Below is my column in the Hill on the call for the use of a federal law to arrest protesters outside of the homes of justices. The crushing irony is that many of these critics have spent years calling for the denial or curtailment of the free speech of others. Yet, these justices being targeted in their homes would likely narrowly construe or bar the use of this law.
Here is the column:
The leaking of a Supreme Court justice’s draft opinion on abortion rights, followed by the “doxing” and targeting of individual justices at their homes, has led to calls for prosecution under a federal law prohibiting “pickets and parades” at the residences of judges or jurors. While I have condemned these protests, I believe the use of this law to arrest protesters would be a serious blow to free speech and would be difficult to defend in the courts.
Ironically, those who are harassing these justices likely would be protected by the very people they are targeting.
Under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1507, any individual who “pickets or parades” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” near a U.S. court or “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer” will be fined or “imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
On the key element of location, there is no question that protesters are picketing and parading near the residences of justices. (In one case, though, a protester in prior months thought she was targeting Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home but picketed the wrong house; neighbors never told her of her mistake.)
Even after some groups supplied maps and addresses for the justices’ homes, President Biden could not muster the courage to denounce such acts. Days after insisting that the White House took no position on either the leaking of the draft opinion or the doxing of justices, White House press secretary Jen Psaki issued a tepid statement criticizing harassment, vandalism or violence directed at the justices.
Attorney General Merrick Garland also has failed in his leadership of the Justice Department. While Garland was quick to form a national task force to address parents protesting at school board meetings, he has had little to say about the targeting of justices.
Yet, demands that Garland arrest all of the protesters is a case of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. Such prosecutions could create a massive chilling effect on free speech, even if any convictions are unlikely to be upheld. After all, protests are common at the court itself, which is covered under the same federal provision; if it is unlawful to seek to influence a pending decision through picketing “near a U.S. court,” such protests could be viewed as crimes under this interpretation.
Obviously, picketing a justice at home is more direct and threatening, even with security standing outside. Yet, the focus of our laws should not be on the act of protesting but on actual threats or violence committed against justices or their families.
The claim that such protests are acts of intimidation has been before the courts since the 19th century. In Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92 (1896), for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a labor union could be found guilty of an intentional tort by picketing a business. Oliver Wendell Holmes, then a state court justice who later famously joined the U.S. Supreme Court, dissented and rejected the notion that protests “necessarily and always thereby convey a threat of force.”
Even under the vague intent element under the statute, protests are criminal only if they are done with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer.” Certainly, today’s protesters are upset about Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and they want to see Roe v. Wade preserved. However, few seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make them more inclined to yield to mob demands. This is unadulterated rage by people who no longer recognize any limits of decency or civility in our political discourse.
If charged, the protesters likely would insist they were denouncing the justices’ views, not trying to coerce a change in those views. Many wanted to vent their rage directly at justices or use the home protests as a way to make the evening news.
Of course, the Constitution often supports those who would deny such protections to others. Many Democrats and liberal organizations have long advocated for sweeping investigations, criminalization or sanctioning of free speech as well as both state and corporate censorship. At the reported encouragement of Biden administration officials, the National School Boards Association sent a letter calling for a Justice Department task force on threats by parents at school board meetings, despite the small number of such incidents. This included the suggested use of national security offices, which also were referenced in the Justice Department’s press release.
Likewise, many Democrats have sought to bar Republican candidates from election ballots for questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election or calling for a challenge to the certification of that election. Many of them are still demanding criminal charges against figures like former President Donald Trump for “inciting an insurrection” with his speech on Jan. 6, 2020. And some are using the same kind of overheated language as Trump, such as Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s tweet: “To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms … We will not surrender our rights without a fight — a fight to victory!”
Many Democrats also supported sweeping bans on protests near abortion clinics, like a law in Massachusetts that was struck down unanimously in McCullen v. Coakley in 2014. In a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, then-Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “Protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks.”
The same is true for the public streets and sidewalks near the homes of justices.
These protests are worthy of condemnation, not criminalization. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Fortunately, for these protesters, the people inside the homes they are targeting will likely protect them from prosecution — because the court will likely follow the lead of Oscar Wilde who said, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Nice post
“Melt water acts as a lubricant, and the more weight on the glacier the more friction the more heat the more melt water.”
That was what I was referring to in a much earlier comment.
Elon Musk should offer one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) for someone, or a group of someones, to assassinate Putin, and divide the reward equally among themselves.
Here are relevant equations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law
Note that these are equations. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a 4th-order polynomial in the absolute temperature T. Planck’s Law is a more complicated equational form.
I have already explained it all. Grant Foster is not only an expert statistician but he is published in the climatology literature. He knows his subject and one should pay attention. Just those who refuse to accept the evidence disparage his work.
But more, I gave an indirect link to a paper which reviews all the different lines of evidence which shown that ECS is close to 3 K. This result does not particularly depend upon the so-called GCMs, ignorantly disparaged by John Say here.
Thus it is enough to guide policymakers who have to attempt to steer a course of least damage. The absolute nonsense by John Say doesn’t help matters in the slightest.
No you have not explained it all.
You have not addressed any of the criticisms I have raised.
It is amoung other things obvious you have not – because it is not possible to.
You can not curve fit the existing data and conform the S-B or have a consistent ECS that is not only correct overal but applies to each interval. It is obvious from inspection that you can not – and that if you could the result would be low.
One of the most fundimental tests of any scientific claim is does it make sense and is it obviously consistent with itself and with real world data.
If you do not have all of those – you are just manufacturing science from whole cloth.
Which is litterally what you are doing.
You keep pretending that if I would only read this or that I would understand.
That is BS – that is not how science works.
Science is not about persuasion. it is fundimentally not subjective.
You can either prove you are right – or your done.
A single inconsistancy or contradiction – and you are WRONG.
And CAGW is full of inconsistencies and contradictions.
It is BAD SCIENCE.
To quote the stupid leftist yard signs – I beleive in Science – real science – not garbage.
Go back and read the IPCC ARx.
That too is bad science – but not half so bad as what you are selling.
“You can not curve fit to the existing data and conform to the S-B …”
Oh yes we can! And Grant Foster has done it. Of course you will have to go to the BNC Discussion Forum thread on climatology and read the first two articles linked there. But I fear those re too difficult for you, John B Say.
Then it would accurately reflect the past 44 years.
There is no way that an ECS of 4K will accurately work for the past 4 years.
It works using the data from 1880 CE to the present; a most excellent statistically significant fit. Hence, to just by chance but for the reasons given justifying the logarithmic form.
Of course you should actually read what is presented before spouting off…
Not just by chance!
Nope – and that is quite obvious.
It is also obvious that the fit will be WORSE the greater the time interval.
This is an ancient problem with CAGW – and nothing has changed.
CO2 and Temp have NEVER had a fit with much statistical significance.
And you wonder why I have no interest in GF as a statistician.
You continue to attribute error to me for repetition of assertions made by Warmest Climate scientists or even the IPCC ARx.
You have this unhealthy fixation of GF – who is NOT a climate scientist – in fact MOST of the people you cite are NOT climate scientists.
Here is Wikipedia on Richard Lindzen – I beleive you have called him a meteorologist. Is that Warmist code of Atmospheric Physicist, or lead author for a chapter in the IPCC Climate report ?
“Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change[3] and criticizes what he has called “climate alarmism.”[4]”
Here is Wikipedia on Judith Curry – I Beleive you called her emeritius – that used to be a term of accomplishment and respect.
Aparently you think it is an insult.
“Judith A. Curry (born c. 1953) is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She was a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee,[1] published over a hundred scientific papers, and co-edited several major works.”
These are just a few of the highly reputable people who do not accept the CAGW thesis.
And you keep fawning over GF who as best as I can tell is so unimportant he does not even have a wikipedia page.
There are plenty of Statisticians who are also CAGW skeptics who have wikipedia pages – and also vast experience and credibility
Steve McIntyre comes to mind.
Arguably since 1998 there has been no warming. In arguably if there has been any it is quite little.
That is 24 years of almost no warming.
During this entire period CO2 has continued to rise at much the same rate as before.
The GCM’s predicted significant warming – and there has been none.
At what point do YOU admit failure ?
Briefly, “Arguably since …”. is false. Check any of the global temperature products.
“During this …” False, via a proper use of statistics, not just eye-balling it.
“… and there has been none.”. Obviously false; once again, check any global temperature product.
You have hacked things up so badly I have no clue what your post means.
If you can not find a correlation with your eyeball between two datasets, Then there is no simple correlation.
If there is no simple correlation – there are many factors in play and your friend Grant’s gamesmanship is just a hoax.
This comment about correlaton is false. One must compute the correlation coeficient and then check its statistical significance.
Learn some elementary statistics before spouting off. As it is you just continue to demonstrate your ignorance.
BTW I can provide links to published papers with almost any ECS value you want.
Why do you think that one paper among many is significant ?
Given the probably hundreds of papers claiming to have established once and for all what the correct value for ECS is – how is it we distinguish one from another ?
I do so by looking outside my window at the real world and what has actually occured over my lifetime, over the past 25 years. …
What do you do – consult a Ouija board ?
On the BNC thread devoted to climatology I posted a link to the review paper which establishes that ECS is most probably about 3 K. I shan’t bother to copy the link here because it still would not be followed to read the abstract. Using Grant Foster’s clever statistics we see an ECS closer to 4 K. Either value portends ever increasing problems from extreme weather.
Obviously the climate has warmed in the past quarter century, indeed noticeably so starting about 1950. Check any of the 5 global temperature products, or for more recent times, indeed the warming in the troposphere (although nobody lives up there). The NASA global temperature product s available from the Open Mind thread linked over on the BNC site. Find it there or elsewhere.
I would rather that my grandchildren have a more stable climate. They are going to have enough other problems. Others certainly feel the same; I have very little influence on the course of affairs.
If ECS was 4K – temps would have gone up 2-3K since 1958.
I have been trying to get through to you that the relationship between temperature and CO2 is non-linear – which is literally what Arrhenius says.
The relationship between global temperature and CO2 is approximately
t = s*log(c/280)
where s in the sensitivity and c is the concentration of CO2 in ppm.
As I have been telling you over and over. Obviously non-linear, at least you have that part right.
Naked assertion – show your work.
For the most part – I do not care, you may be right, though I have no reason at all to trust you given the significant fallacy and error in your arguments so far.
I told you where you can go find the derivation on the BNC Discussion Forum. Go move your a**, go there and study.
Oh, I forgot. It is too difficult for you. You can’t even comprehend the easy stuff that I post here for the uneducated.
If I told you that you could find accurate information on the 2020 election on infowars would you rush off to read it.
Regardless, your still citing yourself, and you have not proven very trustworthy so far.
If you have something of merit – quit playing games.
You have claimed the answers are elsewhere – from someone you trust.
But you have also said that you do not have the ability to understand or explain them.
So everyone else is supposed to trust the people you trust – merely because you do ?
I have provided actual arguments.
I have used YOUR Data, and YOUR equations to demonstrate that even the things you claim to beleive – will not get you where you claim.
Even with Twice the ECS that GF claims – you will not get to 4C without atmospheric CO2 levels that are unlikely for hundreds of years.
Your trust of others is not evidence.
Your links to the works of others that you claim are beyond your understanding – are not evidence.
Either YOU know what you are talking about – or you do not.
Do expect me to read your links to the works of others – because you “beleive” them.
Do not expect me to trust them because you do.
When you have provided plausible evidence beyond your own trust and beleif – especially in people who are justifiably not trusted or believed, then I may think about reading your sources several levels removed.
You already indicated that your understanding of statistics is not sufficient.
If you do not know the statistical significance of the stuff that you are shilling, then even YOU have no basis for confidence in ANY of it.
“Obviously non-linear, at least you have that part right.”
So we have exchanged possibly hundreds of posts before you accept the most important point I was making.
Lets try the next step.
You can use a graphing calculator – or there are sites that will graph equations on the web.
Assuming for the moment that you are correct that t = s*log(c/280)
I am not sure why I should trust you.
Graph
y = s*log(x/280)
For various values of s
It really does not matter what value you use for s – it should be fairly obvious quickly why no one should be concerned about CAGW.
But going further it should also be obvious that smaller values of s are a better fit to modern temps.
John B Say, that us an improvement on your part!
for s*log(c/280) and current values, use the TCR, transient climate response of 2.4 K for s. Further, I approximate log(c/280) via log(1+x)~x for small x, so log(419/280)~0.5. Thus the current predicted increase in global temperature since 1880 CE is 1.2 K. Indeed, that is what the global temperature products state!
Now the warnings start at 1.5 K and become quite bad at 2 K. That’s roughly 513 ppm of atmospheric CO2. At the current rate of increase, when does the Keeling curve hit that?
As for consequences, the latest IPCC Part II contains 3600 pages of estimates of what will happen to the environment. That is based of the climate of the past studies, paleoclimatology. Roughly, it puts us instantly in the Miocene. Believe me, you don’t want to go there!
But already it is insufferably hot & humid in India. Matthew 25:40.
I noted before that GF is a poor statistician – as are you.
You can take almost any function, change the coefficients and get a match at the endpoints.
That is NOT statistical significance.
It is self evident visually that there is no match.
Regardless, if you wish to keep this up – take what you have done and either graph your function over actual times without fudging.
Or provide a table year by year with your predictions vs actual temps.
Then calculate the coefficient of correlation.
