Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'German Physicists Trash Global Warming


ExpandMyMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

The anomaly is well known. Even authors you have linked me to have published on it.

You are a BS-er and I am tired of this dance, it seems the scientific procedure to you means 'grind the guy down with BS and never give a straight answer'. I will be referencing this (and the other threads) ever time you condescend to someone that they are unscientific.

If you like, you still showed anything.

Not really made you a fair offer. It just seems you are only willing to accept what you want too me.

And you shouldn't since you have not shown any semblance of a scientific approach at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    36

  • Startraveler

    20

  • Mattshark

    22

  • MARAB0D

    23

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Oh don't worry I know...thats been one of my bug bears with Mattsharks unshakeable faith in papers, I have come across work that was wrong many times and even slipped a couple of 'inaccuracies' of my own through the 'peer review' net.

Who says I have unshakable faith. I said papers are the best form of evidence, which they are. Doesn't mean that they should not be critiqued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a long-winded and condescending post that boils down to a repetition of what I said a page ago. Let me repeat that bit: "The radiating temperature we calculate to satisfy equilibrium constraints is not the surface temperature of the planet." Yes, the energy balance is the same with or without an atmosphere. But the temperature of the planet's surface is higher in the former case because that radiating temperature is associated with a pressure level in the atmosphere instead of the planet's surface itself.

Which, again, is why Mars might well have had a warmer and wetter past, why the Earth's average surface temperature is as high as it is, and why the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury. When it comes to surface temperatures, atmospheres matter.

OK - where is this "pressure within atmosphere" in Stefan-Boltzman Law? Just a few posts ago you were using it to prove the radiation comes from the earth surface!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calculate the effective surface temperature for the earth in the absence of an atmosphere (assume a planetary average albedo of 0.3). If you get a number above the freezing point of water, you're doing it wrong.

Mercury orbits the Sun closer than any other planet in the Solar System, so you'd think that the temperature of Mercury is hot, and hotter. You'd be right. The side of Mercury facing the Sun can reach 700 Kelvin, or 425 degrees Kelvin

Back on Mercury, the side facing the Sun gets to 700 Kelvin, but the planet has no appreciable atmosphere. Without this atmosphere, it can't trap in the heat. And so, the side facing away from the Sun – covered in shadow – dips down to 100 Kelvin, or -173 degrees Celsius. That makes Mercury colder than any of the inner planets, and even colder than the cloud tops of Jupiter.

http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/mercury/temperature-of-mercury/

now taking intot the type of in the first paragraph, it should read 424 degrees celsius instead of kelvin. i assume this since that is what the second paragraph has done. i do believe that 232 celsius is well above the freezing point of water. mercury has no atmo. it has an 88 day long day and still has an average temp above freezing. what you forgot to take into account was heat that would still be in the rocks. not sure if this would be the same on earth since it is further away but i am sure the temp would be around the freezing point give or take depending on where in the orbit it was.

on the other hand you have mars which has a mostly co2 atmo and it's temp hovers on average below freezing. i know you'll say that is because of it's thin atmo.

then explain how come titan which has a high methane count in it's atmo. is so cold if greenhouse gas makes things hotter.

titan also has a much thicker atmo than earth does.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mercury orbits the Sun closer than any other planet in the Solar System, so you'd think that the temperature of Mercury is hot, and hotter. You'd be right. The side of Mercury facing the Sun can reach 700 Kelvin, or 425 degrees Kelvin

Back on Mercury, the side facing the Sun gets to 700 Kelvin, but the planet has no appreciable atmosphere. Without this atmosphere, it can't trap in the heat. And so, the side facing away from the Sun – covered in shadow – dips down to 100 Kelvin, or -173 degrees Celsius. That makes Mercury colder than any of the inner planets, and even colder than the cloud tops of Jupiter.

http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/mercury/temperature-of-mercury/

now taking intot the type of in the first paragraph, it should read 424 degrees celsius instead of kelvin. i assume this since that is what the second paragraph has done. i do believe that 232 celsius is well above the freezing point of water. mercury has no atmo. it has an 88 day long day and still has an average temp above freezing. what you forgot to take into account was heat that would still be in the rocks. not sure if this would be the same on earth since it is further away but i am sure the temp would be around the freezing point give or take depending on where in the orbit it was.

on the other hand you have mars which has a mostly co2 atmo and it's temp hovers on average below freezing. i know you'll say that is because of it's thin atmo.

then explain how come titan which has a high methane count in it's atmo. is so cold if greenhouse gas makes things hotter.

titan also has a much thicker atmo than earth does.

Good post, you have to add core temperature to the equation, e.g. the earth also radiates heat, it shows how difficult it is the make a model with any degree of accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that it has taken a while for these people to take them apart. This is version 4 which has been around for a year and was probably known about for 6 months prior to publishment, particularly in their own institution, however version 1 goes back over 3 years. How can these simple mathematical and high school physics mistakes have gotten through ? This is particularly strange for a paper that many would like 'taking apart' for reasons other than acedemic.

It has been around but got published nowhere until recently. As we know, as long as not published it is nonexistent. Greulich been babbling about this since '95. As for reasons other than academic...that must be why it got published in the first place despite the evident math error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you like, you still showed anything.

Not really made you a fair offer. It just seems you are only willing to accept what you want too me.

And you shouldn't since you have not shown any semblance of a scientific approach at all.

All I did was plot the last 8000 years of a graph that you used yourself many times, same data, same pre-processing, all you have to do is post the equation for the logarithmic relationship.

I have seen many hypotheses for the anomoly that is known to exist but you claim a logarithmic relationship describes it, you claim it is available in multiple sources and you claim to have used it to produce plots that verified it. Your claims, you back them up....I cannot prove a negative, but you know that and have used it to dance around the issue for a month.

You are a BS-er, you know it and I know it....thats all that counts I suppose.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, one does not need to be a professor to establish this! It seems so obvious, that any student of Physics would say the same. A colder body cannot transfer heat to a warmer body, to insist on the opposite is completely insane and must take an absolute ignoramus who never heard of Thermodynamics. Laughing stock!

I don't know squat about thermodynamics but given the fact that heat is a form of energy the energy could be transferred from the cold body to the warm body in another form-- like, chemical maybe?

I know that happens when you mix epoxy. Part A can be 70 degrees, Part B can be 60 degrees, but when Part B meets Part A you get heat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know squat about thermodynamics but given the fact that heat is a form of energy the energy could be transferred from the cold body to the warm body in another form-- like, chemical maybe?

I know that happens when you mix epoxy. Part A can be 70 degrees, Part B can be 60 degrees, but when Part B meets Part A you get heat.

You should ask him why a microwave oven works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am considering posting this as a New Topic-Thread -- but before doing that -- I am wondering what thoughts you may have regarding the following,

Karlis

-=-=-=-

ABSTRACT

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Wolfgang Knorr

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.

Citation:
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am considering posting this as a New Topic-Thread -- but before doing that -- I am wondering what thoughts you may have regarding the following,

Karlis

-=-=-=-

ABSTRACT

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Wolfgang Knorr

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.

Citation:
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.

Ah...yes and you would not call .7 increases in a gas that makes 0.038% of the atmosphere significant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, you have to add core temperature to the equation, e.g. the earth also radiates heat, it shows how difficult it is the make a model with any degree of accuracy.

yea i forgot about the core heat of the earth. the others don't have one, except maybe titan. i haven't read anything about it having internal heat.

also i wouldn't want these phd types to start thinking that they wasted their money when a high school drop out can out think them. which i can when i want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am considering posting this as a New Topic-Thread -- but before doing that -- I am wondering what thoughts you may have regarding the following,

Karlis

-=-=-=-

ABSTRACT

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Wolfgang Knorr

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.

Citation:
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.

The last time I brought up this paper in http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=169284 the author was described as 'the other voice','in the pay of big oil' and such. I think that some people don't like his results because they don't need to use the ridiculous climate models that have been banded about and rather rely pure and simply on good old fashioned data. Here is a decent article and discussion about it where there is mention of another recent paper that concurs with his results that emmissions due to deforesetation have been grossly exaggerated:

http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time I brought up this paper in http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=169284 the author was described as 'the other voice','in the pay of big oil' and such. I think that some people don't like his results because they don't need to use the ridiculous models that have been banded about and rather rely pure and simply on good old fashioned data. Here is a decent article and discussion about it where there is ,emtion of another recent paper that concurs with his results that emmissions due to deforesetation have been grossly exaggerated:

http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html

The following caught my attention in the above:

The strength of the new study
, published online in Geophysical Research Letters,
is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data
, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice,
and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I did was plot the last 8000 years of a graph that you used yourself many times, same data, same pre-processing, all you have to do is post the equation for the logarithmic relationship.

I have seen many hypotheses for the anomoly that is known to exist but you claim a logarithmic relationship describes it, you claim it is available in multiple sources and you claim to have used it to produce plots that verified it. Your claims, you back them up....I cannot prove a negative, but you know that and have used it to dance around the issue for a month.

You are a BS-er, you know it and I know it....thats all that counts I suppose.

If you like, you set the data up for me in a nice format and I will do the difficult maths for you. Still won't show you the equation cos that is a waste of time, but I will happily plot for you :)

I never claimed to have used it to produced plots that verified it at all. That is completely false. Please don't call me a bs-er and lie and please don't think that showing a plain graph shows anything of value, cos it doesn't. Basic stuff that. Raw data is useless unless you analyse it, just showing it is a schoolboy error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you like, you set the data up for me in a nice format and I will do the difficult maths for you. Still won't show you the equation cos that is a waste of time, but I will happily plot for you :)

:lol:....BS-er

I never claimed to have used it to produced plots that verified it at all. That is completely false.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=171184&st=105 post 107

I did, I plotted it and found an linear increase (hence the R sqaured value ). And actually it does matter, there is still a relationship. The relationship however is not a linear one, it is a logarithmic one.

So you have had the data, in a nice format and used it to verify 'a' relationship. Sorry my mistake, you cannot use it to verify 'the' relationship becaus you don't know what it is.

Please don't call me a bs-er and lie and please don't think that showing a plain graph shows anything of value, cos it doesn't. Basic stuff that. Raw data is useless unless you analyse it, just showing it is a schoolboy error.

What I plotted was simply the last 8000 or so years of this graph, posted by you on a number of occasions.

Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Keep dancing if you wish. BTW do you still claim there is no anomaly over this 8000 year period or have you done some basic research ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - where is this "pressure within atmosphere" in Stefan-Boltzman Law? Just a few posts ago you were using it to prove the radiation comes from the earth surface!!!

You're either deliberately misrepresenting what I've been saying or you simply don't get it. Either way, this has been useless.

i do believe that 232 celsius is well above the freezing point of water. mercury has no atmo. it has an 88 day long day and still has an average temp above freezing. what you forgot to take into account was heat that would still be in the rocks. not sure if this would be the same on earth since it is further away but i am sure the temp would be around the freezing point give or take depending on where in the orbit it was.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make. Yes, Mercury's average surface temperature is high. This is to be expected simply on the basis of its proximity to the Sun. What's not to be expected (if proximity is all that matters) is that this temperature is lower than the surface temperature of Venus.

on the other hand you have mars which has a mostly co2 atmo and it's temp hovers on average below freezing. i know you'll say that is because of it's thin atmo.

At present, yes. In the distance past, it may have had a thicker atmosphere that allowed surface temperatures high enough for standing water (oceans, perhaps) on the surface.

then explain how come titan which has a high methane count in it's atmo. is so cold if greenhouse gas makes things hotter.

Titan does have a greenhouse effect. That doesn't imply that magically it should be habitable like the Earth, it simply means that surface temperatures are warmer than they otherwise would be.

Edited by Startraveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:....BS-er

Nope, the equation its self tells you nothing, what you need are the r-squared, F and P values, not the equation.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=171184&st=105 post 107

I did, I plotted it and found an linear increase (hence the R sqaured value ). And actually it does matter, there is still a relationship. The relationship however is not a linear one, it is a logarithmic one.

So you have had the data, in a nice format and used it to verify 'a' relationship. Sorry my mistake, you cannot use it to verify 'the' relationship becaus you don't know what it is.

Yes, that would be a linear increase in the temperature.

What I plotted was simply the last 8000 or so years of this graph, posted by you on a number of occasions.

Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Keep dancing if you wish. BTW do you still claim there is no anomaly over this 8000 year period or have you done some basic research ?

