FM might be a denier but he is at least attempting to present a counter explanation. Oh it has some holes in it as near as I can see and its not being very well received but its at least not just an attack on the consensus view. Something I have been hounding for on this thread for some time. Basically since I got here. Its not a complete hypothesis but rather a piece of a much larger puzzle that has yet to be fully assembled. That assemblage being what is so lacking in the deniers camp that it begs the question "is there a coherent counter argument", to which the only answer thus far can only be, no.
Thats one of the reasons I bugged out of this thread in the first place. There was ans still is simple no viable counter argument, just a slew of generally paid PR pieces rather than any reasonable issues being presented

it just took this long for you to come up with someone who could pass muster and actually had a published work. The content of that paper is sufficiently difficult and the rebuttals sufficiently lacking in review that I thought it deserved the attention even if the paper is largely being ignored. Not that I am likely without some assistance to pin point the issues right or wrong, but the process might yield some interesting finds.

ok
was up all night working on a new web site and Im beat
will devote some time to this when I have it
cheers
B

[Boston]

OK
just fired off a letter to B P Levenson asking him to detail his rebuttal and provide notations

should be interesting to see how he responds

also am attempting to look up the rejection letters and see what issues they had
if they were addressed in a standing defense and what the outcome and content of that defense was

cheers
B

one thing I have learned so far is that FM left out the rotational energy of they system and calculated for a nearly stagnant atmosphere as far as I can tell from reading his paper. Pretty much what one of the refutations pointed out as being why his numbers are so far off. Simple reality is the atmosphere does not rotate at the same speed as the planet at least not uniformly in any dimension.

also

1. Miskolczi claims "According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts..." [Miskolczi 2007 page 5 paragraph 5].


In fact, Kirchhoff's Law states that for a body in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at a given wavelength.

Miskolczi confuses emission with emissivity.

The two having very large numerical differences
This can lead to large numerical errors, since emissivity is of course constrained to the range 0 - 1 by definition, but emission can have any nonnegative value, and is typically in the hundreds of watts per square meter for low levels of atmosphere.

basically from the word go ( page 5 paragraph 5 of FM 2007 ) there is a glaring error in establishing a numerical value for Kirchhoff's law

specifically FM states
page 5 paragraph 5

According to the Kirshoff's law two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts, therefor, the thermal energy of either system cannot be changed. In case the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with the surface, we may write that.

A sub a = S sub u A = S sub u (1-T sub a)= E sub d

and then goes on to not provide a key so we can't fully investigate this formula that based on his explanation of Kirchhoff would most likely be a mile off and
my favorite part
assumes an atmosphere in equilibrium which we know we don't have
and assumes that the values for the absorption and the misquoted "emission" ( should have been emissivity ) "must" correspond when in fact we know they do not based on the ever changing cycles of warming and cooling once again until you reach ~22C and this regardless of the co2 content as per the attached data ( graph I ended up posting instead of attaching ). I believe this is why his model had come into question in nearly every refutation Ive read so far.

so right off the start the first rebuttal point is valid and we must admit the refutations have a definite merit if we are to have an honest discussion.
FM does mis-quote Kershoff's law on page 5 paragraph 5 and that error would throw the whole basis of his calculations was off

not only that but the long term temp vs co2 graph places the climax temp at 22C which would be way outside of this assumed stabilization of temps at any level of co2 within the norms we see today



basically not only the math but the assumptions stated and the evidence do not seem to line up.

I will send this off to both parties should I get a positive response from levenson

mean while its time for startrek and some dinner

cheers
B

oh one more thing
Ill contunue if you will admit FM misquotes Kerchhoff's law and therefor made a fundamental error right off the bat
if not there is not much point in engaging in an honest conversation if both parties are not acting with honest intent to determine the value of the refutations or the value of the paper.
only one can be correct in its claims and this first round must go to the refutation
once we can agree on this we can move on to the next issue with the paper

otherwise I might as well just correspond with FM and BPL to see if I can gain any sort of correction from one or the other
Basically FM needs to rewrite the formulas to reflect this first correction and then see if his hypothesis still holds water.

have fun with it kids
B

[Boston]

hey Jim
sorry I missed this one
a perfectly fair question

by Boston

How is this not a negation of the assertions in her paper?