You have been ranting about me about math and statistics and how Great a statistician GF is.
Lets see if you are capable of calculating the values that determine whether meaningful correlation ?
John B Say, don’t be more of an a** than you can help. I trust that Grant Foster has done the correlation properly. He has the computer tools and I do not.
If you doubt him, do the d****d correlation yourself! That is, if you are actually capable of it, which I doubt since you can’t even get high school algebra right.
The result of the highly significant correlation is the measure of the (approximate) “actual” TCR. Live with it.
Grant spent years as the appoligist for Biffra. Mann and the Hockey stick, he is still an advocate of Hansen.
Sorry – do not trust him.
Regardless, while tools make it easier – you are constantly pontificating about math. I do not claim to be a statistician – but I have checked P and R values – both in HS and college and as part of work.
I also visually recognize when your not going to get a good coorelation.
Further, the tools are available online – or you can do it in excel
Provide me whatever it is that you wish to use as your claimed actual values for whatever time period it is that you wish to address and I will put together an excel spread sheet to compare YOUR function with YOUR actual data at various different values for s and the correlation coeficient of each as well as the predicted dT at various future CO2 levels
I am not going to enter 100+ years of purported temperatures by hand so you better link to a source or type them into a post yourself.
None of this is hard. You can do it trivially in Excel.
John B Say,
Grant Foster used the surface temperature product from NASA. Find it yourself. Similarly go find the Law Dome data. I think I posted a link to the source here.
It is not enough to determine the correlation coefficient, one also has to determine the statistical significance.
I trust the professional statistician to do this right. I question your ability to do so.
It is enough to calculate the correlation coefficient – if the results is poor.
“I trust the professional statistician to do this right. I question your ability to do so.”
There are an awful lot of “professional statisticians” that are constantly finding the massive statistical flaws in various CAGW papers.
Steve McIntyre has a math degree, an economics degree and actually gets paid for statistical analysis, and produces indepth statistical critiques of warmist papers all the time. He is responsible for debunking the hockey stick, identifying hide the decline. as well as reverse engineering the work of Mann Biffra and others and proving that you could fee red noise into their algorithms and get hockey sticks all the time.
I started something using HadCrut.
If you want me to use Law Dome – that is fine – but I will NOT concatenate different sources.
You also need to specify which Law Dome – as is common with Warmists – the Law Dome Raw data was rejiggered more recently to flatten past CO2.
Next, YOU are going to have to provide an Actual Formula that you are committing to I can work with T = s LOG(x/280) since that is what you initially claimed, but you seem to be revising it when it produces different results than you hoped.
Regardless, I am going to use YOUR formula, I am not going to try to “interpret” it for you, perform magic interval correction, Transform it or anything else.
I am not interested in after the fact rants from you that I do not have your formula correct.
John B Say re: yours of May 2 @ 7:32 am
Ok, just use the Keeling curve. These is enough data since the origin of that data, I should think. Using HadCrut from Britain for the global temperature product is fine.
Do note tht the results have to be given corresponding to the logarithm to the base 2 as the measured coefficient, which I call the TCR, is for a doubling of CO2.
MLO data only exists from 1960 forward.
Downloaded it is monthly. Rather than average each year, I used the December seasonally adjusted value for the Year, that results in running slightly high. The prior data I was using going back to 1850 is within 1ppm for the period 1960 to 2014 when the other data stops.
dT for Your equation is runing .2C hotter than HadCrut5 and 0.3C hotter than UAH
With S at 2.12 you match HadCrut5 at 500ppm you hit a temp of 1.7C hotter than 1850
With S at 1.73 you match UAH and at 500ppm you hit a temp of 1.44C hotter than 1850.
I would strongly advise you do this yourself – it is not hard. The spreadsheet is easy.
If you want I will try to put it on the cloud somwhere and you can play with it or change it as you please.
The key point that I have been trying to make from the start is you have an inverse exponential curve.
You are just not going to get the results warmist predict.
HadCrut5 says we had a 1.1C dT since 1850, and a 120ppm increase in CO2 Essentially that means the next 120ppm increase will result in a dT of 0.55C
All this presumes that CO2 is the primary driver.
I doubt that personally.
But to the greatest extent possible I try to argue preserving as many of YOUR assumptions as possible
I would further note that UAH has shown a pronounced decline in warming in the 21st century.
Which is exactly what Arrhenius, SB and your function predict.
If Co2 is the only factor – linear increases in CO2 will result in decelerating gains in temperature.
You either need exponential increases in CO2 or some other positive feedback.
Warmists used to claim that H2O would kick in – but about a decade ago it became clear than CO2 is sometimes a positive and sometimes a negative feedback depending on cloud height and ultimately is zero
The claim/hope of warmists today is that we will get enough warming to trigger arctic releases of methane.
So far that has not happened. There is not a good reason to beleive it will.
And why would warmists want to “hope” for a disaster.
Finally, what is more likely is that at some point in the future we will figure out how to safely “mine” acrtic methane
And we will have a massive increase in global fossil fuel reserves.
It is a spreadsheet I can change any constant or the Log base as I wish.
The default for s is 2.4, the Log I am taking is Base 2. I have no idea why you want to use Log2() but that is your business.
I am using 280 as C0 – as that is what you specified and is almost the CO2 level in 1850.
BTW using YOUR function and s=2.4K with T0 = 280ppm, then dT = 1 is at 740 ppm dT = 2 is at 1900 ppm
You can verify this on any graphing calculator or any web site that will graph functions.
I would further note that you get a curve that bends in the opposite direction of every single Warmist projection.
John B Say, boy are you stupid!
s*log(740/280)~s*(2.64-1)=s*(1.64)=2.4*1.64~3.9 K
The so-called Warmists are but a figment of your imagination. Seek help.
740/280 = 2.642857143
log(2.642857143) = 0.422073688
2.4* 0.422073688 = 1.012976852
It is YOUR formula s*log(co2/280)
One has to correct for the base of the logarithm being used. I am using base 2, following Grant Foster. Thus to correct the calculation by John B Say on May 27 @ 5:32 pm, divide by 0.3 to obtain 3.33 K increase @ 740 ppm.
The 2.4 K for TCR is for a doubling of CO2, hence the use of base 2 in the calculation.
Where did Log2 come from ? YOUR post specified Log which is Log10. Arrnehius specified ln which is LogE.
Further S(alpha) is not ECS, it is 5.35W/m2 and it is derived from radiative transfer models.
“ECS, a hypothetical value of global warming at equilibrium for a doubling of CO2”
Figure out what it is you are claiming is the correct formula
Regardless, Assuming your formula is dT = 2.4Log2 (c/c0) and c0=280
Using HadCrut5 for Global Temps back to 1850 as a zero base
Some swedish CO2 purportedly based on Law Dome going back to 1850 which purportedly was 284ppm
I get dT(1850) actual at 2014 of 1.091C
dT from Your function of 1.2C
dT from Arrhenius of 1.9C
dT from Your function of 2C at 500ppm in 2115(at current CO2 rates) that is .7C warmer than 2022.
I added UAH to my spreadsheet and Rebased it using HadCrut 1979 as a base – and 2/4Log2(c/c0) is running .32C Warmer than UAH by 2021
John B Say re: yours of May 29 @ 1:54 pm
That is on the right track! My apologies, I should have used some other notation for the logarithm to base 2, which as I said came from Open Mind. I suggest lg for log base 2.
I have read the Arrhenius paper and don’t’ recall seeing a logarithm anywhere. Are you sure that he used it? I made the mistake earlier of calling this logarithm forcing function the “Arrhenius law”. That is something else in chemistry.
I’ll have more comments later, I’m sure but I have to go now.
Pleased to see you attempted this!
You can find the Arrhenius function here under greenhouse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/323e7d730380a06480b684af3e3a8f37e8d7911c
You can use whatever you want I am using Log2()
And I am graphing dT = s Log2(c/c0)
Changing the IPCC 5.35log10(c/c0) to lg=log2 and correcting for the empirical fact that CO2 is 0.83 of the total forcing due to heat-trapping trace gases, one obtains
f = 1.93lg(c/280)
which isn’t enough. So the radiative transfer assumptions aren’t good enough. That’s why determining the correlation coefficient is superior for making projections.
Using f = 2.4lg(c/280)
at CO2 concentration c=560 ppm, we obtain f = 2.4 K, the temperature increase since about 1800 CE. Assuming the current rate of CO2 increase, 2.43 ppm, we have
560 = 420 + 2.43*57.6
so such a projection gives that insupportable hot global temperature in 2080 CE.
In what world do you thing CO2 will hit 560ppm by 2080 ? At current Rates 560 is over 100 years away.
Next you can not just jump from the IPCC value to whatever you want because it does not fit.
If the IPCC claims that CO2 is 83% of forcing – there is no reason to beleive the other 17% behaves the same as CO2.
As i noted land use changes are an Obvious candidate, as are changes in albedo.
Further even the 17% is speculation.
That is likely thecombination of several positive and negative forcings.
We know that aerosols are a negative forcing – where is that ?
Which other forcings are of the form dT = s Log2() ?
And even of those that are – how are they increasing or decreasing ?
There is a reason that the models are used to calculate ECS
It is a bad idea, but the alternatives involve lots of certain to be false assumptions.
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 1:20 am
Thank you!
I missed seeing that line in Arrhenius’ paper.
So I think it fair to call it the Arrhenius rule. Not a law as it is but an approximation.
What ever you call it, it derives from S-B, some time ago I posted the derivation.
S-B derives from Plank’s radiation law.
The only thing that is “approximate” is the coefficient.
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 1:33 am
I used the current rate of the increase in atmospheric CO2, as I stated, to determine that would require another ~58 years. The equation ought to be clear enough.
As for the other heat-trapping trace gases, I only project in the simplest manner. Its good enough.
No it is not good enough.
You note other GHG’s – why do you presume those are the only other forcings ?
When it is said that CO2 is 83% – how do we know ?
How do we know that the remaining 17% is not made of two forcings – one very large positive and one slightly smaller negative ?
What you are looking to do is a statistical regression. I am not aware of anyone ever doing one with respect to climate.
We likely do not even know all the independent variables.
It is highly unlikely that the effect of independent variables aside from CO2 is consistently 17%
You have assumed they are all ghg’s and they are all positive forcings – that is with certainty false
We do not have enough data – much less good data to do a proper regression.
“Now the warnings start at 1.5 K and become quite bad at 2 K.”
These are value judgement and as I have addressed before – they are not science.
But even beyond the values claim – you are wrong
It can not be a catastrophe to return to the temps that resulted in the ascent of man.
https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.395xA3yHrnScoUJW0QYXqwHaFE&pid=Api&f=1
John B Say, wrong at every point. The graph you link is largely irrelevant as the Greenland Ice Sheet is going to melt down to a nubin. That is a robust prediction, based on studies of past climate.
The primary driver of SLR is thermal expansion of the oceans NOT Ice melting.
Further the Ice mass of Greenland is enormous – even at the claimed 200gt/year it would take 20,000+ years for Greenland to be ice free.
If even – because Greenland GAINS about 700+gt of Ice each year through precipitation – and Like Antartica – that addition Ice cause friction that melts some ice, and also causes the ice sheet itself to force itself into the edge of the island and break off into the island.
You do not seem to know much about Glaciers and ice sheets over land.
If A Glacier is expanding – that means there is an ice build up behind the leading edge.
Greenland and antarctica calve Icebergs because they are growing not because they are shrinking.
Obama made a big deal out of a shrinking glacier in Alaska exposing Tree stumps that had not been seen for a couple of hundred years – When the ice in a glacier is declining – the leading edge move INWARD not outward – as Greenland and Antarctica are doing.
I would note that the Alaskan glacier exposing several hundred year old tree stumps – means a couple of hundred years ago it was WARMER in Alaska.
Temperatures in 2/3 of greenland NEVER go above freezing, in the rest of Greenland they are only above freezing for a few hours a day during a few months in the summer.
Temperatures in Antartica are far lower – 99.99% of antartica never goes above freezing.
The forces melting ice in antartica, and Greenland are a small amount of sublimation. Friction, possibly some heating under the ice sheet from volcanic activity in antarctica. Independently in Both antartica and Greenland the GROWING mass of the glaciers forces Ice from land to sea where it can melt While the oceans arround antartica and greenland (and the arctic) are very very cold, they are nearly always above freezing – partly because they are salt water and partly because of warm ocean currents – during parts of the year arctic currents are as warm as 20C. There are no ocean currents under the land of antartica and greenland.
When you start to see artic and antartic glaciers RECEDE – and slowly uncover land that has been under the ice sheet for 10,000 years – according to you, THEN you can talk about Antartica and Greenland “melting”
Today both are with near certainty on NET Growing. If they were not growing – they would not be calving icebergs.
“that addition Ice cause friction that melts some ice, and also causes the ice sheet itself to force itself into the edge of the island and break off into the island.”
John the heat created melting the ice, is that due to friction or compression?
Does not matter.
The CORE issue is that the glaciers are moving FORWARD – that means that the mass of ICE behind the leanding edge is GROWING.
Because Greenland and antartica calve icebergs into the ocean – the leading edge shed ice into the ocean rather than continuing to push forward down the valley as eleswhere in the world.
In antartica there is the complication that there are active volcanoes under the ice and while they are not erupting they are a source of heat and melting ice.
