Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - F X

You messed up the quotes there.
Have you abandoned the previous thread, BTW? I'm still curious about your stance:
And I still am curious.
Does look as if this has been covered. I don't see anything new from FX.
And I don't see anything new in the threads I glanced through. Maybe I missed something. Maybe you haven't got round to mentioning it yet. Unless you feel like making your position clearer, I guess I'll never know.

Anyway, the only copy I can find indexed on Google is City-Data, so as far as I know it is the only other time you've posted it. 
Why are you under the illusion anybody cares?
How does this relate in particular to climate change? What are the erroneous assumptions?
I don't actually know if the assumptions are erroneous or not.  But based on observations of weather/climate, we have not witnessed global warming as it was supposed to happen.  It seems other factors may be more important than the CO2 crowd keeps insisting won't matter.

Certainly regional changes have not happened, that were projected. (they stopped using the word prediction)

There is also the matter of the horrendous manipulation of data and facts that were first revealed in the emails.  The actual data does not support an unnatural warming,  and certainly not anything approaching the Altithermal yet.  Then there is the issue of even if we do change the climate to cause the world to warm like it was 5000 years ago, will that be a disaster or not?

There was no runaway greenhouse during the Altithermal, in fact it was followed by a cooling.  The historic record also shows cooling happens after the peak warmth in between the glacier building phases of the ice ages.   We might be sending the planet back into a glacier building period by raising the CO2 levels.  Nobody actually knows.
Two quite different matters there.
And what is wrong with adopting a strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions whether or not there is a proven link. Most strategies such as developing renewable energy are worth doing anyway.
I tend to agree, mankind should be working towards using solar energy, and clean energy, energy efficiency, even if extra CO2 turns out to be a benefit, not a disaster.  Especially stopping coal, which I really dislike.  Oil is also pretty nasty and really destructive when an undersea rig fails, or a tanker goes tits up in Alaska.

That's a completely different issue that knowing if the theory is valid or not.

Have you abandoned the previous thread, BTW? I'm still curious about your stance:
Does look as if this has been covered. I don't see anything new from FX.
If a small increase in the heat balance (at the top of the atmosphere) leads to feedbacks from "changes in water vapor, snow and sea ice, and cloud", then we will observe a special kind of global warming, caused by mankind changing the balance of the atmospheric chemistry. If everything else stays the same.

I see a problem with that assumption.
In regards to the CO2 theory, some people think of it as a scientific law or a fact or something, and don't realize it's a theory.
They use the phrase The "Greenhouse" effect instead of the proper word "theory"
The presence of radiatively active gases in the Earth's atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone) raises its global mean surface temperature by 30 K, making our planet habitable by life as we know it. There has been an increase in carbon dioxide and other trace gases since the Industrial Revolution, largely as a result of man's activities, increasing the radiative heating of the troposphere and surface by about 2 W m−2. This heating is likely to be enhanced by resulting changes in water vapor, snow and sea ice, and cloud.

There is the basic assumption
increasing the radiative heating of the troposphere and surface by about 2 W m−2. This heating is likely to be enhanced by resulting changes in water vapor, snow and sea ice, and cloud.
The big error, that is what always seems obvious later.  My language was unclear.
The great failing of "scientists" is when you make an assumption, then go on to try and figure something out, when the assumption is wrong, and you don't use the scientific method for the basic assumption, before going forward.

It's almost always the stumbling block for a theory, or an entire field of science.  Once the authorities embrace the assumption (which is going to turn out to be wrong later) and now work to repress or destroy anyone who doesn't toe the line, it may take decades, or a century for the problem to be solved.  The worst case is when it actually leads to the situation where it's impossible for somebody with no resources or support to even work on the error, which after the fact seems obvious.

The specific predictions of the models considered are that, assuming a doubling of CO2 and all else held equal, it does appear that there will be greater warming over land than over water, more at higher latitudes (and altitudes), more in winters than summers, and with the greatest proportion at the poles.
Of course, it's common knowledge for anyone who has studied the theory.  Or the models based on the theory.

You can even deduct why if you are a science minded person.  Just like the original theory does.
You think that was the first time I posted that?

To understand AGW requires understanding the theory, and our confidence in the theory is either increased or decreased by evidence. And since the theory can be changed as evidence mounts, describing, or defining the theory, plainly spelling it out is an essential step before the debate starts.

Just claiming "it's hotter and humans are creating a lot of CO2 so it's hotter because humans" is not a theory, nor does it lend itself to the rigorous demands of science. The physical mechanism and how climate actually works is the key thing. A theory that CO2 is the main driver of climate change faces a huge challenge to confirm. The changes we expect are from the theory. If the changes do not happen, then either our observations are wrong, or CO2 is not the main driver, or something else unexpected.

But there is no getting around the theory, which states the main driver of climate, even when the starting cause is changes to solar insolation, when that changes, it's the CO2 levels that causes the huge changes in global climate, that is the core of the theory.

The further theory is that humans increasing the CO2 will cause an un-natural change in climate, since CO2 is the main factor in climate change. This is what the real argument, debate, uncertainty is about.

Certainly there are many more things involved, but the core of it is CO2 forcing drastic climate swings. The evidence for this happening already (as some claim it has), is the main thing. There is also the prediction of future changes as levels rise higher.

