Sciencescience

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 01:27 PM

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the man made warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that man made global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

54 replies, 2185 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell (Original post)
oflguy Jul 2017 OP
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #1
oflguy Jul 2017 #3
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #6
oflguy Jul 2017 #7
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #8
oflguy Jul 2017 #9
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #10
oflguy Jul 2017 #11
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #14
oflguy Jul 2017 #17
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #19
oflguy Jul 2017 #20
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #21
oflguy Jul 2017 #22
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #23
oflguy Jul 2017 #24
oflguy Jul 2017 #12
oflguy Jul 2017 #13
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #15
oflguy Jul 2017 #16
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #18
oflguy Jul 2017 #25
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #26
oflguy Jul 2017 #27
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #28
oflguy Jul 2017 #29
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #30
oflguy Jul 2017 #31
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #33
oflguy Jul 2017 #34
oflguy Jul 2017 #35
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #36
oflguy Jul 2017 #37
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #38
oflguy Jul 2017 #39
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #40
oflguy Jul 2017 #41
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #42
oflguy Jul 2017 #43
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #44
oflguy Jul 2017 #45
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #46
oflguy Jul 2017 #47
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #48
oflguy Jul 2017 #49
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #50
oflguy Jul 2017 #51
mindwalker_2pi Jul 2017 #52
oflguy Jul 2017 #53
oflguy Jul 2017 #54
oflguy Jul 2017 #32
Jack Burton Jul 2017 #2
oflguy Jul 2017 #4
Jack Burton Jul 2017 #5

Response to oflguy (Original post)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 04:18 PM

1. Roy Spencer

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm


Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization .


https://thinkprogress.org/climate-scientists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer-8519f36faf77


It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing — committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.
It also bears repeating that Spencer wrote this month, “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”


Doesn't sound like a reliable source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 05:54 PM

3. Silly, Spencer INVENTED Satellite measurement of atmospheric temperature.

Without him, there wouldn't be satellite data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 06:16 PM

6. As noted, he has an agenda

He may have done good work in some things, but that doesn't mean one should accept his analyses on everything.

His analysis of what global warming is reduces to conservation of energy. That's good, but where he goes off is in claiming, without any explanation, that the increases in CO2 only account for, roughly, a degree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 06:54 PM

7. And you don't have an agenda?

Spencer is not one of the wildcat doomers that projected exaggerated warming.

What the doom and gloom so-called climatologists have failed to take into account is the effect of warming. More warming results in more cooling. Increased evaporation of water takes increased latent heat with it, and when that water releases that extra heat in the upper atmosphere, condensing as rain, hail and snow (again all latent heat processes) it removes the heat.

The water cycle is the key.

The oversimplification of earth's dynamic heating and cooling processes has caused climatologists to misrepresent what happens. The presence of water on earth is the planet's "ace in the hole." The sun heats the earth in an uneven pattern due to that water, unlike planets like Mars and Venus which are barren of liquid water. Their temperatures are stable, albeit to extremes, whereas our planet' s temperatures are random and chaotic, driving what we call weather. Without water in the atmosphere to trap heat, we would freeze to death. Ironically, that same water acts to buffer the planet from overheating.

It is the latent heating and cooling of water that climatologists have yet to get a handle on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 07:07 PM

8. Probably, which means that people should also question me

It does not, however, mean I should not question this guy, who has a demonstrated agenda. Incidentally, you also have an agenda - in this case meaning that you are motivated to get a specific result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 07:18 PM

9. You are confusing me with the ones that want to use global warming to spread socialism

throughout the world and the ones that take part in over a billion dollars a year in grants perpetuating a doom and gloom myth.

I have no such agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 07:23 PM

10. I did not mistake you for that

I "mistake" you for someone whose agenda is to dismiss global warming completely for ideological reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #10)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 07:37 PM

11. I dismiss it because I see through their ridiculous methodologies

and poor science.