There is also sublimation in greenland and antartica – but the fact that the glaciers keep pushing icebergs into the ocean means the weigh of the ice in the glacier is GROWING – the losses from all causes are LESS than the gains.
John, I have little concern over the issue of climate change. Though the science is interesting we cannot control most of it. My concern regards our management of the disputed problem.
The solutions western nations have agreed to in Paris are dumb, counterproductive, do not work, hurt America and impoverish the world. I think there are workable solutions if the world got hotter. That we deal so little with those solutions that have been proven on smaller scales to be workable tells me money, politics and virtue signaling are running the global warming hysteria against something that is not happening to the extent feared..
Can you name any problem like this that Government has ever managed well ?
Covid ?
Are you saying the IPCC is wrong ?
DB – your catastrophizing is not even supported by the published claims of the warmists you claim to support.
The Artic was supposed to be ice free by 2013 (or long before depending on the prediction.
At the current rate it will never be ice free during the summer.
If the Artic melted enough – even just in the summer for ships to get from the atlantic to the pacific that would be a HUGE economic benefit.
But no one rational expects that.
Even in 2012 Greenland mostly melted in the summer:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
but the major loss is from the northern glaciers. The retreat of the floating ice speeds up the glacial flow. Some of these glaciers have a below sea level path to the interior which is below sea level. So once started the melt accelerates toward the state of minimum ice that we knows occurred during the previous interglacial, the Eemian.
Whether it is warmist idiocy or the normal idiocy of those on the left – it is to be expected that you will get this never ending list of “explanations”. You did the same thing with the MWP – a thousand proxies arround the world prove the existance of a GLOBAL MWP but you still are pretending. The claim that there was little global temperature variation over the past 2000 years initially rested on a few proxies in the arctic circle, and even today there are not likely a fraction of 1000 proxies claiming an unvaried climate for 2000 years.
Sorry DB – True or false they are NOT sufficient.
I would note – I am not arguing tiny details. I am arguing BIG facts.
Ice does not melt at temps below freezing.
Glaciers that are advancing are GROWING – more mass is building up behind the glacier face.
But lets address your claim ?
First, fundimentally the same is true to a much larger extent in Antartica – there is a vast amount of ice that is Sea Ice not land ice.
If all of that melts it will have ZERO impact on sea level. You can test this by putting an ice cube in a glass of water and seeing if the water level rises when the ice melts.
You can only raise Sea Level by melting ice that is on land.
Massive amounts of Ice in the Artic melt and freeze each year. that has no impact on Sea Level.
The warmist ship of fools almost a decade ago inadvertently prooved there is MORE Sea Ice in Antartcia than in the early 1900’s.
Because Mawson sailed to the coast and set up Camp, and the Warmests could not get close in the antarctic Summer without being trapped in the ice and requiring a modern ice breaker to get them out.
Back to Greenland. What percent of Greenland has ocean water under the ice ?
5% ?
That ice is the absolute maximum amount of Ice that you can “quickly” melt even though the air temps are below freezing.
I doubt it is 5% – as I noted before you have far more ice over ocean in Antartica.
I would further note that you are not even going to melt the entirety of the Ice that is over Sea Water – only the ice that is actually below sea level. At most you will end up with all ice below sea level gone, and an air gap between the water and the rest of the ice sheet above, which is not melting because the temp is below freezing.
The greenland Ice sheet is 2500m thick on average. Only a tiny portion of that is “below sea level”
If the entirety of Greenland was “below Sea Level” – Save for regularly spaced rock columns holding up the ice sheet, and Sea Water could flow under the entirety of greenland, but not come in direct contace with that ice – it STILL would not melt.
That is an absurd hypothetical – but very little of greenland is below sea level so it does not matter.
I thought you did not trust satellites to produce surface temperatures ?
Regardless, what is it that you think these Satelites are measuring ?
We know that air temperatures in 2/3 of greenland do not reach freezing EVER in 2/3 of greenland.
Is it warming in the summer ? Certainly.
Your immage claims that ice is melting accross the island during the Summer ?
Where is that Ice melting ? At the top of the Ice Sheet ? It so why aren’t there incredible rivers of water running accross the type of the ice sheet each summer ? In short order these should have created mile deep canyons in the ice ?
If you claim this melt is BELOW the ice – then it is being caused by FRICTION not air temperatures.
Do you honestly thing that 2500m below the surface the bottom edge of the ice sheet has any idea what conditions are at the top ?
If you are claiming this is from sea water – you honestly think that sea water is being FORCE from the small portion that is below sea level UPHILL hundreds of killometers into the center of greenland ?
Finally, I noted BEFORE that Greenland GAINS a massive amount of new ice every year.
2,166,086km2 * .8 for ice sheet * 370mm for mean rainfall, is 641gT of new ice each year.
About Greenland melting from the experts:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/17/greenland-ice-sheet-on-brink-of-major-tipping-point-says-study
Note the uncertainties as well as the positive feedback.
What is completely uncertain, as far as I know, is the positive feedback effect of undermining the ice sheet from below sea level by intruding sea water. This of course is even larger for Antarctica. So one estimates by using proxies from the distant past.
Caution strongly suggests we should stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and start removing it. After all, you don’t urinate your drinking water, do you?
“Caution strongly suggests we should stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and start removing it. After all, you don’t urinate your drinking water, do you?”
David, some Asian Indians drink their urine. Astronauts get some of their water supply from urine.
As a related side note, have you not heard of graphene? Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) uses CO2 as the carbon source to produce graphene. Do you understand that carbon has many allotropes, and graphene is one of them? You look at CO2 in only one way. Real scientists look at it as a Carbon atom and 2 Oxygen atoms. They don’t stop there.
On the economic side, how was this process developed. Aside from technology and the scientists to do this. MONEY is required. You are putting all that money into faulty climate science, faulty Covid science, wars and many other things. Do you know what one should call that type of thinking? Dumb.
Your sea water issue is inconsequential.
There just can not be that much ice below Sea level in greenland, and the worst and unlikely case is that all the ice below sea level melts AND the ice directly above it collapses AND melts AND that ice is 2.5KM thick.
If every single one of those actually occured – further ocean water driven melting would STOP.
This is a tiny problem.
Absolutely there is more Sea Ice in Antartica.
And in fact as the “ship of Fools” unintentionally demonstrated there is more sea ice today than in 1913.
Regardless if the entire sheet floating ice magically melted – SLR would be unchanged, and AGAIN further melting do to warmer ocean waters would STOP.
Regardless, The Antartic is generally COLDER than the Arctic. Antartic sea ice follows much the same seasonal patters as arctic sea ice
https://imgs.search.brave.com/XBTxN6iVKPfFMqeUDy5INxWUmYx5ww32hgrBaxfIhZg/rs:fit:1200:1200:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL25zaWRj/Lm9yZy9hcmN0aWNz/ZWFpY2VuZXdzL2Zp/bGVzLzIwMTMvMDgv/RmlndXJlNjEucG5n
With respect to your guardian article – first “The Guardian ?” Really ?
Next, the article is claiming reduces precipitation.
How about some evidence of that as well as some proof that the reduced precipitarion is caused by CO2.
The next claim is this is resulting in thining of the ice sheet.
mean precip in Greenland is 370mm – .37M The ice sheet is 2000-3000M thick.
I would note the Icesheet thins naturally – the .37M of new ice added each year is Pushed out towards the sea.
That is a NORMAL cycle that happens all the time – in Greenland, Antartica and everwhere there are glaciers.
It is not perfectly balanced. But the less prepitation the less ice gets pushed into the sea.
If you actually got ZERO preciptiation Then ice would STOP getting pushed to the Sea and the leading edge of the glaciers would slowly recede into the land.
The next argument is albedo. So why is an Ice sheet that is 2499.7M thick have a noticeably darker albedo than one that is 2500M thick.
This effect the authors are talking about can only occur where the ice sheet is THIN.
And it is STILL fairly limited. Air Temps are STILL below freezing in nearly all of Greenland all year round.
It is possible to melt ice at temps below freezing – but it is far from trivial and there will be a strong tendency for it to freeze again.
The primary cause of actual ice melting on Greenland is FRICTION – the mass of ice pushing down and OUT that is forcing Ice into the ocean constantly. That force GROWS with additional snow falls and declines when there is less.
The less snow fall the less melting.
The next cause is Ice that is forced into the ocean melts in warmer ocean waters.
Over the long run you will not have more ice pusshed into the ocean than you have new ice forming on land.
The actual tipping point is the OPPOSITE of what the article states.
Low snow fall, less force pushing Ice to sea, less friction less melting, less ice bergs calving.
The next cause which is pretty close to constant and small is sublimation and close to constant year in year out.
Caution suggested that we lock down the plant when Covid struck – how well did that work ?
The only western country with zero excess deaths beyond trend for those under 65 was Sweden that did nothing.
You do not grasp that there is lots of KNOWABLE negative effects of your “caution” – but the purported benefits are speculative.
China followed the advice of Malthusians and aborted 360M babies – oftne by force in the past 40 years.
That is more people than the whole US. Now they are having massive problems.
Our data on china sucks, but there are signs they are in the start of population collapse, that Chinese population figures are high by 100m people. Birth rates are down, there are 9insufficient marraigable women making things worse. The population is aging.
Your caution may have brought about disaster.
3 times as many people in the world die of extreme cold as from heat.
More CO2 means more agricultural output – more food.
A better analogy to yours is that we should cut food to infants because some adults develop diabetes.
Here is a good review of the state of knowledge about the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica:
https://www.vox.com/22939545/antarctica-greenland-ice-sheet-shelf-glacier-melt-climate-sea-level-rise
The conclusion is that we don’t know enough about subsurface melting and flow rates.
https://imgs.search.brave.com/wi0aWl40gQOYZTrcI-ulMMQQ9armqV9KCAT-q6aB1q0/rs:fit:1200:1200:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu/Z2xvYmFsY2hhbmdl/Lmdvdi9zaXRlcy9n/bG9iYWxjaGFuZ2Uv/ZmlsZXMvaW5kaWNh/dG9yc19pbWFnZXMv/U2VhX0xldmVsX1Jp/c2VfMDhfMTVfMTgu/cG5n
“The conclusion is that we don’t know enough about subsurface melting and flow rates.”
Of course we do. What we know is that the ACTUAL changes are inconsequential
There is a very small limit to what Sea Water can do.
Unless there is an unknown volcano in Greenland we know that what is happening under the ice is what has ALWAYS been happening under the ice.
Absolutely if there is less precip – there will be less new ice, less force pushing ice to the ocean, less ice bergs calving, less friction driven melting.
There is almost certainly a lag between the precip cycle and the glacial cycles – that lag could be years to decades.
But that does not matter.
Air temps are blow freezing in 80% of Greenland all the time – the places with the really think ice. That Ice is not being melted by “global warming”
Sublimation is going to be near constant
And I still can not make sense of the changing albedo argument.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 28 @ 2:09 pm
If one just drinks urine, one dies. Period.
The astronauts water is purified. I suggest we do the same with the air: removing all the anthropogenically added heat-trapping trace gases such as the excess carbon dioxide. Submarines do that.
Obviously carbon, indeed carbon dioxide, is useful; even necessary. Don’t be fatuous.
David, you might be the most inward looking person I have ever encountered. Did you see my comment on graphene?
“If one just drinks urine, one dies. Period.”
Where did you get that nonsense? Historically drinking urine was used for medical reasons and is still a practice by some. Urine is mostly water with some salts and ammonia etc. that is removed from the body by the kidneys.
Someone can correct me, but it has been said that poor Englishmen used to drink the urine of those drinking beer. I don’t know if it is a myth or not. However, one can drink urine without dying.
Submarines do not grow their own food.
Elsewhere we do.
“Obviously carbon, indeed carbon dioxide, is useful; even necessary. Don’t be fatuous.”
CO2 is useful, even necesary IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
The entire CAGW argument presumes there is a CORRECT temperature for the planet.
You claim that the MWP is regional – while that is FALSE, it is still true that regionally or globally – humans thrive in WARMER climates.
For most of the past 5M years this planet has been an ICE BALL. We do not know what the future holds – but past cycles strongly suggest that the planet will be cold as hell soon enough. If we are Lucky Human CO2 or something else has changed those NATURAL cycles.
I doubt we will get 4C warmer. I doubt the arctic, Greenland, antarctic will melt and Sea Levels will rise dramatically.
But should that happen – there will be bad and there will be good, and the end results will be net positive.
I old you from the start that Science should have nothing to do with values.
What the global climate should be – assuming that humans have control over it is NOT a scientific question.
JUst as many of us are starting to grasp – how we respond to Covid was NEVER a question for public health experts.
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen
Frédéric Bastiat
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
“You misquote me. I stated *just*.”
David, you are so full of cr-p. The statement was: “If one just drinks urine, one dies. Period. The astronauts water is purified..” Guess what, old ignorant one, if one *just* drinks water they will die as well. When you said that you added the word *Period* and talked about purification. That tells everyone a lot about you. You lie with word games. John is straight forward and honest.. You are not.
To make things clearer, My statement was simple and direct without any games, “However, one can drink urine without dying.”. Because of your game play we have had many responses back and forth wasting time.
Now that you are a proven fraud, everyone that can’t do math or follow the logic can realize that you have not been truthful in your debate with John. You played the same type of game with him. In essence without technically lying, you lied. The reason to lie, under such circumstances, is that you have inadequate knowledge to stick to the facts.
