It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:49 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 13384
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Do you know what is the radiative forcing.

Must... resist... fart joke...

_________________
"You get to have your own beliefs, and your own wishes, and dreams, and imaginations. What you don't get to have is your own reality." - Sethbag

"Good thing your safe space isn't being violated with the horrors of self-awareness." - Dmetri Cromwell (some guy on Facebook)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 17486
DT,

Please explain what each symbol in the equation means, and how it relates to your point.

- Doc Martens


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:46 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:
I think you mean radiative forcing.


Yes. That is what happens when you type "Radiative" and click the first option.


But thanks Res Ispa.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7642
Location: On walkabout
Ah, the perils of shortcuts. ;)

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:03 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
DT,

Please explain what each symbol in the equation means, and how it relates to your point.

- Doc Martens


C is CO2 in ppm

Co = 278 ppm

ln = learn it in 8th grade math.

Radiative forcing is the difference between the sunlight absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. Radiative forcing is used to compare man-made and natural drivers of climate change . Can you tell me what is ln?


Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:04 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
My eyes hurt.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 17486
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
DT,

Please explain what each symbol in the equation means, and how it relates to your point.

- Doc Martens


C is CO2 in ppm

Co = 278 ppm

ln = 8th grade in middle school.

Radiative forcing is the difference between the sunlight absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. Radiative forcing is used to compare man-made and natural drivers of climate change . Can you tell me what is ln?


ΔF = αln(C/Co)

So, radiative forcing equals something times "8th grade in middle school" times ("CO2 in parts per million" divided by 278 parts per million)?

What the ____ does that mean?

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:18 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
ΔF = αln(C/Co)

So, radiative forcing equals something times "8th grade in middle school" times ("CO2 in parts per million" divided by 278 parts per million)?

What the ____ does that mean?

- Doc


Oops forgot about α. It is 5.35. What is ln?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 17486
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
ΔF = αln(C/Co)

So, radiative forcing equals 5.35 times "8th grade in middle school" times ("CO2 in parts per million" divided by 278 parts per million)?

What the ____ does that mean?

- Doc


Oops forgot about α. It is 5.35. What is ln?


I'm needing you to explain it. That's why I'm asking you again to do it.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:23 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
"8th grade in middle school" times ("CO2 in parts per million" divided by 278 parts per million)?



You do not multiply ln with (C/Co).


Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:24 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

I'm needing you to explain it. That's why I'm asking you again to do it.

- Doc


I did already. What else do you need me to explain? You seriously do not know what "ln" is?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:30 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
To repeat myself Doc

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Radiative forcing is the difference between the sunlight absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. Radiative forcing is used to compare man-made and natural drivers of climate change


What else do you want me to explain? I did it already.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 17486
You're not explaining the equation and how it literally equates to your "explanation."

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13050
Location: On the imaginary axis
Basically, we are talking about the relationship stated by the Swedish scientist Arrhenius (d. 1927) as a result of a simple theoretical model of the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can be stated without needing a lot of math.

Suppose we start from a baseline, such as the state of things in 1750, and we want to know how much extra energy per second (compared with 1750) will end up heating the earth if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up from what it was in 1750.

Suppose we multiply the original concentration of carbon dioxide by two, so it doubles. Then by two again, so it quadruples. Then by two again, so it is 8 times bigger, then by two again to make it 16 times bigger.

You might think that the extra heating effect would also double each time too. But it doesn't. If the first doubling of carbon dioxide concentration adds a certain amount to the heating effect, then the second doubling of carbon dioxide concentration just adds the same amount each time, and so on for each doubling.

That's basically all that equation is telling us. The mathematical formula is just a neater and more general way of stating it.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Last edited by Chap on Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:54 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7642
Location: On walkabout
I don’t think learning the formulas are that helpful. Atoms and molecules absorb radiation at certain frequencies and re-radiate at others. CO2 absorbs and radiates in the infrared. Incoming UV from the sun hits the earth and is reradiated as heat in the infrared. The process of absorption and radiation slows the eventual escape of the heat into space.

At equilibrium, the rate of incoming energy equals the outgoing energy. Adding CO2 has the effect is slowing down the rate that radiation escapes. The atmosphere warms and expands, increasing surface area from which the energy escapes. This continues until the rates are again equal.

The radiative forcing is the change in temperature that will result from adding CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas). The ln part of the equation is the natural log. Because the equation is logarithmic, the sensitivity of temperature to changes in the atmosphere is commonly phrased as the effect of doubling the amount of the greenhouse gas.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1744
I don't feel like teasing DT about logarithms or whatever. If you want a lecture on WTF "forcing" is, among other things, watch this 4 part lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXdmrgvOdEM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_qlHfXlUfc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIoEPXopf4w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmMENmH-Ctc

Bottom line, it's a lot of hackery. Some basic underlying tried and true physics from which a lot of theoretical voodoo is concocted.