I have to understand psychrometrics (the study of moisture in air) to make my living. I have studied meteorology as a pilot.

and

I have common sense. My agenda is to understand the truth. What the doomers are selling ain't the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 11:38 PM

14. Uh huh

Ideology. People are blind to their own ideologies quite often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 08:35 AM

17. Which ideology are you blind to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 11:50 AM

19. Everyone is bliend to their own ideology to some extent

The smarter ones question themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 12:14 PM

20. And therefore you are questioning your loyalty to global warming theory, I take it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 01:37 PM

21. My "loyalty"?

Let me ask you this: do you believe temperatures on the planet are changing/rising? If so, do you believe this is only due to normal variations not having anything to do with human activity? If those are the case, then you believe human activity is insufficient to have any real effect on the climate as a whole. With me so far?

I think this is what you mean by "common sense" - that it's obvious human activity is far too small to have a significant effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #21)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 04:00 PM

22. Temperatures have fluctuated for millions of years

To try to say the earth's temperature has risen eight tenths of a degree since 1880 is ludicrous. You can't measure that.

No, I do not believe man is responsible for less than one degree temperature differential since 1880.

Have you ever heard of the term significant figures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 04:26 PM

23. "No, I do not believe man is responsible for less than one degree temperature differential since

1880".

Do you also believe that we are not able to affect the planet enough to cause a significant rise in temperature in the future? What I'm getting at is that I think what you call "common sense" is a belief that no way, no how, can people have a significant impact on climate. My "common sense" - a.k.a. my belief - is that, of course, the impact of such a huge population along with all of our technology, could conceivably have such an effect. The likely case is that some of the changing climate is due to natural fluctuations, but a good portion is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 04:50 PM

24. The likely case is that some of the changing climate is due to natural fluctuations, but a good

portion is not"

Got a link to that?

Ever hear of the term significant figures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 07:47 PM

12. The way government works

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 07:57 PM

13. One other thing

Your link says that Spencer said that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

That is not true.

Do you realize that the majority of personnel that man NOAA weather stations are volunteers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 12:01 AM

15. Do you have data to contradict that?

Link?

And "volunteers" means you are a better authority? Or that Spencer, who is in a specific ideological camp, is a better authority?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 12:49 AM

16. Just ponder for a moment how accurate data recorded by volunteers is

First, their instruments need only be accurate to within plus or minus one degree. In addition, by NOAA's own admission, the reliability of their reporting stations is unreliable.

I trust a liberal to tell me the earth is warming as much as I trust a puppy dog to watch my food.


Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data
March 12, 1997

Recently, much scientific debate has focused on the global temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere as measured by orbiting satellites. And while these data are exceedingly precise, verified by multiple satellite observations, and balloon measurements taken in-situ, they reveal no discernable warming trend in the Earth's lower atmosphere over the last 18+ years.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center) and Dr. John Christy (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) have used the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) flying aboard NOAA's TIROS-N weather satellites to construct a continuous record of lower tropospheric (from the surface to about 4 miles) temperatures since the first MSU was launched in late 1978. The lower tropospheric temperature trend has been calculated to be -0.04 degrees C/decade.

In the latest (March 13, 1997) edition of Nature, two scientists, James Hurrell and Kevin Trenberth, report that sea-surface temperatures monitored by buoys and ships at various locations in the tropics show, for the same period as the satellite record, a warming trend of +0.12 deg. C/decade, in apparent disagreement with the satellites. This so-called "disagreement" between satellite and surface temperature measurements is not new.

Despite the fact that the Hurrell and Trenberth estimate of the temperature of the atmosphere through a simple linear regression model based only on the sea surface temperatures, and a global climate model simulation with the same sea surface temperatures but no stratospheric volcanic aerosols, while the MSU data actually measure the temperature of the free atmosphere, Hurrell and Trenberth conclude that the satellite data must be wrong.

The recent paper's conclusion is based on two apparent "breaks" in the satellite versus sea-water temperature record, one in late 1981 and the other in late 1991. "During the first period, we had two separate satellites, operating simultaneously, and agreeing with each other to about 0.02 degrees C. So their estimate of the late 1981 break is inconsistent with these observations," observed Dr. Spencer, an atmospheric scientist at NASA.

"There isn't a problem with the measurements that we can find," Spencer explained. "In fact, balloon measurements of the temperature in the same regions of the atmosphere we measure from space are in excellent agreement with the satellite results." Dr. Christy explained further, "In particular, we've examined these two `breaks' claimed by Hurrell and Trenberth. Even in these disputed intervals, we find excellent agreement between the two independent, direct atmospheric temperature measurements from balloons and satellites."