John B Say re: yours of May 29 @ 3:5 pm
Wrong as per usual. You could attempt to read with some actual understanding about the climate of the past. During the Pleistocene the climate varied between glacial stades and interglacial periods. Not before then. “The Long Thaw” points out that it will be a looong time before the next attempt at a glacial stade.
There were two intervals in the remote past of Terra when, indeed, much, even most, of Terra froze over. Geologists study such paleoclimate intervals. The published literature is not difficult to locate.
To the point, agriculture requires the interglacial conditions of the Holocene, not hotter. Hence the concern for the immediate future.
In the past 500K years interglacials have been short – approx 10K years – we are past that.
There are reasons to hope that we are not near the end of an interglacial. But there is no scientific certainty of that merely
The firther back in time you go the larger the smallest unit of time you can measure data over is. You can not know 5M years ago to the same degree you can the last 500K
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
BZZT Wrong.
I doubt your understanding of agriculture is any better than climate.
Most of the food int he world is produced in the northern hemisphere.
Though I would note that many foods are produced at tropical temps.
Increase global temps and everything just shifts in latitude.
That actually increases the land available for most crops.
Much more of the world would have two growing seasons.
And all of this ignores the fact that over the next 80 years farming is changing.
Have you ever been in a Marijuana grow house ? this is the future of farming.
It is more expensive – today, requires more energy, but it produces enormous yeilds year round,
And uses far less pesticides.
In 1990 Julian Simon worked out that it was likely that in the future NYC would be able to feed itself using High Rise indoor farms.
that is possible today – it is just a question of cost – and energy.
There is every reason to beleive that a 4K warmer world would be a better one.
I would also note that more CO2 automatically means more crop yeilds per acre.
“Most of the food int he world is produced in the northern hemisphere.”
Benson needs to stop wetting his Depends. He doesn’t have the slightest idea of the world around him.
I suggest David look at Israel. Israel is mostly desert with little water. Israel has turned desert into very productive agricultural land. Despite scarce water resources shared with other nations, Israel produces sufficient water. It is enough for the food grown in the desert, water exports to their Arab neighbor, and supply the people in adequate amounts and at a reasonable cost.
The Israeli people successfully adapt to their surroundings even though their enemies attack their communities regularly with missiles and terrorists.
And my wife buys vegatables and fruits from israel during the winter when we do not have them here.
And they are not even all that expensive.
There is a scene in the movie the battle of the Bulge where a german office shows a boston cream pie retrieved from US prisoners to another General.
The one says – how soft the americans are. But the first responds – “in the midst of a war, where Germans at home are starving and we do not have enough fuel for our tanks, the americans are wasting fuel to fly deserts across the atlantic – we are going to lose”.
We live in a world where a desert nation is growing fruits and vegetables to export to americans who are paying only a little more for them than the would in season.
And DB is worried about the ability of the world to feed itself.
With sufficient energy – we can grow plenty of food ANYWHERE – even if that makes the planet a touch hotter – we will not starve.
We are slowly approaching the point at which food is being grown INDOORS – while this increases the energy costs to grow food – it has many many benefits.
Food can be grown continuously year round. far fewer pesticides and herbicides are needed. If necescary food can be grown vertically – in high rises in cities.
The only cost of this is energy – and depending – not all that much more of that.
For one of my jobs I visit legal marijuana grow houses. These are indoor farms, the yeilds are continuous and enormous.
There is no reason this can not be tomatos or strawberries or soon enough meats – without cows or pigs.
We are already factory producing fish.
Often the very things DB thinks are wrong about the world are what is RIGHT.
David lives in a very small sealed box which is among many other boxes on a conveyor belt to nowhere. We need people like you to shake things up a bit.
The small snipet from the movie separates those with good critical thinking skills from the rest.
DB’s does not take notice of reality that surrounds him.
He can not seem to grasp that under normal STP Ice does not melt until temperatues are above 0C.
He can not seem to grasp the direction the Jordan river flows.
He can not seem to grasp that No matter how expensive the water in israel is, it is still cheap enough to grow crops and Export them to other countries during their off season – profitably.
We can grow food anywhere on earth today where there is soil, fertilizer and water. Regardless of temperature.
You do understand that the growing season in most of the world today is Summer – the hotest part of the year ?
If temps get too hot in some region the growing season can be shifted earlier or later or both.
John B Say re: yours of May 28? @ 12:24 pm?
It is *downhill* into the center of Greenland, also West Antarctica. Why don’t you actually study what has been learned befoe spouting off, demonstrating your willful ignorance?
Antartica – Red is 4000m Blue is 0m
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/5000/5081/ICESat_AntElevation_lrg.jpg
Greenland Elevations – note the Ridge down the center.
Can you name a single Island of continent that is lower in the center than at the coasts ?
Glaciers “flow” like rivers. From high to low
There would be almost no melting in greenland at all if it was this bowl you claim
https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-images/marshallshepherd/files/2019/07/Slide2-2.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 1:49 pm
I have lived here, teaching at an ag school and surrounded by a desert of wheat, for the majority of my life. While no expert, I think I have a good understanding of why agriculture cannot move further north; I have studied the geology.
As for “more CO2 is better for plants”, that is foolish. understand Liebig’s law-of-the-minimum but also that there are only a few species which thrive under forced conditions in a greenhouse.
Probably part of IPCC Section II addresses this matter and written by experts.
Wheat is grown in Canada, If things get warmer – Canada could have two growing seasons.
Every place on the planet is not suitable for growing every thing, but we only use a tiny portion of the planet to grow food – less than we have in several centuries.
Regardless growing food is not a problem.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 30 @ before 5:27 pm
Israel desalinates much sea water at great expense. Also all the water of the Jordan river is used so that the Dead Sea continues to shrink.
Nearby one of course observes the catastrophe of Syria, also in Lebanon, partly brought on by lack of water.
“Israel desalinates much sea water at great expense. Also all the water of the Jordan river is used so that the Dead Sea continues to shrink. Nearby one of course observes the catastrophe of Syria, also in Lebanon, partly brought on by lack of water.”
—
David, you spend too much time creating obstacles and supporting false science. Presently Israel is working on reversing the flow of pipes from the Sea of Galilee so that the excess output from its desalination plants can fill it to its prior heights. It is also working on a desalinization plant that will provide water to the area while the effluent will raise the level of the Dead Sea.
The costs for water in Israel are reasonable because their ability to conserve water is probably superior to any other nation in the world.
Compare Israel to the Party State of California where the rains overwhelm, and water flows into the Pacific while there isn’t enough water for the crops or the people.
The other nations with water shortages haven’t learned to adapt and appropriately use their resources. These are things you have yet to learn. I instead you throw money at climate change hoping to reverse something that doesn’t exist. That money could be used to increase the standard of living, and adapt to a changing world, so that the environment can be improved.
David, I read this some years back and forgot to look it up and cite it. If I recall, it had some pricing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/
The expense is not so great that my wife can not afford tomatoes from Israel in the winter.
More and more places in the world get most of their water through desalinization.
You worry too much and about all the wrong things.
You do know the Jorand River flows NORTH to South – it flows FROM Syria and Lebanon to Isreal.
If the Lebanonese and Syrian’s have water problems – they are of their own making – not Israels.
TWISTWINS That which is Seen, that which is not seen.
You beleive too much of the malthusian nonsense you are told.
Lets try something else.
Why does Phillip Morris produce cigarettes ?
Phillip Morris is a company it is in business to make money. All businesses are.
But there are millions of ways to make money,
The reason that Phillip Morris produces cigarettes is because people want cigarettes.
The world is driven by what humans want and need.
People profit – because they make what you want and need.
While some places on earth are more blessed with resources than others.
There is not a place int he world that can not find a way to profit by producing something that others want or need.
Plenty of places that are shy on natural resources do extremely well – they import the resources they need to make what their people and others want and need.
Most of what you think is evil – is just someone meeting the needs and wants of others.
We produce cigarettes – because people want them.
We produce tomatoes in the desert because people want them
We produce energy – because people want energy.
This is not something nefarious.
What is nefarious is govenrment stepping in.
Government does not stop the production of what people want and need – it would not last long if it did.
It regulates it as the means of taxing – unofficially or officially.
If you need permission to produce CO2 – you will buy politicians to get that permission.
All govenrment regulation is just a form of self licking ice cream cone.
We tend to tolerate the inefficiency government introduces – because we still get what we want and because we pretend that government makes us safer,
I mean without govenrment – wouldn’t mcdonalds make all their burgers out of recycled cardboard (or soyolent green) because it was cheaper ?
Do you really think people buy hamburgers because they want them or need them ?
Without government wouldn’t all businesses just poison their customers ?
Everything you wish to control because of CAGW will ultimately be produced – just less efficiently and with politicians getting their graft.
So long as people want or need something – it will be produced.
Look at illegal drugs ?
About Antarctica land ice:
https://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
Incorporates the latest NASA satellite derived data.
God, no, Not John Cook and skeptical science.
DB – I showed you the math – it does not depend on NASA.
Antartica is MASSIVELY NET positive for gaining Ice.
As large as the losses are – they are dwarfed by the gains.
And please – I am highly unlikely to even follow a link to most of the cites you fawn over.
There are enough problems with sources like NASA without dealing with places like Skeptical Science or BNC or RealClimate which are just propoganda sites.
The ol’ hockey stick:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-climate-change/fact-check-hockey-stick-graph-of-rising-global-temperatures-is-accurate-depiction-of-climate-change-idUSL1N2S112H
and
https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
where in addition we note that there is no global so-called medieval warm period.
Yes, you do a beautiful job of proving that skeptical science is a garbage propoganda site.
Evidence of the LIA and MWP is found pretty much everywhere in the world.
It is real, it is global, it was about as warm as the present, and if you are claiing otherwise you are full of Schiff and untrustworthy.
If you wish to wrap yourself in the mantle of science – then you need to be right about the Facts.
Cook is pretty much never right about anything.
Even “Hide the decline” Micheal Mann is less of a charlatan and idiot than Skeptical science.
Further you already know what warmists are WRONG.
We can fight over the past 1400 years or maybe the past 10,000,
But everyone is agreed that over longer time frames the climate of the planet has varied greatly and naturally.
About 10,000 years ago – we were in an ice age.
The warmist thesis that but for humans the earth would be unchanging is the most absurd nonsense.
Here is a google map with Pins you can click on to find over 1200 papers with evidence of the MWP from all over the globe.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=1.8141816532691584%2C25.80380556269847&z=2
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 6:23 pm
Profoundly ignorant —- after the first sentence, that is.
And on another topic, yes, the Sahara desert is expanding northwards at about 37 km/yr. So the Maghreb is drying up as is are the portions of European countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Further east is the disaster area of the middle east.
all those people going to just eat a second crop Canadian wheat which is somehow going to have enough water?
If you are going to lob insults – try some adding evidence.
Otherwise you just look like a fool.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1076162
Climate changes. get over it.
Warmer is wetter.
https://imgs.search.brave.com/G8ApO2ttnkzQx-rERW_0ezhIlHW_Kr9pjdI8dvDFjRA/rs:fit:728:595:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5u/Y2RjLm5vYWEuZ292/L3NvdGMvc2Vydmlj/ZS9nbG9iYWwvZ2xv/YmFsLXByY3AtYW5v/bS8yMDEzMDEtMjAx/MzEyLmdpZg.gif
But CAGW!
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-cagw/
Really helpful!?!
And this cite is supposed to be useful how ?
A bunch of abysmal logic and bad mora preeening combined with myriads of straw men beaten to death.
I will be happy to quit using CAGW – when YOU and your ilk quit selling the end of the world.
Torch the IPCC section for policy maers which is just nonsense that does not belong in any work of science and what is left – while with near certainty continuing to have a hot bias – as it has for decades, is still not anythign to be actually concerned about. ‘
If you are prepared to limit your claims to those supported by the IPCC – I will dispense with CAGW.
But you can not. You are constantly citing propoganda web sites with far more extreme claims than the IPCC makes.
I would be happy to confine this debate to TWO things – why the IPCC is projecting too hot, and why even if they were right it would be net good not net bad.
But you can not do that.
You rant using non-scientific terms like “vulnerable” or “unquantifiable risk”
You worry that a world that has both more rainfall and more CO2 will not be able to grow food ?
You worry that a continent and an island that can trivially be shown to be GAINING ice, are going to suddenly melt down and drown the world.
If the Greenland and Antarctic Ice losses were NET losses – which they obvjously are not.
The rate of melting would STILL take tens of thousands of years to be problematic.
If you do not want to be accused of being religious and dogmatic – then act like a scientist – skepticism IS science. Nothing is true in science until it is proven beyond any doubt.
Not be faux concensus
Forecasts that fail require actually returning to the original hypothesis and correcting it.
When that does not occur you are selling religion.
Try reading the nonsense on the site you linked.
It is all about word games, it is not how to confront a claim with EVIDENCE.
And certainly not cheery picked evidence. Though that is an improvement over much of your nonsense.
There is with certainty at any moment some place on earth that is hotter and dryer than it has been in 100 years.
And some place that is cooler and wetter.
Temperatures are rising slowly – so there will be more hotter records set than colder ones.
No one doubts that.
If you let go of the catastrophe nonsense – and the sites that use catastrophe to plot to change the world
We can have a rational discussion of climate.
If not you can expect to hear alot about CAGW – because that is what you are selling.
This is your idea of how to continue the discussion ?