Richard Lindzen wrote:
If you are an engineer, and you are confronted by this... you know, even if you didn't understand the situation. You'd say, a few models are at least in range, how do they differ from all the other models? Let's throw away the other models, and find out why they did so much worse. Instead, in the democratic processes of the UN, all models are equal.


What DT doesn't get. And what I'd argue many others here also don't get. Is that the UN is a political body. The IPCC is a political organization. Might as well be citing the Discovery Institute in a discussion about evolution.

DT brings up this formula he doesn't understand. Why I have no clue. I'm waiting for him to discover that there are multiple formulas for forcing, not just the one, and what that means re consensus. I'd also like him to explain where 278 comes from, Chap offered a huge hint. And then I'd like DT to delve into earth response, how is carbon release due to warming factored in? Hint, it's not. But what I'd really like DT to do is explain the difference between inference and observation. IPCC determines that an increase in CO2 results in an increase in global temperature. How do they know that?

Image

Well, they don't. It's all based on models, not empirical observation. The observations contradict their models, in fact.

What is the response to this?

Quote:
In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 0/3/031001

Isn't that convenient. A theory, output from a model, which cannot be tested or disproved. Something something, scientific method.

Might models be failing to account for other potential influences which would alter their predictions?

Quote:
A simple flow accounting of the mean values without consideration of uncertainty shows a net CO2 flow from surface to atmosphere of 4.4 GTC/y. In the emissions and atmospheric composition data we find that during the decade 2000-2009 total fossil fuel emissions were 78.1 GTC and that over the same period atmospheric CO2 rose from 369.2 to 387.9 ppm for an increase of 18.7 ppm equivalent to 39.6 GTC in atmospheric CO2 or 4.4 GTC/y. When uncertainties are not considered, the flow accounting shows an exact match of the predicted and computed carbon balance that may be presented as evidence that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by human (anthropogenic) emissions. This exact accounting balance is achieved, not with flow measurements, but with estimates of unmeasurable flows constrained by the circular reasoning that assigns flows according to the assumed flow balance.

A very different picture emerges when uncertainties are included in the balance. We have the published uncertainties from the IPCC for three of the nine flows. Uncertainty for the other six flows are not known. However, we know that they are large because no known method exists for the direct measurement these flows. They can only be grossly inferred. We therefore set up a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the highest value of the unknown standard deviations at which we can detect the presence of human emissions in the carbon cycle. For the purpose of this test we propose that an uncertain flow account is in balance as long as the Null Hypothesis that the sum of the flows is zero cannot be rejected. The alpha error rate for the test is set to a high value of alpha=0.10 to ensure that any reasonable ability to discriminate between the flow account with Anthropogenic Emissions from a the flow account without Anthropogenic Emissions is taken into evidence. The spreadsheet used in this determination is available for download from an online data archive Data Archive Link.

...

These results imply that the IPCC carbon cycle stochastic flow balance is not sensitive to the presence of the relatively low flows from human activity involving fossil fuel emissions and land use change.


https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/31/ ... t-problem/

Someone remind me in 20 years.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:59 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
You're not explaining the equation and how it literally equates to your "explanation."

- Doc


I did.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:21 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 17486
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
You're not explaining the equation and how it literally equates to your "explanation."

- Doc


I did.


DT,

You keep repeating yourself, but you can't demonstrate any sort of functional understanding of the equation you posted here. I want you to take that equation, since apparently you understand it super awesome, input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.

- Doc


Last edited by Doctor CamNC4Me on Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:22 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
Water Dog wrote:
I don't feel like teasing DT about logarithms or whatever.


Natural logarithms.

Water Dog wrote:
What DT doesn't get. And what I'd argue many others here also don't get. Is that the UN is a political body. The IPCC is a political organization. Might as well be citing the Discovery Institute in a discussion about evolution.


Is the UN controlling the Republicans scientists? And why are there so few scientists like Richard Lindzen?

Water Dog wrote:
DT brings up this formula he doesn't understand. Why I have no clue.


What makes you think I do not understand it? Please explain.

Water Dog wrote:
I'm waiting for him to discover that there are multiple formulas for forcing


Of course.

Res Ipsa wrote:
The radiative forcing is the change in temperature that will result from adding CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas). The ln part of the equation is the natural log. Because the equation is logarithmic, the sensitivity of temperature to changes in the atmosphere is commonly phrased as the effect of doubling the amount of the greenhouse gas.


Thank You!


Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7642
Location: On walkabout
Water Dog, let’s start with your 17 year cooling trend. Show me the data and the computation of the trend.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:31 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3029
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

DT,

You keep repeating yourself, but you can't demonstrate any sort of functioning understanding of the equation you posted here. I want you to take that equation, since apparently you understand it super awesome, input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.

- Doc


all right man! Jesus Christ!

ΔF = αln(C/Co)

Radiative forcing= (5.35) log e (CO2 level (parts per million)/pre-industrial level (parts per million))
Do you have more questions?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], moksha and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group