The disagreement between satellites and surface-based thermometers, furthermore, is not geographically uniform. "Over Northern Hemisphere land areas, where the best surface thermometer data exist, the satellites and thermometers agree almost perfectly", said Dr. Christy of UAH. "It is primarily over the oceans where they disagree by a couple of tenths of a degree C. This is most likely a well-known phenomenon in which the temperature in the deep atmosphere is not as strongly linked to the surface temperature as it is over land."

While Hurrell and Trenberth attempt to account for possible differences between the surface and deep-layer measurements by forcing a computerized atmospheric general circulation model (GCM) with the observed sea-water temperatures, this methodology is likely flawed. "It is well known that GCMs will produce atmospheric temperatures that vary in lock-step with the surface temperatures. In addition, the GCM did not include the direct forcing on the atmosphere from this century's two largest volcanoes," noted Spencer. "The physics in these models is not refined enough to do anything else. The satellite measurements provide the first observational evidence that the surface and deep layer temperatures can vary slightly differently (a couple of tenths of a degree) over a decade or so."

Spencer and Christy point out that the surface versus satellite temperature controversy will likely not die away soon. Through NASA's Earth Observing System, researchers will continue to improve our ability to monitor the Earth system so that we may understand the subtleties of variations in the global atmosphere as noted in the current discussion. It is only with direct observations of the earth that we will be able to sort out the issues of climate variability and change that affect the planet.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd12mar97_1/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #16)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 11:50 AM

18. I will need to read this carefully before making an opinion

However, your comment: "I trust a liberal to tell me the earth is warming as much as I trust a puppy dog to watch my food," is a strong indication that your motivation is to your "team". I am also motivated not to trust your "team" since conservatives have some history opposing ideas that would limit business' profits. Examples include stopping use of lead in gasoline and links between smoking and cancer. Spencer is writing stuff that agrees with your ideology, and therefore you are more inclined not to question him.

One thing to note was that earlier you said that it was "common sense" that global warming wasn't happening. Your "common sense" sounds very much like a belief in this case, so could you clarify what you mean specifically? I have a degree in physics, my other degrees are in electrical engineering and computer engineering, I work on the hardware for neural networks specifically in power/thermal. My "common sense" tells me that if you increase theta_ja (where j is the surface of the planet and the ocean temperature and ambient is the temperature of space), plus extra energy is added in burning stored fuel, temperature will rise until a new equilibrium is reached. This is the first part of the article you posted. Can 6.5 billion people make a significant difference? The changes we've made to the surface of the planet are not insignificant, so it at least seems possible. Again, Spencer made the claim that our effect is negligible but without any reasoning or data to back it up. "Common sense" is not a sufficient argument.

Another allusion you made was that my goal was to use the threat of climate change to impose socialism. That is not the case. II would like to see new technologies developed in order to provide energy in such a way as to limit the adverse effects to ecosystems (we - humans - depend on those to survive). This includes use of renewables and nuclear, and using electrical energy for transportation.

The big elephant in the room is that population is growing, a lot, and so even things that would have little effect on the planet, multiplied by such a large population, are significant. Resources are constrained. It seems the best way to combat population are to push education, specifically to women (they tend to have fewer children if they're educated). I would also like to see us expand off-planet and a lot of progress is being made in that direction, although there's a long way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 05:04 PM

25. Common sense comes into play only when you can couple it with sound science

and some understanding of the dynamics of psychrometrics. You sound like you should be able to understand the principals involved in the feedback factors involved in a warming trend of the earth. The earth has done a wonderful job of keeping the temperature relatively constant through the presence of water on its surface. Any tendency of warming is met with a counteracting tenancy of cooling.

Evaporating water removes heat and expels that heat in the upper atmosphere where it dissipates into space. I'm sure you are capable of understanding that. Ever wonder why the climatologists computer models have failed so miserably?

Ever heard of the term significant figures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #25)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 06:23 PM

26. "Evaporating water removes heat and expels that heat in the upper atmosphere where it dissipates

into space."

That would be one factor - one negative feedback system that would limit the rise in surface temperature. To claim or imply that this effect will completely negate the effects of all other factors makes no sense. You note that the earth has done a good job of regulating temperatures over long periods of time, and this is correct. It has done so, in part, my removing carbon from the atmosphere. However, human activity releases (some of) that stored carbon, which disrupts that particular mechanism for regulating temperature.