My view is that we actually do not know, and we can't know, because of the chaotic nature of nature, and the unexpected things that always happen. The theories that rising CO2 and warming will usher in an ice age are as valid in this matter, in regards to predicting the future changes. In the past the glacier building phase of the ice age started when it was warm. Since snow and ice is increasing in the boreal winters, and that is where the ice age starts, the northern hemisphere high latitudes, and because the sun can't be dismissed as a force of change, and a huge string of volcanic eruptions can happen, there is no way to say "we know what will happen with the climate", because we just don't.

The theory always includes "everything else being equal", which means no other factors are involved, a doubling of CO2 will cause ...". Then the water vapor feedback and melting ice and decreasing sea ice comes into play. All this is theoretical, in the absolute sense that it isn't known.

So my mind is certainly not made up about most of it, except for the unchanging fact that almost everybody will end up being wrong about something involved.
CO2 theory says CO2 controls the earth's climate, increasing the SW radiation budget, which raises the global temperature as levels increase, and lowers global temps as it reduces. It's the feedback that allows small changes in solar insolation to change the global climate. AGW is the theory that the man made increase will result in drastic warming, due to a water vapor feedback effect from a small increase in LW radiation. The effect (enhanced greenhouse effect) will be observed more over land than oceans, more at high latitudes, and in winter more than summer. Further feedbacks from albedo changes due to warming will increase the warming by changes in the SW radiation budget.

Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
If my treadmill belt was miles long you'd notice plenty of variability in the wind above it as well. 
I believe that, but why?  What would cause the still air to change just because the belt is longer?

Several studies have noted that "the pause",  which certainly is a real thing, is actually a NH cold season trend driving the annual global mean to look flat. This is not expected or explained by the CO2 theory, nor can computer models using the theory predict it.

Just looking at the data shows clearly that an unexpected winter cooling trend has happened, when we should be observing the most warming in NH winters, over land, and at night.  (basic global warming theory)

Regarding "some places", what examples are you thinking of and are you suggesting regional fluctuations are evidence against a general trend?
Now I know you obviously have not been reading the climate related, and very long and hilarious threads regarding global warming.

Cohen has noted extensively that the winter trends (in fact the entire NH cold season) do not match models based on CO2 forcing, even going so far as to postulate warming may be causing the cooling trends.

The MIT study postulates a different mechanism for global warming

In computer modeling of Earth's climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise. At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it's this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.

Both these ideas go against the classic CO2 theory, in that we see a cooling winter trend, and the expectation that drastic reduction of snow and ice cover will cause continued warming, but not from CO2 forcing.

We have not observed any global change that exceeds past warmings.  In fact, many places are colder now than in most of the recent past.

 You make two specific claims here, both rather vague.
From past experience showing you vast amounts of data won't matter a bit, if you have already made up your mind. 

The Altithermal (Holocene climatic optimum) was much warmer globally than present, which is supported by tons of evidence, hundreds of years of researchers and many many different proxies.  The arctic regions were much warmer, and sea level was 3 meters higher globally. Not only glaciers but an entire ice cap were just not there. The deep sea cores, ice cores, pollen and varves and river deltas and ancient forests , the tree lines, the rainfall in Africa, all of it shows that the planet experienced a very warm period 7000 to 5000 years ago.

It cooled since then, up until recently. where we have observed a warming since the LIA.   It is of course entirely possible mankind is altering the global heat balance, in many ways. But in science a theory is never proved, it just is the best we can do.  The warming since the last cooling trend certainly seemed unnatural. Hanse et al 2000 noted that the observed warming, which has not continued, may have been from CfCs, and that fossil fuels may actually have an offsetting that currently negates any warming from them.

The climate change observed fits much better with CfCs and solar forcing, rather than a CO2 greenhouse enhancement. 

Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Yep.  Real wind tends to be variable.  But the TM is exactly the same as a steady wind and those do occur.  So as long as one can go DDWFTTW in a steady wind, then the concept is proven.
Yep.  The maker of the YT cart noted how long it took to get a steady wind in the right direction to be able to do a real world test.

He had a remote controlled brake and steering and ran it all while filming and riding a bike next to it.  It shows a cart going ddwfftw powered only by the wind, but that didn't convince a lot of people.

spork actually drove a huge one ddwfttw and that didn't convince some people.  The treadmill test didn't either.

Makes you wonder how hard a really complicated bit of technology and science would fare in this modern world.
"God makes the weather" isn't falsifiable. 
No, it's not even a hypothesis, much less a theory.
"CO2 causes global warming" is.
No, that isn't a theory either. 

Sure it does.  Think about it some more.

No.  You wrote "theories like 'God makes the weather'", and that is nonsense.  It's not a scientific theory at all.
I just don't have time to give you a proper response at the moment.
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind

"For the cart it makes no difference of course.  The physics are exactly the same.  Wind or moving platform, it still behaves exactly the same."

Which was the original point.
Not really.  I had read an old Humber post where he was trying to explain that moving on a platform isn't exactly the same as a real wind, which is true.  Real wind can vary, and you can't duplicate that with a treadmill (for a person, not the cart of course).  A person would know they were moving, because when the ground changes speed , you know it.  It isn't exactly the same as being in a variable wind at all.

But as we know, for the physics of how the cart works, it does not matter a bit.