We have had a debate with facts and calculations – mostly one sided as you seem to be math and logic impaired, but fully ad hominem enabled.
And now you want to shift to this ?
S. Meyer re: yours of May 30 @ 8:17 pm
That is a worthwhile article in Scientific American. I incorporated it here:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/731/more-less-farming-warming-world?page=3&scrollTo=8362
As for it being a “desert” now, of course 3-4 thousand years ago it was the land of milk & honey, the promised land. Climatology attempts to describe the causes of the change, in part.
David I am glad you were happy with the article. I hope it taught you a lot about adaptation that has been absent from your discussions on global warming.
“As for it being a “desert” now, of course 3-4 thousand years ago it was the land of milk & honey, the promised land.”
I am not sure where you got that from. Almost 2 million years ago the land of Israel was lush, but that is before the time of Abraham.
Not interested in masterbatory links to BNC links to elsewhewre.
Either you know what you are talking about – and you can respond in an argument here – where you will be challenged, or you do not have the courage of your convictions.
I am not debating you on every warmist forum on the web.
We are here.
S. Meyer, re: yours of May 31 @ 9:14 pm
There is plenty about adoption on BNC Discussion Forum; it hasn’t been the focus here.
As for the land of milk & honey, the Bible says so and why else would the proto-Israelites travel to the promised land? The Reubens and the Danites received lands on the bank of the Jordan River because these had grass for their flocks. And so on.
Here is a modern study of the ancient city now called Tel Dan.
“why else would the proto-Israelites travel to the promised land? “
Do you need someone to answer that question? The promised land is the US that the left wishes to destroy. I cannot think of a country that has a better geography than the United states.
—
You did not speak about adaptation and based on your comments here, why would anyone want to go to that blog?
If you wish some resources on adoption – I can fund you some.
I have no idea what BNC might be saying – but it is not where I would go for anything.
I have no idea what you think your digression into the old testament Israel bears on.
Re: mine of May 31* 8:39? pm
Here is more on the climate of early Israel. Strictly it is about southern Lebanon, but of course Israel wouldn’t have ben much different:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Summary-of-the-climate-history-of-the-southern-Levant-during-the-Bronze-and-Iron-Ages_fig3_275018501
“now, of course 3-4 thousand years ago it was the land of milk & honey”
According to the citation you provided, what made Israel the land of milk and honey?
Humid vs Dry has little to do with hot vs cold
Cleaning up recent problems:
Study of Tel Dan:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700954
I had the time of day wrong, but the reference is to an immediate prior post.
As for BNC Discussion Forum, of course one has to *be brave* to go there to see what is offered by several contributors. Adaptation hadn’t come up here as the focus has been, for me, defending my fellow scientists, the climatologists.
David, you have already demonstrated why the BNC site is not worth one’s time.
“Adaptation hadn’t come up here as the focus has been, for me, defending my fellow scientists, the climatologists.
It did “come up”,because you were too busy defending yourself, badly. Most of us don’t have problems with the bulk of studies, except that the funding doesn’t go to those that wish to prove the real physics behind climate. You have overreached as have our politicians, but you can’t see that because you learn by rote.
John Say proved you wrong on almost everything. You hid behind links you don’t understand and terminology. You think you own the terminology. You are a progressive. That is how progressives talk. This year you are a progressive. When you stink too much you usurp the term liberal. When the name liberal is destroyed you move back to progressive or another name. You can’t live with the truth, so you make it up as you go along.
Physics evolves but it doesn’t change due to a stench.
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” – KJV, Matthew 7:6
No reason to frequent BNC,
I do not frequent Der Sturmer either.
I am not looking for propoganda cites.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 31 @ 10:05 pm
Enough rain, of course. Don’t be dense.
So?
David, stop being foolish. In my lifetime different areas of the world have had flooding and draught.
The climate changes naturally with only a small part due to man and that portion isn’t the problem. There are other reasons for deserts to grow or shrink, and it can be directly caused by man and reversed by man. Desertification can be manmade. You have tunnel vision.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 31 @ 10:10 pm
Don’t be fatuous.
You are simply being highly protective of your ignorance.
You have not made an argument.
S. Meyer, re: hyours of Jun 01 @ 12:35
John B Say was wrong on many, many aspects of mathematics, physics, geology and climatology, not to mention glaciology. But you are too ignorant, and in thrall to him, to recognize it. Further, you are protective of your ignorance, as many stupid people are.
As for the funding, in the US it goes to scientist in national laboratories, no-for-profit research institutes and of course universities. Almost all so-associated and qualified scientists who submit proposal to the funding agencies receive at least some in an award to keep their research going. If you check I think you will find that even Dr. Christy’s RSS research received funding, hmm?
Some of the announcements of the results are then linked in posts on BNC Discussion Forum. Too bad about your protectiveness.
And please quit Making Stuff Up…
David, you are proving yourself to be a liar. John provided physics and you provided links and partial bits of physics that you couldn’t link together. You tried to catch John on terminology like your use of the word *just* in our discussion of urine. Unfortunately, for you, you do not control terminology, but you might be able to work as a librarian in a small facility, or an assistant library in a bigger one.
In other words nothing you have said is credible. You don’t even know how the funding is divvied out or how the science is perverted. Ignorance is your specialty. Preserve it because that is the highest honor you will ever obtain.
In the future I will not always use my alias for the discussion with you has become too stupid and wasteful to the time of others.
So far my error has been following you down numerous irrelevant ratholes where I inveriablly demonstrated that you did not know what you were talking about.
It is not even possible to know what it is that you think is correct – on many things you have taking the same and the opposite position multiple times.
SM is correct – you are constantly substituting YOUR terminology as if it is the one and only acceptable language – in science in physics in math.
That is self evidently wrong – regardless I provided plenty of counter examples – where only one is needed.
You can not tell the difference between acceptable terminology and required terminology, and you are incapable of backing away from any errors no matter how small.
I do not enjoy debating you – it is like pulling the wings off a fly.
I would prefer debating a warmist who actually knew what they were talking about, someone who would engage in good faith.
Once in a while for a few posts you are not a total idiot, but those moments are rare.
We are here debating Global Warming – I am the skeptic and you are the warmist – and yet I am the one too often defending the IPCC,
and you are the one trying to sell propoganda sites, known fraudsters, and gibberish – unsupported by the IPCC as meaningful and correct.
S. Meyer, as I said before, quite Making Stuff Up.
(1) John B Say clearly misunderstands Stefan’s Law — can’t even get the units right. Similarly going ‘forward’ from there.
(2) I certainly do understand the funding, havng received NSF funding myself ads well as advising the Navy on such matters. Don’t be even more of a fool than you have to.
(3) Etc. ad nauseam.
1) David when dealing with John, he made you run around in circles proving yourself wrong.
2) You received funding, congratulations. The Federal Government paid 120 million dollars in disability and retirement to dead Federal employees, which raises the question, to whom did the money actually go? At least you seem to be a living person.
3) “Etc. ad nauseam”. On a ship of fools I wonder how people would refer to you.
SM
First – because you are sophist and pendantic, I am writing off the top of my head. I am describing things in standard english for ordinary people to understand. I am not writing a physics paper,
I am not interested in debates over whether exponentially is being used in your preferred jargon. I am using it correctly in english and in a form that is acceptable in science – even it it is not YOUR prefered form.
Nor am I talking just about exponentially. In several places I have pulled defintions from Wikipedia. I am mostly using their language. If you do not like that – take it up with wikipedia.
It is Stefan-Bolzman and it is clearly you that misunderstands it. You keep trying to use “flux” – primarily because you can pretend it means nothing. Flux is acceptable – but only if you properly understand it.
Whether you like it or not S-B (and Plank) mean that rising temperatures require exponentially more energy. If you wish to call that Flux, or radiance is irrelevant – it is STILL energy. And over time it is POWER.
Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T, when there is no net flow of matter or energy between the body and its environment.
So that we are CLEAR – net flow of energy means no convective or conductive transfers – the object is at thermal equilibrium – it is maintaining a constant temperature. Plank (and S-B) tell us the Radiated energy of the object, and the law of conservation of energy tells us that the same energy is being Absorbed. The object is at thermal equilibrium and it is at equilibrium with respect to ENERGY flows.
You keep pretending this is a “units” problem it is not. You can add time if you want
power is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time.
Or you can stick to S-B which gives you the instantaneous radiated energy – which must be the same as the absorbed energy or there is no equilibrium, and which must be constant over time – or there is no equilibrium.
All of the above is so obvious that it is not normally necescary to explain – except to you.
If you understand the impact of government funding on results – your are blind to it with respect to CAGW.
Regardless, there is Massive funding for CAGW – you would think it was actually something consequential that we could do something about.
As a result studies that have nothing to do with Climate have throw away lines lamenting the unspecified impact of climate change – as if researchers into Amazon Yellow Spotted Tree Frogs have a clue what Climate will do and how it will effect Tree frogs.
While I suspect your glacier papers were atleast tangentially Climate work – though it is NOT inherently true that research into glaciers must be research into climate, it still often is.
Regardless, the vulnerable lines and unquantifiable risks were nonsense that does not ever belong in anything scientific.
This is like the recently announced Biden Climate Justice office.
And you complaint about my purportedly inappropirate use of words.
Justice is the impartial and truthful adjudication of rights.
Only individual humans have rights. Climate does not have rights. Birds do not have rights. Groups do not have rights.
Unquanitifiable risks do not belong in science, and they do not belong in government.
Unquantifiable means you do not know. You may only act in your own life with respect to what is not known. You absolutely may not use force against others with regard to any risk that can not be quantified.
“Aid” to Israel currently runs about 3.8 billion dollar per annum:
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
David, you don’t know too much do you. America gives loads of aid to Israel’s enemies and much of that money is used to provide pensions for the families of terrorist bombers.
Israeli aid has to be spent on American products. Israel buys American military planes with some of that money, flies them and then figures out how to make them better. That technology goes back to the US especially when that technology is created in real time battle situations.
Israel also supplies intelligence to the US.
Take a map out and look at where Israel is in relationship to Cyprus, Greece , the Mediterranean and Europe. It acts as a base for the western world.
SM
So – most of that is military aide. Further the total is about 0.75% of Israel’s GDP.
Do you ever bother to check beyond the surface of your claims ?
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 01 @ 9:12 pm
Here is NASA on 25 years of surface ice changes in Antarctica:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/187/video-25-years-of-antarctic-land-ice-elevation-change-anomalies-west-coast-fly-over/
West Antarctic ice being lost faster than any eat antarctic gain; net loss.
And of course NASA is where Skeptical Science obtains the data.
So stop being such a fool, hmmm?
So you have a video – with no indication of the source of the data and not even clarity of its claims.
Taking the video at its word it is a movie of changes in the surface elevation
From what your video I could not determine if the net change in elevation was positive negative or zero.
But the elevation is NOT the Ice Mass.
NASA is where Skeptical Science CLAIMS to get its data.
Der Sturmer claims to get data from credible sources.
Regardless, though I am glad that NASA’s 2015 satelite study which if I recal was calibrated and confirmed by ground measurements correctly indicates a general thickening of ice over antartica.
And the 2015 stud actually measured ice thickness not elevation. This is a common trick of warmest – measure the wrong thing. Or measure something people ASSUME means something that it does not.
But even If NASA had found differently – the measures of average precipitation in Antartica are likely more accurate than the rest of this – including the 2015 work.
While they are human measuresm they are relatively easily verifed and unlike temperature measures you do not have to measure precipitation in Antartica in real time.
Snow falls, it does not melt it does not go anywhere.
So if you know the average precipitation in Antartica. You KNOW the ice gain every year.
You must have more losses than the gains to get a net loss – you dont.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 01 @ 9:32 pm
No globally synchronous MWP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Learn some actual climatology, hmmm?
Yup. I know – 1200 scientific papers are wrong.
Sorry DB, the MWP is real.
There is more evidence supporting the MWP by orders of magnitude than there is supporting the flat proxies into the past.
I would also not the “globally synchronous claim is nonsense. Climate is not ever globally synchronized.
Even now parts of the world are exceptionally hot while others are exceptionally cold.
If CAGW requires global synchonization – then the planet is not warming.
From 1921-1969 a period you claim the planet was warming due to human CO2, north america was cooling.
Try learning critical thinking.
There is an excellentThomas Sowell Video on Youtube about deprograming children of the nonsense they are taught today.
But the gist comes straight from J. S. Mill.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
I have spent a great seal of time on many subjects reading the best people that I disagree with. Sometimes I have learned from them.
I strongly suspect I have read more actual climate science than you have.
You seem to spend your time reading Climate propoganda.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 1 @ 9:37 pm
Africa is behaving exactly as predicted by climatology in the presence of continued global warming.
Which you would know if you actually bothered to learn some climatology…
The data we have for most of Africa is so poor a quality that statement is nonsense.
Even if it is true it would suffer from GIGO – Garbage in Garbage Out.
Separately the Earth is not behaving as the models predict.
If you are correct – which I doubt Africa might be the only place that is behaving as predicted.
Your idea of learning climatology appears to be worshiping num nuts like Cooke and Skeptical Science.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 01 @ 10:04 pm
You are the only one here using the word ‘catastrophe’.
Υou still don’t understand what the evidence shows about the great ice sheets. In particular, the West Antarctic ice sheet is diminishing.
Etc.
That is correct. The planet is warming, that is not in doubt, it has been warming for almost 250 years.