Again, it seems like "common sense" is a euphemism, in this case, for your beliefs, related to the common beliefs of "your team".

On your comment that climate models have "failed miserably", I found this:

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-95-of-models-linking-human-co-emissions-and-global-warming-in-error-41671


So, yes, as the figure shows there are multiple decadal periods in the past where the models either overestimate or underestimate the observed warming. Despite this, its clear that the overall modelled surface warming over the course of more than a century is only off by a very small margin.

snip

Verdict

Mr Newman’s implication that discrepancies resulting from the recent climate fluctuation somehow invalidates climate models is incorrect.

Climate models have been thoroughly and critically tested against observations and are able to simulate with fair accuracy the component of climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols as well as natural factors like solar variations and volcanic eruptions.

However, long-term climate simulations do not and likely never will reproduce the timing of shorter-term random fluctuations, like the recent slowdown in surface temperatures. In the long run, this fluctuation, like many before, will just be noise on a gradually increasing temperature signal.


I had not mentioned climate models at all, and have been relying simply on conservation of energy. You have still not provided any reasoning for why you believe that human activity is not sufficient to have any large effects, beyond claiming that water will evaporate and carry energy away, and then didn't make any argument for why that effect would be greater than all the other factors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 06:44 PM

27. Hey, I'm not the one blaming people for the coming doom, you are

Do you seriously believe the doomers are going to admit their models are wrong? No, no, no, they have come up with crazy schemes about hidden heat in the oceans. Any reputable scientist would have abandoned his pathetic model and went back to the drawing board.

You do realize, I hope, that plants use CO2 and expel oxygen.

Have you ever heard the phrase significant figures??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #27)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 07:02 PM

28. "Do you seriously believe the doomers are going to admit their models are wrong?"

Labeling everyone who works with climate models as "doomers" doesn't help your argument and, in fact, shows your position to be partisan rather than based on facts or data. You seem to be claiming that everyone who works on climate models is a "doomer."

What is the point you're making with plants absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen? Are you saying that they will render all other effects that warm air irrelavent, similarly to claiming that water evaporation is a much bigger effect than anything else? That's rather selective and also points to partisan reasoning.

What is your question about significant figures trying to make a point about? Do you believe that humans are not capable of having a significant effect on climate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #28)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 07:22 PM

29. You said you have a degree in physics. Surely you have come across the concept of

significant figures somewhere along the way.

The continuous escape of CO2 from earth’s atmosphere is a new concept to me. Do you have a link that would show why CO2 would take a hike more so than hydrogen and helium, elements more likely to slip the surly bonds of the earth’s gravity? You do realize, I hope, that gravity is responsible for our atmosphere sticking close to earth’s surface.

If CO2 loss is a factor, that is news to me. People and animals consume oxygen and expel CO2. Plants, on the other hand, consume CO2 and expel oxygen. It is a beautiful thing.

In a world where doomers want to jail deniers, I think labeling works both ways.

Sounds like you have never been introduced to significant figures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #29)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 08:09 PM

30. I was trying to figure out WHY you were asking me about significant figures

What point are you trying to make? The question seems to be out of the blue.

As for why CO2 would escape the atmosphere, I'm not sure what you are referring to. I agreed that plants absorb CO2 and give off oxygen, from your comment, "You do realize, I hope, that plants use CO2 and expel oxygen."

Labeling does work both ways and I've tried to make distinctions where appropriate.

You still haven't commented on whether you think it's possible for people to have a significant effect on climate, other that to point to some processes and imply that those would swamp out anything that people could do. The reason I'm asking that is to determine whether this is a rock-solid belief on your part, or that you think it's possible but just not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #30)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 08:21 PM

31. OK, I have given you ample opportunity to google significant figures

You can't say I didn't try to make you look good by doing a quick google.

I was introduced to the concept by a chemistry professor who explained it verbally without benefit of a black board. But then the concept is more reality-based, and I suppose that is why I was lucky enough to have a reality-based chemistry professor. He must have actually measured something in his career and realized his calculations needed a little "Common Sense" in the answer.

To bone up on this, visit this website:

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic-home/arith-review-decimals/arithmetic-significant-figures-tutorial/v/significant-figures

By the second video (they are short), you should be able to use some "common sense" to understand what I'm getting at and make the connection to global warming predictions.