Jimbo

Deal is the panel was satisfied that both they and Oreskes had made an error in not catching the misquote and as in any good science when a minor error is detected it should be able to be corrected and not effect the body of the work

this kind of situation is not uncommon in any field of study and generally no one makes any big deal out of some minor error
it this case the panel was satisfied that once the actual search key words are known the study can be reproduced accurately
thus showing it to be an honest mistake
otherwise the panel would likely have withdrawn the paper

in other words if I was to misspell something in a sentence ( good example eh ) and then go back and correct the misspelling would that negate the value of the whole sentence.
hardly

same holds true of a mathamatical equation
misquote something in an equation ( which FM may have done I need to ask him as its only polite to give him the benefit of the doubt ) and then goes on to presume the correct values despite the misquote then it should not effect anything to simply correct the honest error.

if however an entire section of equations vital to a hypothesis have some parameter confused with another value entirely, then it would stand to reason that correcting that value would significantly alter the outcome of the work. ( which may be why FM was loath to correct the misquote once it was pointed out to him, as it has most definitely not been corrected and it would most definitely alter the outcome of his work as has been stated in numerous rebuttals)

by definition the two terms EMISSIVITY and EMISSION have dramatically different values associated with them

emissivity (symbol ε) A measure of an object's ability to radiate electromagnetic radiation compared with that of a black body at the same temperature. A black body, which is a perfect emitter, has an emissivity of 1,

Definitions of Emissivity on the Web:
• The emissivity of a material (usually written ε or e) is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. It is a measure of a material's ability to radiate absorbed energy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity
•
• The energy-emitting propensity of a surface, usually measured at a specific wavelength
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emissivity
•
• also called emittance - the non-dimensional ratio of the radiance emitted from an object at a particular wavelength to the radiance that a blackbody would emit at that same temperature and wavelength. Thus a surface with an emissivity equal to 1.0 is a blackbody. ...
www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/goes39/glossary.htm
•
• The ratio of the radiation emitted by a surface to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature.
stweb.ait.ac.th/~vivarad/Earth%20Observatory%20Glossary.htm
•
• Measure of ability of a surface to emit room temperature radiant heat energy. Also a measure of the ability of the surface to reflect room radiant ...
www.wfaanz.org.au/Glossary.htm
•
• Emissivity is a measure of surface’s ability to absorb or reflect far-infrared radiation. The lower the emissivity the higher the far-infrared reflection. Infrared radiation is that which is sensed by the body as heat. ...
www.globalwindowfilms.com/terminology.htm
•
• Microscopically thin, virtually invisible, metal or metallic oxide layers deposited on a window or skylight glazing surface primarily to reduce the U-factor by suppressing radiative heat flow. ...
www.alside.com/index.aspx
•
• (scalar) an intrinsic property of a material indicating how well it radiates heat.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/...eId-30082.html
•
• The intrinsic strength of an atomic transition that produces a spectral line. The term encapsulates all the atomic data information needed to calculate the flux. It is often generalized to also refer to continuum processes. Units are usually [10 -23 ergs cm 3 s -1 ]. ...
hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/astrojargon.html
•
• Degree to which a real body approaches a black body radiator (ie a perfect emitter of radiation) (Henderson-Sellers and Robinson 1986).
www.canforhydro.org/CFHW_Glossary.htm
•
• The energy emission rate usually expressed as r/c/hr @ 1ft or mr/mc/hr @ 1 ft.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/GeneralResourc...y/letter/e.htm
•
• Tendency to emission; comparative facility of emission, or rate at which emission takes place; specif. ...
www.vinyltek.com/terms_1.html
•
• the fraction of the power incident on a material that is reradiated after being absorbed by the material. ...
filipinoengineer.org/portal/dictionary-mainmenu-72.html


but emission in a black body is a coefficient or function

see emission calculator for black bodies at http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/content/...ion-calculator

and from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...nEGf2RV57Gh9tw

Emission is a coefficient in the power output per unit time of an electromagnetic source, a calculated value in physics. It is also used as a measure of environmental emissions (by mass) per MWh of electricity generated, see: Emission factor.

see also http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physi...ody/bbody.html

specifically note the following graphs



and



please note that in all three examples the energy of emission is measured as an energy density typically but not exclusively in Wm^2 and not as a ratio of energy in vs energy out as in emissivity.

a huge difference between the two values


yet clearly FM uses the term and values for emissions in his explanation of Kerchhoff's law which he based much of his paper on as is mentioned in several rebuttals and which FM has told me he is not willing to discuss.

Kerchhoff's law which FM is attempting to supplant with the value for emission is clearly concerning the ratio of emissivity

obviously a major error on the part of FM and one which he has refused to make comment on or correction of.

Kinda makes me wonder why he, rather than alter the law to correctly estimate the energy of emissivity he insisted on calculating instead a bastardized version of emission.

specifically

page 6 paragraph 3 clearly shows the correct symbol for and an acknowledgment of the Emissivity of a body represented in this case by the symbol ε (sub G) as defined by Kerchhoff's law
however in the equation found on page 5 paragraph 5 we find the symbol E sub D and also the misquote of Kerchhoff's law with a formula not representative of kershoff's law but of the misquoted method of calculation, obviously resulting in two completely differing values as depicted in the derivation, however it is argued that this model is in perfect equilibrium, as such its emissivity, representative of Kerchhoff’s law, would have a value of 1 in both formula’s. but it cant as one formula ( the correct one ) is a ratio which cant exceed 1 and the other is a value of 1 or greater with 1 being almost no radiative energy
Obviously FM is incorrectly describing Kerchhoff’s law ( page 5 paragraph 5 ) and using the larger integer of emission in place of the proper value for emissivity of a perfect black body (=1). Again on page 6 paragraph 1 FM used two formulas to represent his derivation of E sub D once again suggesting it obeys Kerchhoff's law in place of the previously ( page 3 section d ) acknowledged ε (sub G) or 1 as representing emissivity rather than emission. A critical error and one that is clearly being confused by the author of this paper.
Page 3 section d does correctly define the emissivity of the surface but page 5 paragraph 5 does not correctly define the emissivity of the atmosphere, but instead defines emission in FM's model. The previous being a ratio not to exceed 1 and the later being any positive integer as defined within the refutation of BPL

basically he is not comparing apples to apples and its such a confusing mess its no wonder he was asked to correct it by multiple people

I really would love to read the rejection letters on this one

cheers
B

[SheetWise]

I'm guessing that this will be post #4469 in this thread. Do you think any new readers are likely to join in?

Give it up guys. There's nobody who doesn't believe that climate changes, and those who believe they understand why are pissing into the wind.

Give it up -- or summarize the 4k+ posts and start a new thread.

[Zed]

Blasphemer!

[Boston]

ok
just got a response from Barton Levenson who has sent some interesting stuff

this could get interesting fast

cheers
B

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by kistinie

Marco
This is to my mind an answer to the problem you underline.
Batteries and New Battery Technologies

Hi kistinie, you are too kind. I was not underlying a technical problem but a pseudo-religious one. I was pointing at the self professed believers who with red chicks are blowing in a wood fired stove one hour before they need to start dinner because they have chosen to cut themslevs off the grid for reigious reasons and they stand over me and tell me I am anathema because I have three phase electricity in my home and a 50 amp plug for my 3000 litre spa I keep at a cosy 35C all year around.

I find kero light and wood fired stoves and chicken pens cute but they stop being cute when they become religion and start becoming the target to aim for, all for an imaginary foe that does not exist. Todays political predicament is a combination of Don Quixote and a Masonic conspiracy and the director of the play is the pope.