It is not a catastrophe.
It is therefore of no consequence to government.
If you do not have a potential catastrophe – you have no justification for FORCED action – aka government intervention.
If you wish to cede that Global Warming is not a catastrophe – not now not in the future – then we are done.
You can beleive whatever you want. You can act on your own as you wish.
We can end Kyoto and Paris and …
There is no catastrophe, no need for government to act.
But I think the real problem is that I am the only one using words honestly.
You beleive in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – but you say “climate change” – because it is pretty obvious there is no actual catastrophe.
And then without using the word catastrophe – you rant about all the catastrophe’s your religion claims while denying that you are actually talking about catastrophe.
John B Say, re: your of Jun 01 @ 10:08 pm
You don’t know what is to be found @ BNC Discussion Forum because you have never gone there, correct?
So you are once again Just Making Stuff Up.
I have been on all your warmist propaganda sites far more than long enough to grasp these are not places to debate actual science.
I would note that this is typical of the left.
I do not post on DailyKOS or TPM – though I do visit them on occasion – because doing so is casting perls before swine.
I visit them periodically – including the climate sites you sell – because unlike you I actually wish to know something of the positions other than my own
But far more important than visiting warmist propoganda sites – I also read the actual scientific publications – the PRIMARY SOURCES – not the propoganda arm.
I voraciously read – whether it is climate, economics or other issues of interest to me. And to the greatest extent possibl I read PRIMARY SOURCES.
I do not tilt my apetite for information based on agreement with the source. I favor those sources that are dealing directly with the facts – rather than those that are regurgitating badly warped oppinions of the purported experts on their side.
YOU rant that the experts support you – yet mos of the data that I provide comes from the very experts you claim favor you.
I think the IPCC is wrong – that they are overstating warming and its effects. But they are not likely a full order of magnitude wrong.
The sites you are selling – are idiot propogandists and are several orders of magnitude off.
These are the malthusian sky is falling numnuts
You rant about trusting real climate scientists – yet few if any of the sites you use as sources are actual climate scientists.
You have lost argument after argument here with me – because you are at odds with the core of climate science, math and physics that you claim supports you – it does not.
Normally I advise people to learn what the best of their opponents think – that is J.S. Mills admonition – you know little of your own side until you know the opposition.
But YOU actually need to read the REAL SCIENTISTS on your own side – instead of all the nonsense from nut job propogandists who are not scientists.
I do not hold it against someone if they are not a scientists.
But I do not credit people with a long reputation of lying – regardless of their credentials.
John B Say, re: yours of Jul 02 @ 12:45? am
Alas, it is you who have been wrong on the math and wrong on the science, repeatedly ad nauseam. What was right you found on Wikipedia, re: Arrhenius. You still fail to comprehend Stefan’s Law, much less Planck’s Law. At least you knows the names, just not the units nor the forms nor the applications.
As for the ice sheets, I pointed out that those are in decline. That is data from NASA. Then you Just Made Stuff Up about glaciers: might sound plausible but was in fact wrong, wrong, wrong. When shown wrong, you fail to admit it. When provided with links to sites with reliable information you fail to follow those to see what is offered. You stick to denialist attitudes such as disparaging Skeptical Science and Grant Foster; I take you to be a complete … well, I won’t complete the sentence.
You keep writing giberish.
First S-B did not apply – now purportedly I do not understand the units ?
Make up your mind ? Regardless someone who claimed that S-B did not apply to climate science has ZERO credibility, in pretty much any of this.
I am tired of explaining S-B to you. Your argument litterally undermines nearly all physics and violates the law of conservation of mass and energy.
No, you provided a few sources that report on specific details and MAYBE attempt broad generalizations.
You tourself accepted a NASA study that demonstrated EXACTLY the opposite.
As with everything – you cherry pick what you choose to beleive without regard to evidence.
Do you honestly beleive the preciptiation figures for Antartica or Greenland are off by a factor of 3-10 or more ?
If not the debate is over.
While it i possible that specific glaciers are “in decline” there is no evidence produced by warmest todate that the losses at greenland or antartica are even close to yearly gains.
That is how ACTUAL science works – you test a claim against the facts. A single contradiction disproves the hypothesis.
There are only two means to falsify the argument I made that Greenland and Antartica are NOT in decline.
The first is to PROVE there are actually greater total losses than the total gains.
The alternative is to PROVE that the gain and therefore the precipitation is wrong – that it is way less than recorded.
You can not falsify my argument by ranting about specific glaciers – even though you are usually wrong about those.
The Denali in Alaska is an actually receding glacier – each year more and more land covered by ice becomes uncovered.
That is how receding actually works.
I would note that you are also in error about the effect of the melting of underwater ice on sea level. Any ice that is underwater whether floating or not will have ZERO effect on sea level if it metls.
It had its effect when it was pushed under water. You do not seem to undersand fundimental physics of displacement – such as why ships float.
You do not seem to grasp what falsified means.
You do not seem to understand what an actual contradiction is.
I read much of what you link to from actual scientific sources.
And I try to sort out the facts from the propoganda in that.
I look for two things – absent spin is what you linked TRUE – often it is once you get rid of the spin.
The next question is if true is it an actual contradiction.
You posted claims that the underwater leading edge of some antartic glaciers are being undercut by sea water
That is likely true.
But true or false it does not contradict the evidence that Antartica is not net losing ice.
And then you rant about “vulnerable” and “unquantifiable risks” – those are phrases to be ignored in any work of actual science.
Unquantifaiable is two hairs short of saying “NOT SCIENCE” – regardless, unquantifiable NEVER trumps what is quantifiable.
Go away with your unquantifiable risks and come back when you have quantified them.
I strongly suspect that ignoring the spin – most of the data on the melting of antartic and greenland glaciers is correct – or atleast as close as we can get today.
But it is NOT net. and therefore it does NOT mean the ice sheets are “in decline”.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 04 @ 3:43 pm (and ff)
You *still* fail to understand Stefan’s Law. Because (1) it is about energy *flux* not energy; no that’s not *power*, and (2) it is only about *blackbodies*, not water on the stove, etc.
Yes, Arrhenius used Stefan’s law and Langley’s observations to make his point about atmospheric carbon dioxide. My sole actual point was about determining the constant of proportionality in the approximate equation of logarithmic form.
You fail to understand glaciology. It’s not about ice cube floating in your drink.
Separately, you continue to blather on about what you imagine is to be found at BNC Discussion Forum. You are completely mistaken and, as I take it, now a proven liar.
“Best to remain silent and thought a fool rather than opening your mouth to remove all doubt.”
DB – you are wromng and full of schiff.
You are even OBVIOUSLY wrong.
I have already explained this – even wikipedia explains it if you bother to read – without fixating on the word “flux” – which you clearly do not understand.
Power : the time rate at which work is done or energy emitted or transferred
Energy flux: the FLOW of energy.
All objects radiate energy, the amount of energy and its frequency are intrinsically tied to the temperature of the object.
I would note that the laws of conservation of mass and energy require that the energy radiated From an object is equal to the energy captured by an object.
I can not find a link to the paper I read several years ago on the physics of CO2 as a GHG – but it quite litterally is all about S-B
S-B applies to objects hat are not black bodies – nothing is a real black body. There are minor adjustment that are made to correct for the deviation of real world objects from black bodies.
If you can not grasp really simple physics – why should anyone listen to all the rest of your nonsense ?
You already accepted previously that Arrhenius or what I think you are calling arrhenius-wiggler is derived from S-B.
Are you backing away from that ?
John B Say, r3e: yours of Jun 04 @ 4:07 pm
Still wrong about Antarctica and other matters of glaciology. I’ve provided links to NASA sites which demonstrate this, although the Skeptical Science thread is better organized.
Too bad that you suffer from blind prejudice.
The actual science on your NASA site does not support your claims.
You keep getting confused by spin rather than actual science.
But even if your NASA paper actually conflicted – you still have two big problems.
It would be at odds with prior NASA work,
It would be at odds with with the known precipitation in Antartica.
And finally you keep fixating on what is occuring on the edge of the continent.
The melting of Ice that is underwater is irrelevant.
As long as Ice is pushing into the Sea – whether it is Antartica or Greenland – that ice is being pushed into the sea by the force of gravity on the GROWING mass of ice behind it.
YOU pointed out that I was incorrect – that Greenland is higher in most places along the coast than in the center.
How is ice moving UPHILL ? How is that meltwater moving uphill ?
You say that I am wrong about glaciers – then What force makes a glacier advance ? Magic ?
What force is making glaciers advance going UPHILL in greenland ?
DB – your claims are incredibly stupid.
While you are completely wrong, about nearly everything regarding glaciers and you do not even understand your own cites.
Even if you were magically “right” – you would still be WRONG.
YOUR warmists have pretty good estimates of the losses from antartica and greenland.
But those are not NET.
Antartic and Greenland glaciers are advancing not receding.
There are plenty of glaciers elsewhere that are actually receding. Such as the Denali and we can tell the difference.
But even if they were not – both gain more ice each year than they lose by a significant factor.
Last I linked 20,000 years of temperature for Greenland from ice cores – YOUR technology.
Greenland is the coldest today it has been for all the holocene. The last time it was colder was the younger dryas.
Greenland did not melt down for the 10,000+ years it was warmer, it is not melting down now.
The graph was from wikipedia YOUR source and was from ice core data YOUR source.
I am predjudice against Ice ? Glaciers ?
I am Blind ? I have offered far far far more data than you have – often from your own sources.
I have made several simple arguments. It MAY be possible, though unlikely they are wrong.
But getting there requires PROOF.
Not only have your arguments so far been OBVIOUSLY wrong.
They have at the same time been irrelevant – they would not discredit my argument even if you were right.
You are OBVIOUSLY the one who is blind.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 05 @ 11:x9 pm
The *energy flux* of Stefan’s Law is power per unit area.
So you *still* fail to understand.
Sorry, not even an E for effort.!
Think. What does that mean ? What is Power ?
Since you like Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)
In physics, power is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time. In the International System of Units, the unit of power is the watt, equal to one joule per second.
You do not seem to understand – though all the terms you are arguing about are intimatedly related, it does not matter which you use.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 05 @ 11:37 pm
Satellite data:
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2021/
Similar in West Antarctica.
As for ice flow, study glaciology to learn about it. Roughly speaking, ice is a weak rock.
Still flogging a dead horse.
Lets assume the GRACE-FO data is correct – The Antartic Ice sheet is contains 26.5Mkm3 of Ice, and Grace says it is losing 67.4km3/yr.
That is just under 400K years to be ice free
Greenland has 2.8Mkm3 and is losing 200km3/yr it will melt completely in 14,000 years.
This of course presumes that these loses are accurate as the do not square with other data.
Next Grace concludes that SLR is 0.9mm/year from ice melt.
SLR from tide gauges is 1.5mm/yr globally and not accelerating.
That is your “budget” – the more of that you attribute to Ice melt – the less there is from thermal expansion.
And that means the Earth has captured LESS energy in the oceans, and that means the energy balance equations are off and actual warming is much less than predicted.
One of the problems that Warmist constantly find themselves in is that the earth is an integrated WHOLE. Not a collection of completely independent bits.
If you increase your claims for ice melt from Greenland and Antartica – you end up with less thermal, expansion which means EXPONENTIALLY less energy capture Which means that ECS is wrong – it is HIGH.
You need the thermal energy that is reflected in the expansion of the oceans to get the high value for ECS for CO2.
When you make a histrionic claim in one area – you by force reduce something somewhere else.
I personally beleive GRACE-FO is over estimating – as it is not consistent with GRACE-2 and not consistent with other measures on the ground.
But GRACE-FO is in theory a better instrument than GRACE-2.
But in the end – I do not care. More SLR from ice melt – means less from Thermal expansion.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/8/956/htm
“Validating the Swarm/SLR combination against GRACE during the overlapping period January 2015 to June 2016, the best fit is achieved when down-weighting Swarm compared to the weights determined by variance component estimation. While between 2014 and 2017 SLR alone slightly overestimates mass loss in Greenland compared to GRACE, the combined gravity fields match significantly better in the overlapping time period and the RMS of the differences is reduced by almost 100 Gt. After 2017, both SLR and Swarm indicate moderate mass gain in Greenland.”
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 06 am
Εnergy flux is power **per unit area**! Got it now? In any case, Terra is far from a blackbody. Hence atmospheric physics which you clearly have failed to study.
As for ice sheets, consider the rheology of ice in large masses. For example,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325629237_Processes_controlling_the_downstream_evolution_of_ice_rheology_in_glacier_shear_margins_case_study_on_Rutford_Ice_Stream_West_Antarctica
Atmospheric physics rests on ordinary physics including SB.
Earth is not a black body – nothing is. Physics has been adjusting for the difference since SB.
Actually read the scientific papers on Climate – how to adjust is covered repeatedly.
“In physics, power is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time. ”
Your argument is slowly starting to shift – while pretending it has not changed.
Over and over you seem to think that science is a collection of discrete independent domains that have no relationship.
Atmospheric physics in DB world exists in a silo independent of the main body of physics.
nearly all my arguments are insistance that the world and science are a whole.
You correctly note that LT Temp is not exactly the same as Surface Temp.
The conditioned temperature in my living room is not the same as the outside temp either.
But actual warming will effect all of those similarly.
It will require less energy to heat the inside of my home and more to cool it – the warmer the outside temp is.