I'll check back. (By the way, the guy in the video makes a mistake, can you figure out where?) He caught his second mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #31)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 09:51 PM

33. You still have not answered WHY

I'm not going to answer your question until I have an idea why you're asking it. Do you need to keep that reason hidden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #33)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 09:59 PM

34. Why not just click on the link silly?

I'm beginning to think you know what significant figures are and are evading the issue.

Once you learn what they are it will be very apparent why I ask if you know what they are.

This is so simple. Why are you trying to make it difficult?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #34)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 10:55 PM

35. Amazing, I get the exact same reaction out of every global warmer in this forum

FEAR

There is nothing to be afraid of, unless you are scared of the truth.

Significant numbers tells us you cannot use more digits in the product of two numbers than the number of significant numbers used to derive that product.

In other words, if one of the numbers used has only two significant figures, the product can have no more than two significant figures.

Are you getting the picture now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #34)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 09:25 AM

36. Significant figures are not difficult

I just want to know where you're going with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 10:01 AM

37. You would have to understand how NOAA determines the temperature of a day at a particular place

They take the High and Low temperatures, rounded off to the nearest whole number, then divide by two. The result is the temperature that day at that place. The temperature there that month is the sum of the daily averages divided by the number of days. Is the picture coming into focus now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #37)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 11:05 AM

38. Ok, so there is some error in measurements

Are you then claiming that, because there is error, it is impossible to draw conclusions? Furthermore, is their error proof that you conclusion - that there is no warming - is more valid when, as far as I can tell, you have zero significant figures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 11:14 AM

39. SOME error?

You are pulling my leg, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #39)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 11:49 AM

40. Ah, so you think this is a huge error and therefore, all the results are invalid

Unlike with you, that, although you have zero significant figures, your conclusions are more valid? Thinking back to your other replies, you've commented on how stations are staffed by (gulp) volunteers, implying that, therefore, the data is useless. Your - again, with zero significant figures - "common sense" is more valid than their data and conclusions.

That kind of seems similar to a specific class of arguments for religion. People claim that science can't answer some question, such as where the big bang came from, of where the "missing link" is in the evolution between monkeys and people, so therefore evolution is wrong and there is a God. Furthermore, all the rest of the religion is correct. Like this argument, your argument about all of climate science being wrong because the data is not precise is an example of motivated reasoning - you have a conclusion that you want to reach and will find reasons to get there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #40)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 11:53 AM

41. "although you have zero significant figures"

You didn't click on the link to learn what significant figures are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:03 PM

42. I don't need the link

Problem is, I hate really stupid questions, and asking me whether I knew what those were, knowing I've been through engineering school and physics, was stupid. I should have just answered it initially but my lack of tolerance for stupidity made me just say, "what are you getting at," "why are you asking", etc. I just wanted you to move on to a real, less stupid, point.

Back t the issue at hand, you are drawing the conclusion that, because there is inaccuracy in the data, its results are wrong. Your results, bases on knowing there are inaccuracies in the data along with your "common sense," are more valid. "Common sense" in this case is a substitute for any data, which, similar to religion, is used to support a pre-determined conclusion.

Ergo, your position is similar in key ways to a religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #42)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:06 PM

43. You still don't know what significant figures are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #43)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:08 PM

44. Now your argument is that I don't know what sig figs are

and therefore you're correct? I suppose that's easier than arguing the actual point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #44)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:09 PM

45. If you won't even bother to understand what significant figures are

How are you supposed to respond intelligently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #45)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:13 PM

46. Did you new read my reply?

I should have answered your stupid question earlier, but it was stupid. I've known what significant figures are for a long time. One can't got through physics and engineering school without that - so the answer to what you're fixating on should have been obvious for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:17 PM

47. No, you don't know what they are

You have proven that when you said my example has zero significant figures.

Why not just watch the video in my link so you can learn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #47)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:38 PM

48. "Proven"?

You said that data from the stations is imprecise - uses few significant figures - and that combined with your common sense means the conclusions of scientists are wrong. When I say you have zero significant figures, I am comparing your "common sense" to data. "Common sense" isn't data, it has zero significant figures. Are you asserting that common sense does have significant figures or is otherwise more valid than actual - if imprecise - data?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #48)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:43 PM

49. What I said was NOAA determines the temperature of a day by taking the daily high and low

adding them together and dividing by two.