Not dancing boy, just not being arsed to format the data to make you happy. You not worth the effort, if you want me to do it, feel free to do that bit for me and I plot it and analyse it for you. Other wise, you can do it yourself. You are claiming an anomaly, evidence it, a graph doesn't show that.

All you need to do is pm it too me :)

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're either deliberately misrepresenting what I've been saying or you simply don't get it. Either way, this has been useless.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make. Yes, Mercury's average surface temperature is high. This is to be expected simply on the basis of its proximity to the Sun. What's not to be expected (if proximity is all that matters) is that this temperature is lower than the surface temperature of Venus.

At present, yes. In the distance past, it may have had a thicker atmosphere that allowed surface temperatures high enough for standing water (oceans, perhaps) on the surface.

Titan does have a greenhouse effect. That doesn't imply that magically it should be habitable like the Earth, it simply means that surface temperatures are warmer than they otherwise would be.

it also has a core temp. like earth does.

venus has a thick atmo so yes it is higher but not by that much. and your saying 88 days of being pointed away from the sun isn't long enough for mercury to cool off to freeze water, then what about the 24 hours on earth, with no water on the planet since h2o requires an atmo to be liquid. it would be all rock. rock retains heat, water doesn't. this is why the wind blows toward land in the day and blows toward water at night

the martian atmo may have been thicker it also maybe laying on the ground or i should say under the dust.

titan has valcanos and heat comeing in from the sun and saturn. so it has three sources of heat. earth only has two.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, the equation its self tells you nothing, what you need are the r-squared, F and P values, not the equation.

Yes, that would be a linear increase in the temperature.

Not dancing boy, just not being arsed to format the data to make you happy. You not worth the effort, if you want me to do it, feel free to do that bit for me and I plot it and analyse it for you. Other wise, you can do it yourself. You are claiming an anomaly, evidence it, a graph doesn't show that.

All you need to do is pm it too me :)

Give me the equation and I will be able to get my own statistics, you will have to excuse me but I would rather not simply take yours on faith.

You have had the data formatted before or you wouldn't have been able to produce your linear 'rise' in temp and the logarithmic relationship statistics. Having 800,000 years worth of ice-core data formatted for use would be a keeper for anyone with something to say on the topic, why would you delete them ? Anyhow all you have to do is copy and paste as columns into your software or via notepad or excel.

The only effort I want from you is the pasting of the equation, let me be the judge of its usefulness. The anomaly is not my claim it is well known in the climate change field and, as I have said many times, a number of hypotheses have been suggested...including by authors you have previously linked me to. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so is no-one going to address the science of this paper? i was hoping for a point by point analysis from one of our resident AGW 'experts' explaining why all the conclusions reached in the paper are wrong. then it would give others with a knowledge of science the chance to debate with them.

no?

and it also baffles me how people can dismiss/ignore data, http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html in favour of (proven to be) extremely flawed climate models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so is no-one going to address the science of this paper? i was hoping for a point by point analysis from one of our resident AGW 'experts' explaining why all the conclusions reached in the paper are wrong. then it would give others with a knowledge of science the chance to debate with them.

no?

and it also baffles me how people can dismiss/ignore data, http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html in favour of (proven to be) extremely flawed climate models.

Maybe they don't want to show publically the content of their rebuttal papers until they have been accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so is no-one going to address the science of this paper? i was hoping for a point by point analysis from one of our resident AGW 'experts' explaining why all the conclusions reached in the paper are wrong. then it would give others with a knowledge of science the chance to debate with them.

no?

and it also baffles me how people can dismiss/ignore data, http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html in favour of (proven to be) extremely flawed climate models.

Also it would nice to hear what people think of this statement from this same source:

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so is no-one going to address the science of this paper? i was hoping for a point by point analysis from one of our resident AGW 'experts' explaining why all the conclusions reached in the paper are wrong. then it would give others with a knowledge of science the chance to debate with them.

no?

and it also baffles me how people can dismiss/ignore data, http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html in favour of (proven to be) extremely flawed climate models.

AGW alarmists 'believe' that the science is settled - proven beyond a reasonable doubt 100% correct - NO need to further study anything that contradicts the 'proven theory'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let's see if someone actually does address the paper, point by point. it's a long shot, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.