The Surface temp – or more accurate the temp about 1.3M above the surface, is more important to my thermal comfort than the LT Temperature. But the LT temp is going to much more accurately reflect actual changes in climate due to CO2.
We have satelites measuring the temperature of the atmosphere at various levels – these and the Sea Surface Temps and the land surface temps, and the balloon and radiosound measured atmospheric temps must all be in close agreement – or there is an error somewhere. Today the Land Temps run slightly hotter than everything else. Maybe they are correct – but it is not likely everything else is wrong.
Further the models are running hot relative to any actual measure of earths temperatures
Reality always trumps models.
You want to debate Antarctica and Greenland – the same is true in that Niche of climate – all evidence must be in agreement.
When it is not – we do not just get to pick whatever we wants as correct.
I doubt we are measuring precipitation perfectly. But I doubt that is off by an ordr of magnitude either.
I expect over the long run that we will improve the quality of satellite measures. The Loss of GRACE-2 in 2018 resulted in serious examination of alternate satellite sources including Satelite Laser Ranging and other measures. This is actually very good as it appears that with some calibration we may have data from a new source that goes back to 1990.
But this also raises lots of questions – I know as an example with Antartica that there have been issues concerning what is it that we nead to measure and how do we get from what we can measure to what we want to measure.
Grace purportedly measures changes in mass based on microware measures of the distances between two satellites traveling in tandem.
But we also have satelites that are performing precise distance measurements determining the contours of the surfes to sub mm levels.
Further we know that gravity at the south pole has been steadily increasing since 1957 We currently beleive that is because the Southpole is sinking – because Antartica is sinking into the mantle slowly. Regardless, all these different measures must fit together.
And we have an assortment of measures taken on the surface or by aircraft.
All these must be in agreement or if they are not we need a verifiable explanation why.
I noted previously that the mantel is fluid – presumably we are past disagreement on that.
I further noted that it likely has tides – I provided evidence of that, and do not recall any atempt by you to rebut that.
I would note that the mantel is a fluid more like Glass more than it is a fluid like water.
Regardless, the masses involved are enormous. The continents, islands and even the ice on greenland and antartica float on the mantel – but they do not float evenly. Build up of ice causes the surface to rise, but it also causes the island or continent to sink into the mantel
And all the while all of this is moving around on the surface of the planet.
There are recent studies 2018 NZ that indicate the Ross ice sheet is freezing on the bottom rather than melting.
We know there is freezing under the East Antartic ice sheet.
There is localized thickening in the west that is purportedly due to the local impact of a volcano effecting patterns of snow fall.
Put simply there is lots and lots of data, but it is not in perfect or even close to perfect agreement.
Either we can explain all the variations, or we can prove beyond doubt that one measure is correct, or we can accept that we just do not know.
But you cherry pick those that favor your prefered outcome and ignore the rest.
Which is precisely what you have done with the MWP – not to mention the holocene.
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 2:04 am
Your pix is of the surface of the ice sheet, not the bedrock. Learn some basic geology, isostasy. And note that sima floats on sial.
DB – it does not even reach the highest temps in the Holocene.
And that is despite the fact that YOUR function will never reach 2C of warming – atleast not without CO2 at 1900ppm.
You have ranted and ranted that we are dealing with a log function, not an exponential – not grasping that is merely a question of whether which side of the equation you are own.
Regardless, YOUR formula is log(co2). Are you so unaware of math that you can not understand the shape of the curve you are going to get.
In the event you are having difficulty plotting YOUR function
You can go here.
From YOUR function the 280 value just sets the crossing point on the x axis – i.e what is the reference CO2 value for T=0.
And you can move a slider with different S values.
an S value of 5 will give you a 1C change at 450ppm and a 2C change at 700ppm 3C is 1100ppm 4C is at 1750ppm
That is all dT from 280ppm
https://www.geogebra.org/graphing?lang=en
John B Say, you STILL have it wrong:
dT ~ 2.4*((c/280)-1) as log(1+x)~x for small x. So doing the *simple* algebra
c/280 = 1+x implies x = c/280 -1
So for c=419 ppm, the current value, x~0.5. Thus dT = 1.2 K, as observed.
Here we have another example of you making math assumptions.
~ in logic means NOT, In nearly all computing systems it is a bitwise not,
In different forms of math and algebra it can mean many other things.
You have already used sets to define functions and ~ means something different still with respect to sets.
Regardless, I am dealing with YOUR formula as YOU expressed it.
Regardless log(x) = log(x) by defintion.
Regardless, I graphed YOUR formula as YOU provided it.
And it forms a nice logarithmic curve with no discontinuities.
I would further note that the 280 in the x/280 term merely sets the X intercept.
I would further note that your purportedly “simple algebra” is error.
You are “simplifying” a logarithmic curve into a LINE.
x = c/280 -1 is the formula for a LINE – I would presume you recall y = mx +b
The notion of ~ to mean “approximately equal” is quite usual in mathematics although there are indeed other uses.
You are undermining the argument you made earlier that there is only one correct way to say something that is mathematically correct.
Regardless, I graphed t=sLog(c/c0) where c0=280 and S=2.4 and that produce the graph I used.
Your sequence of approximately equals transforms t=sLog(c/c0) into a line, that is obviously wrong.
Regardless, if all the steps you took were correct – you would end up with the same graph. You don’t, You made some error.
Why are you applying a sequence of transformations to a formula that is eacy enough to understand and easy to graph ?
And FINALLY – it is YOUR(GF’s) forumula I graphed.
Don’t blame me if you do not like the results.
There is a small error in using x instead of log(1+x) when x is small. That I used just to avoid attempting to calculate the logarithm precisely.
I am not trying to sort out what error you made or where.
The original equation is NOT a line, your result is. Obviously there is an error.
But again Why “simplify” something that is easily graphed as it is ?
Use a graphing calculator, or the formula graphing web site of your choice and you can trivially replicate my results.
Frankly, if you have the experience with math you claim – you can look at the formula and KNOW what the graph is going to look like.
“indeed the warming in the troposphere (although nobody lives up there)”
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8AEKG6cpLVg/V_pnveHO5BI/AAAAAAAAKo4/OnZJZmWXBXMVMtXSRk2DibWdUJ4ZLTg_wCLcB/s1600/troposphere.jpg
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2022_v6.jpg
“I would rather that my grandchildren have a more stable climate.”
I want alot for my children and grandchildren – a stable climate is very low on priorities.
We do not ask Santa for sunrise tomorow – that will happen without asking.
“They are going to have enough other problems.”
The biggest problem your grandchildren will face is the mess that people like you make of their lives and their opportunity by taking their freedom because of your irrational malthusian fears.
I most certaintly do not want my children or grand children to live in the world of YOUR making.
We saw that H311scape over the past 2 years with the F’up mess those like you made of Covid.
And Covid was atleast Real – CAGW is not.
Why do you beleive that “experts” politicians, policy makers will do better fighting fictitious CAGW than they have dealing with Covid ?
I would not trust YOU with any position of power,. I would not trust GF, Mann, or any of your warmist toadies.
These are people who make Fauxi look like a saint.
“Others certainly feel the same”
You can feel however you want,
You can not use force against others.
“I have very little influence on the course of affairs.”
You empower those you elect to steel the rights of others.
If you beleive this nonsense about CAGW go out and persaude people, or act on your own.
Persuade individuals to do whatever you want FREELY.
Do not persuade politicians to impose your will on all of us by force.
So far the global warming, really happening John B Say, has not been adequately tempered. All that the climatologists can do is attempt to predict various consequences of the different degrees of warming. The most obvious is sea level rise. The other is drought. How is it in the American southwest just now?
And elsewhere: why such serious problems in Syria? Are many, many peoppe beiing forced to move in Africa. Oh, I forgot, you don’t care.
Well, Mathew 25:40.
You keep claiming that MWP was regional – and that it mover arround.
You can not predict Drought from climate. Even warmists predict that a hotter climate will involve more water vapor, more clouds and more rain – globally
Regardless here is NASA’s vegitation index.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Greening-global-Unbenannt.png
There is a fight over whether the Sahara is growing or shrinking – there is no debate over the fact that it is getting greener and wetter.
Warmists predict more huricanes and cyclones -and you have argued that with respect tot he Great Barrier reef.
That means more rainfall overall – not less.
There has been no drought in the US that compares to that of the OK Dustbowl of the 30’s.
here is US rainfall per year
https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.XkWG05LBc2wmOrYdbdIwnwHaEU&pid=Api&f=1
Here is SLR projections – from various models – I beleive also from IPCC.
Worst case is 60cm – just over 1/2 meter.
Not a concern. Do you know how much lower SL was in 1750 ?
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2009/02/sea_level_projections-400×286.png
You think people are moving in Africa and Syria over Climate ?
I bet you think they are moving in Ukraine over Climate.
As I noted before – whether the Sahara is growing or shrinking – it is getting WETTER AND GREENER.
You still do not seem to grasp that:
CO2 is PLANT FOOD.
Regardless there is not a country in the world today that if it had stable peace could not feed all of its people using its own resources.
Food insecurity in the world today is entirely political.
And yes the mideast is likely to get really bad shortly – we may see massive immigration to other parts of the world.
That is because people do not like to live where they can be killed. We are also seeing migration of US cities to suburbs and rural areas – for similar reasons.
We have done nothing abut climate for the past 150,000 years – and we have done fine.
I linked a Sky TV news program that directly addressed why we should continue to do nothing – which is an ECONOMIC question not a scientific one. Because the actual worst case cost of doing nothing (not the idiotic sea levels will rise 100m nonsense) is far lower than the cost of what warmists want.
We have just had an object lesson in the cost of government intervention at the direction of ivory tower scientists – and our public health experts have a far better body of knowledge to rely on than climate scientists – and yet what occured ?
We have reaked havoc on the global economy – we are seeing inflation that we have not seen since the early 80’s in the west.
We appear to be in or headed into a recession. Even China appears likely to be headed into a recession.
There is little difference between those states and nations that responded dramatically and those that did next to nothing. And to the extent there is a difference – those that did nothing did better overall with Covid – with the bonus of screwing up their economy less.
So you think that purported scientists who manufactured the hockey stick, and continue to engage in all kinds of statistical fraud, they should be trusted to run the economy and everything else more than say our public health people who have thoroughly botched covid and severly damaged the economy ?
I really do not give two craps about most of the nonsense you and other warmist idiots spout. EXCEPT when you decide you are entitled to take over the world to save us all from your Hoax.
Like you I am deeply concerned about steering a course to the least damage. The difference is that I recognize that the real threat is NOT Global Warming, it is YOU.
Insane. The scientists only advise the policy makers. I’m retired and I’m certainly not one of the latter.
Real scientists do not advise policy makers regarding policies.
Science does not have value judgement.
Science can not tell us if a warmer planet is good or bad.
I would also note that scientists do not tell us how to correct actual problems – engineers do.
And finally never never never give people who are not accountable the slightest power – the outcome will be disaster.
What bothers me the most about CAGW is that the hoaxsters, fraudsters, liars, will escape the damage they have done with their reputations intact.
We are well past the point where believing in CAGW is a litmus test for stupidity.
But the people who have attempted to deceive the world for decades – will not be held accountable for the damage they have done.
Those who F’up the economy, our lives, our futures, our kids futures over Covid – will not be held accountable.
You care about children so you say – the past two years have harmed our children, stolen their education screwed up their socialization, interfered with their exploration of the world, harmed their psyche. They will not get that back. IT has been stolen from them. We will see harms throughout the rest of their lives. We already see more suicides, more drug and alcohol problems.
The “experts” one ivory tower to the right of your CAGW experts – F,d up and we and especially our children lost. More kids under 18 have died from any one of numerous bad effects of our covid policies than have died of Covid. More suicides, more drug overdoses.
All that distinguishes warmists is anj even poorer grasp of their subject matter.
”
False. Scientists are often asked for advice on policy matters. Other than global climate changes, health physics comes to mind. There, the question is how much protection from ionizing radiation is required. Another relates to all the gunk put into the air and the resulting sicknesses such as asthma in children.
When you provide advice on values – you are not acting as a scientist.
Science can not tell us what the right choices are.
Sometimes it can tell us what the outcome of choices are.
As a specific example – science can not tell us whether the planet SHOULD be warmer or colder.
Only what the effects of a warmer or colder planet would be.
Further – even those observation – are not really science – they are engineering.
Your entire post is full of presumptions.
Science as an example can not tell us how much protection from ionizing radiation is required.
It can only tell us the effects of ionizing radiation.
There is not even a fixed answer to how much protection from ionizing radiation is required.
An example – for tens of thousands of years – humans burned mostly dung and some scrub wood.
The fumes from burning these are toxic. But cold also kills us.
We are NEVER seeking to optomize a single harm. Everything is a complex balancing game.
We all should have learned that from Covid. China is persuing a zero covid policy right now – at great cost to the already poor liberty of its people, as well as its economy and therefore standard of living. Xi may well be destabalizing the country in an effort to acheive what by a single measure sounds like a good policy.
I the US there is little difference between so called Red States and Blue states in terms of Covid deaths. But approximately 3/4 of the economic damage in the US is in blue states. We are seeing more violence overall, more unemployment, more of all the bad effects of Covid policies in the states that imposed the strongest policies.
The “fossil fuels” you hate – are responsible for doubling the global standard of living, and exponential raises in standard of living in the west.