The high and low temperatures are rounded off to the nearest whole degree.

How do you get zero significant figures from that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:46 PM

50. You said your conclusions about global warming come from knowing how

the data is collected - that it has inaccuracies - combined with you common sense. Common sense has zero significant figures. Therefore your conclusions, based on your common sense, has zero significant figures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 01:00 PM

51. That is the non-answer you are going with huh?

You should have taken the time to click on the link I provided to learn what significant figures are. Then you would be able to talk intelligently.

Its not too late to learn.

I still have hope for you. The link is still there.

By the way, in my example, assuming the temperatures involved are double-digit, the number of significant figures involved would be two. If the data had one digit, the number of significant figures would be one. Can you figure out why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 01:12 PM

52. Yes, I already know that

Now that I've pointed out where your religious beliefs are driving your position on climate change, you're sticking to the sig-fig thing to avoid it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #52)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 01:14 PM

53. sig-fig thing?

What is a sig-fig thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #53)

Thu Jul 13, 2017, 02:28 PM

54. Oh, I get it

You are not happy with the way NOAA computes their data.

I am in total agreement with you. Recording a high and low dry bulb temperature for the day and getting an average is not a very accurate way of determining how warm it is. For the sake of argument, I won't even get into the other half of the heat equation, wet bulb temperature.

But consider NOAA's point of view. The measurements are recorded hourly. It may be cloudy, or rainy, all day long, keeping temperatures abnormally low. At the end of the day, the sun could come out, allowing it warm up significantly, which would become the high for the day. Obviously, the data is skewed on the low side. But what else can NOAA do?

The fact that the data is recorded rounded off to the nearest whole degree is not ideal, but hey, only the highest and lowest numbers are used, and then those numbers are used to get an average. The result is a very poor representation of how "warm" the day was, but again, what is NOAA to do?

NOAA gets much of its data from the National Weather Service, which gets much of its data from airport hourly measurements. This information is used in part at airports to inform arriving and departing pilots of current weather conditions. In New Orleans there are two principal airports, one called Lakefront Airport, and the other one is called Armstrong International. Both measure information but only Lakefront data, the older of the two, is used by NOAA. On a given day and hour, the temperatures at the two facilities can be 20 degrees in difference.

So how warm is New Orleans at that time?

If 78.4 degrees is rounded off to 78 and 53.6 degrees is rounded off to 57, the 78+57=135
135/2= 67.5 degrees which is what NOAA says would be the temperature for that day. The rules of significant figures say we keep the point five because we are going to use that number in a future computation and we don't want to lose the data.

Keeping on, lets say we use each daily average to get a monthly average and the daily averages work out to 68.47312 degrees. If we were going to continue to get a yearly average, we would continue to keep the fractions, but lets say we only want to express how warm it was for the month.

In this case, we say the temperature at that location was 68 degrees for the month. Why? Because the data used was only accurate to the nearest whole degree. Fractions are "insignificant" because they are not representative of the real temperature.

This is why it is downright silly to try to say the earth has warmed eight tenths of a degree since 1880. It is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_2pi (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 12, 2017, 08:27 PM

32. If you can point to a computer model by climate scientists that underestimated the observed warming.

I'll give you a quarter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 05:00 PM

2. That is a good explanation

but I can summarize the global warming movement with three words "power and control".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 06:11 PM

4. True, but Spencer has always been on the leading edge of climate analysis

He has pointed out one of the biggest flaws in global warming theory - the advocates of it developed computer models that predicted radical warming and their models failed miserably. In science you develop a theory and then measure the results. When that theory proves to be wrong, you abandon it and develop another theory.

Instead of following scientific protocol, global warmers have tried to come up with excuses that explain off their failed theories. They have even used lies and forgeries to manipulate data used in order to mold and shape the results.

Anybody that believes you can take two temperatures over time and average them, using numbers rounded off to the nearest whole, and then get a result in hundredths of a degree is simply pulling the wool over your eyes. To claim the earth has warmed eight-tenths of a degree since 1880 takes a whole lot of gullible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 06:15 PM

5. awww man

you're harshing my snark with all the reason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience