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 -
lost_shaman

Paper: CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.

412 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1o29
7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Basic science here. Deserts for example get very hot during the day, but then they also get very cold at night! Do you know why that is true Doug? 

Not including all available data, incluidng day-time, night-time, spring, summer, fall and winter temps would bias the result.  You have to include them all.  THAT's the basic science you're missing.  That's why we have to estimate missing temps:  If we don't have good data in every cell, seasonal variations will bias our output.  AND:  night-time temps are rising faster than day-time temps, so we can't ignore diurnal temperature differences either.  The continental Arctic in winter is nearly devoid of water.  It's all frozen.  The Arctic and Antarctic are among the most-extreme deserts on earth.  And I wouldn't call 20 degrees below zero "hot."

By ignoring seasonal and diurnal temperatures and by ignorring the Arctic and Antarctic you are producing erroneous conslusions.  Do YOU know why that is true?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Doug1o29
7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I have supported this on another thread we were discussing this summer. I quoted a Model that attempted to show what would happen if we burned ALL fossil fuels on Earth and even using the ICPP's values (that are way to HOT) said burning everything would only result in 12 C increase including the water vapor feed backs. Not even close to Boiling the Oceans. 

Moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
19 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Like I said:  when I did my literature search, I found nothing more recent than 2005.  The article you're citing is not in a journal that a science search engine would pick up.  Obviously, there was work done during that time, but I didn't find it.

Climate science isn't just one discipline.  There are dozens of specialties within it.  I am a dendrochronologist, so most of my reading is from Tree Ring Research and Dendrochronologia.  You're a physics major.  One would think that you would be up-to-date on the physics of climate change.  See what I mean?

Doug

Like I mentioned way back, I have only recently taken an interest in climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

That is the exact email, copy-and-pasted into this thread.  The only thing missing is the referernces from his signature.  Here they are:

-- 
Jim Hansen, Director
Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program
Columbia University Earth Institute
Young People's Burden
Making the Carbon Majors Pay for Climate Action
Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?
Scientific Reticence
  https://youtu.be/S7z61UZoppM
  •  
     
    Interesting that James Hansen is the lead author of the third citation in Reinhart's paper.  Or didn't you read it?
    Doug

Jim Hansen mentioned an attachment with a partial explanation. Is that available? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I don't mind studying Statistics, what I was saying to you is that you can't know the Earth's Global temperature to the nearest 0.05 degrees because 1.) we don't have that much Global coverage 2.) where we don't have coverage the temperature are being GUESSED, 3.) the thermometers and Satellites we are using are not accurate to 0.05 hundredths of a degree!

According to NCDC, the temperature of the earth has been measured to the nearest 0.1 degree.  Anything more accurate than that would be extremely difficult to do.

I agree with your statement, but I never said anything about me estimating the earth's temperature.  I explained how to estimate a missing daily or monthly temperature in a weather dataset.  If the low temperature for December 5, 1876 at Ft. Gibson, Oklahoma Territory, isn't there (It's not.), then we might have to estimate it.  Because it is the only observation missing in the month of December, we already have 30 other observations.  So any error in the monthly average is 1/31 the size of the error of the estimated daily value.   Because we can estimate daily low-temperature values within 0.5 degrees approximately two times out of three, the probable error in the monthly figure is about 0.015 degrees.  And you're right:  we can't read a thermometer that precisely.  It is only possible with careful statistical analysis.

BTW:  Do you know how satellites measure temperatures?  They take an infrared picture of an area around a ground station.  We know the temperature at the ground station at the moment the satellite took the picture, so it's just a matter of establishing a regression equation that relates ground temperature to the precise color of the picture.  Then use that equation to estimate the temps anywhere the satellite is pointed.  So satellite temps are actually measured by ground stations - the satellite is only taking pictures.  And all satellite-derived temps are estimates.

There is an automated weather station - the "Marine" station (I have no idea where they got that name; we're about as far from anything marine as one could get.) - within site of two of my research installations.  It measures temps, humidity and other such weather data every twenty seconds.  No matter when the satellite takes the picture, there is a weather record taken within ten seconds of the time it passed overhead.  One can download the station's record on line, or go out there and plug in your computer.

So how about we cool it with the insults and sarcasm - unless you'd like to get some of it right back.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
5 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Jim Hansen mentioned an attachment with a partial explanation. Is that available? 

It's a pdf file.

I tried to open it, but my machine can't do it, so I have no idea what it says.

Also, I tried to copy-and-paste the link into this email, but it wouldn't do that, either.

I suspect my programming is out-of-date.

Sorry.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
10 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Like I mentioned way back, I have only recently taken an interest in climate change.

My point was that it's hard to keep up to date.  You have just proven the point.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
6 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

My point was that it's hard to keep up to date.  You have just proven the point.

Doug

Yes, I did say that also. I tend to keep up with subjects I am interested in. My point was that the case for reducing the use of fossil fuels is - according to climate scientists - because awful things are going to happen to the Earth. So, when one of these awful things has been shown to be spurious, I would have expected the climate change community would find out reasonably quickly. That way, the spreading of false information - which will bring further criticism - can be avoided. In your defense, this reminds me of the nuclear industry after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The anti-nuclear lobby rounded on scientists who, for perfectly reasonable reasons, could not quote from every paper ever published on the safety records of reactors or the likelihood of further accidents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
24 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

It's a pdf file.

I tried to open it, but my machine can't do it, so I have no idea what it says.

Also, I tried to copy-and-paste the link into this email, but it wouldn't do that, either.

I suspect my programming is out-of-date.

Sorry.

Doug

Thanks, that is fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That is the exact email, copy-and-pasted into this thread.  The only thing missing is the referernces from his signature.  Here they are:

-- 
Jim Hansen, Director
Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program
Columbia University Earth Institute
Young People's Burden
Making the Carbon Majors Pay for Climate Action
Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?
Scientific Reticence
  https://youtu.be/S7z61UZoppM
  •  
     
    Interesting that James Hansen is the lead author of the third citation in Reinhart's paper.  Or didn't you read it?
    Doug

That's not an e-mail of Hansen talking to you. It's a collection of youtube links? 

Reproduce the e-mail exchange between you two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

That's not an e-mail of Hansen talking to you. It's a collection of youtube links? 

Reproduce the e-mail exchange between you two.

Here is his email address:

jimehansen@gmail.com

Send him an email and see what he says.

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Here is his email address:

jimehansen@gmail.com

Send him an email and see what he says.

You claimed he e-mailed you are told you certain things. If you are going to name drop like this and then make statements that you don't understand why I have an issue, then why are you refusing to reproduce the e-mail between you two? I suspect I know why you haven't done this, but I could be wrong and you could simply post the e-mail exchange and show your point is valid. Again, my question is why are you reluctant to do this simple thing? 

Obviously James Hansen didn't ask you to keep the conversation private or you would not have paraphrased what you wanted us to hear. Right Doug?

So post the exchange so we can see what was actually said.

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.