We replaced Dung and scrub with wood – which was cleaner and healthier, We replaced that with coal – cleaner and healthier, and that with oil – cleaner, healthier, and that with NG – cleaner, healthier, and we have atleast partly moved to electric – cleaner healthier.
Atleast initially each of these transitions has been more expensive. We can afford cleaner and healthier heat – because of our much higher standard of living.
A scientist can tell us what the effects of a specific level of ionizing radiation will be on the skin – maybe.
They can not tell us what the impact of acheiving that level will be on standard of living, or health overall.
It is increasingly likely that the draconian covid policies caused more TOTAL deaths than Covid did.
More drug overdoses, more suicides, more deaths from delayed medical treatment.
It is FAR outside the domain of scientists – and even more so climate scientists to weigh on on what are value judgements regarding policies.
It is not even truly the domain of Government,
Should government decide whether you should choose a risk of death from covid or joblessness and all its negative effects ?
Why is it that people thousands of miles away should impose their values on you by force ?
It is slowly becoming evident that it is likely we have killed more children by vaccinating them than have died from Covid.
Why should such decisions ever be given to politicians – left or right ?
Climate unchanged during the Common Era until the Industrial Age:
https://boris.unibe.ch/132301/7/333323_4_merged_1557735881.pdf
The abstract is easy to read.
John, somewhere Benson said you had many egregious errors. Elsewhere, I brought up the possibility that you made a mistake in physics, mathematics, or logic.
There was some difficulty reading the discussion in the emails as sometimes they did not come in in sequence. I took a bit of time to review one huge page of this discussion. No, I did not see any errors made by you in physics, mathematics or logic. Of course I have my own limitations.
On the other hand, the errors made by Benson were numerous and glaring.
I only write this clarification because Benson has been name calling and stating that you are ignorant. Inadvertently, my comment might had added to that feeling, so I wanted to clear it up. Your mathematics, physics and logic were all in order.
S. Meyer, you are flat out wrong. Most egregious, John B Say fails to understand the absolutely fundamental
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
Therefore he does not understand Stefan’s Law. So he fails to understand how to apply it.
He doesn’t even recognize “e” as the name for the constant which is the base of the natural logarithm:
https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2016/09/04/why-natural-constant-e-is-called-natural/
He confused the quadratic formula with the logarithm function, since he doesn’t understand why, in this setting, the logarithm function exemplifies the underlying atmospheric physics.
Next, he fails to understand the role of statistics in establishing empirical laws. I doubt he has any understanding of this important subject.
Etc, ad nauseam
Perhaps once he knew this and has suffered a stroke which has disabled part of his brain. I knew two men who had stokes without recognizing that their behavior was modified. In both those cases they then kcaused automobile accidents.
David, I don’t see it your way and don’t see the glaring errors in John’s explanations. You did not prove your case. Instead, you referred to your presumed experts without providing a quote along with your explanation. You also didn’t prove John wrong using either physics or mathematics.
I don’t see John being confused, but maybe you are or maybe I missed something, You are dealing with “climatologists” of many stripes. They have created their own formulas and rules, but, in the end, their formulas and rules have to comply with known physical principles. You didn’t show that and without doing so you can’t prove your case.
You are the one with the theory. Theories need to account for all problems, not just some, to be accepted principles. If you have the requisite knowledge of physics, prove your case.
S. Meyer, John B Say is wrong on high school algebra and pre-calculus mathematics. It doesn’t even rise to the requisite atmospheric physics. To repeat, he does not understand the exponential function nor natural logarithms. These are basic, used, for example, to calculate the interest owed on your house payment.
John B Say introduced the quadratic function and then claimed that I had been the one to do so. The quadratic function has no role in atmospheric physics nor any other part of climatology.
The “formulas and rules” are those of the 19th century physicists Tyndall and Arrhenius for the role of carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere. I’ve provided, indirectly, links to the fundamental papers by both via
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
Arrhenius’ paper makes use of the Stefan law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law
which you will note is a fourth power law, not a second power as in the quadratic equation for a parabola that John B Say introduced into the discussion.
Now more heat-trapping gases such as CO2 lead to more surface warming. At this point all one can do is measure the relevant constant, called the climate sensitivity, because there are too many sources and sinks of energy. So climatologists use measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the surface temperature since 1880 CE to determine the climate sensitivity. See the paper by Tamino linked at the BNC page given supra.
Everything follows known physical principles but we use the derived logarithm approximation for climate sensitivity to avoid the overly great complexities of exact atmospheric physics. Only the large computer programs, so-called GCMs, do that. I have avoided all aspects for what goes into a modern GCM, since the simplification is good enough to determine the climate sensitivity.
And of course, climatology isn’t a finished science. There is plenty more to study, especially about the climate of the past.
“S. Meyer, John B Say is wrong on high school algebra and pre-calculus mathematics.”
You must be joking! I read both sets of comments and John knows his stuff.
You haven’t proven anything, while providing the same stuff repeatedly. Try again. Pick one specific area of disagreement and go deep. Skip all references without quotes and personal explanations. Leave out the ad hominems. Prove your case.
The above was from S, Meyer.
“climatology isn’t a finished science.”
It certainly isn’t and climatologists have destroyed themselves by being unwilling to permit others to criticize their work along with permitting politics to enter the field.
S. Meyer, “others” have certainly attempted to criticize the work of climatologists. The approved method is via peer-reviewed contributions to the literature. There have been plenty of others whose blatherings to the press have been shown to be irrelevant, illogical and not in accordance with the data.
“Politics” does not enter climatology. Some climatologists prepare lengthy reports via the IPCC which are then available to those interested in responses to the ever warming climate. Other climatologists have directly made statements to Congress. None of that is part of the climatological literature, which consists of peer-reviewed papers in journals.
In my opinion, policy makers everywhere ignore the estimates provided by the climatologists willing to speak up at our joint peril.
“Don’t Look Up”
David, I am very familiar with peer review, and so are many others on this blog. In recent years peer review is failing in many disciplines. It was just mentioned on the blog that one of the physicians no longer trusts the NEJM.
Assuming the studies are adequately reviewed, the advisories are not, nor are the advisories that inform the public. You should know all of this. In fact some have suggested that the advisories based on highly technical material need to have a red team to intentionally argue against the advisory in order to make sure the advisory covers all the bases. That those in charge refuse to permit such debate demonstrate the politicalization of climatology.
I don’t think you know how these things works.
You were insulated all your life in the university environment. That leaves a giant gap. You ought to read Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society.
S. Meyer, indeed I know about the situation regarding IPCC. The first, so-called executive section, is written with the concurrence of panelists from government policy agencies. Some claim that this is inhibiting the full scope of the revelations of increasing problems for society.
My own experience is entirely with regard to the electrical power industry, regulated by a board appointed by governors or time. They are supposed to represent the consumers interest. The power companies don’t want what is called sunk capital, i.e., capital expenditures which fail to pay their obligations due to early closure. Thus it is difficult to turn off coal burners as early as one would hope for and it seems impossible to eliminate some hydro dams which should never have been built.
“S. Meyer, indeed I know about the situation regarding IPCC. “
Good. Then you know that the advisory statements have become political.
Climate is not modelable with the computational capabilities that I forsee in the 21st century – certainly not today.
Further it is another science that has been destroyed by politics – like anthropology and psychology.
Little progress in climate science will be made until climate science purges itself of religious acolytes who can not accept that their pet theses was falsified.
This is complete nonsense from someone who fails to understand climatology, never having studied it.
This is complete nonsense from you.
First I doubt there is anyone here with even close tot he experience with complex computer modeling and the computational power necescary than I have.
One of the startups that I co-founded produced HPC’s using FPGA’s that allowed FBI field offices to decrypt messages on their own without needing the NSA. We also produced systems used by Wallstreet to model the economy accurately faster than real time.
With respect to climate, I have been part of the discussion for 40+ years. As I noted previously – active and passive solar was a core part of my college education.
REGARDLESS. I have provided using readily available real world data evidence that falsifies CAGW.
Though in more detail and with more thought, this is the same evidence that ordinary people are sufficiently aware that they mostly do not care about what Warmists seek to make them care about.
It is quite simple – YOU FAILED – the models did not work, it is obvious the catastrophes you predicted, or continue to predict did not happen or will not.
Real world data tells us OBVIOUSLY that core assumptions of warmists are wrong.
It is possible ECS is way to high,
It is possible that there are more important forcings.
What is not possible is that ECS is as high as warmists claim and that CO2 is the dominant climate driver.
Read any text on atmospheric physics, John B Say, to learn you are completely wrong.
Oh, I forgot: it is too hard for you.
So read something you can comprehend: “The Long Thaw”.
Oh, I forgot: you are too set-in-your ways to learn anything new.
Well, maybe it will encourage others here to read this fine book.
So far YOU are the one who does not appear to know squat about Climate, Physics, Math.
Stomping your feat and shouting – your wrong, your wrong. your wrong, is not argument.
Regardless your texts on atmospheric physics are not going to resolve any issues.
No one is debating the math or the fundimental science.
This debate is much like that in economics – there is agreement on most of the fundimentals.
But in application everything is very complex, and it is not possible to theoretically determine the coefficients that apply to that basic science that everyone agrees on. Yet, tiny varieations in the values of those coefficients can have dramatic differences in results.
No one questions that CO2 is a GHG, Nor does anyone Question Arrhenius – which derives from S-B and that derives from Plank – something periodically you still seem to want to argue about.
I knew that S-B and Arrhenius and Plank were all related – without anyone telling me. It was inherently obvious.
Understanding that the fundimental – and even less fundimental laws of physcis and climate MUST interelate and be fully consistent with each other – is clearly a concept you do not grasp.
But when you decided to change that – a simple google search found the derivation of S-B from Plank and Arrhenius from S-B.
But you do not grasp that the statistical significance of the correlation between CO2 and Temperature is POOR.
This is one of the reasons your hero GF is a poor statistician. Introductory statistics will teach you that poor correation means that your hypothesis is WRONG – that something else is going on that eaither the realtionship you are chasing does not exist or it is one of more levels indirect from the actual driver, or there are multiple drivers that you have not properly controlled for.
That is not sophisticated statistics. If as you beleive GF has derived ECS from available data statistically – that means he has started with a poor correlation and gotten and even less trustworthy value for ECS.
As I noted from the start – it is obvious from inspection that there will not be a strong correlation between CO2 and Temperature using real world data. There is no amount of Atmospheric science, no amount of Statistical tricks that can fix that problem.
Reardless, GF already has a record as an appologist for Mann and Biffra, after you have played statistical games to hide a hoax – your credibility is shot.
It is self evident that Atmospheric Physics is too difficult for you.
You keep arguing appeals to authority or red herrings, or constant straw men.
But you do not actually argue atmospheric science.
If you do not know the stuff, if your views are based on hero worship – then your arguments have no merit.
I am not interested in arguments of the form “my dad can beat up your dad”.
Mr. Benson,
What is increasingly self evident is that you do not know what you are talking about.
Not about physics, or math or science, or people.
Your constant restoring to ad hominem derails meaninful discussion.
As with so much of what you argue – you are both wrong and your claim is irrelevant.
You will not address reality – facts, logic, reason.
You hide behind personal attacks – worse typically false and irrelevant personal attacks.
You refuse to address substance, facts, logic reason.
It is self evident I and probably most posters here are far more knowledgeable about climate science than you are, as well as physics, math, ….
You keep hanging up on irrelevant details – and then getting them wrong.
John B Say, on May 25, 2022 at 8:00 PM wrote (to David): “You are correct S-B is not an exponential function – it is not a function at all. It is a law of physics expressed as an equation.”
But on May 25, 2022 at 1:43 AM, John wrote “S-B is an exponential function.”
And on May 25, 2022 at 1:55 AM, John said “I spoke of “an exponential function” – S-B.”
And on May 25, 2022 at 11:21 AM, John wrote “What I have written is that S-B is AN EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION.”
John seems a bit confused about whether he believes that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is or is not a function.
To be clear: some equations are functions (e.g., y = 3x is a function) and some equations are not (e.g., x^2 + y^2 = 4 is not a function). The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is both an equation and a function. But it is not an exponential function, as the variable representing temperature is in the base, not the exponent.
Presuming you have actually correctly cited my prior remarks – they are WRONG to the extent I allowed Mr. Benson to draw me into calling S-B a function.
I should not have. S-B is an equation.
You are correct I was not paying enough attention to Mr. Benson’s errors and incorrectly followed him into refering to S-B as a Function.
I would note that the argument “An Exponential Function” is not “The Exponential function” is still correct, it is just not applicable.
Mr. Benson’s references to “The Exponential Function” – have no meaning.
Regardless, I apologize for my failure to notice every single Error that Mr. Benson had made and making the mistake of partially using the same incorrect language as he had.
I am however correct that “An exponential Function” and “The Exponential Function” are not the same.
And that Mr. Benson’s (and now yours) claims regarding the application of exponential are pedantic and sophistry
I am apologizing for the errors I have actually made – not those I did not. And certainly not yours and DB’s.
Next S-B does specify an exponential relationship between Energy and Temperature.
Exponential: characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent)
It is also exponential in the sense that the rapid rise is do to exponential terms such as y^x,
And that means that in the reverse direction it is logarithmic.
With respect to your claim
No Equation is a function. Some equations – including SB can be used to simply derive Functions. In fact that is probably true of all equations.
x^2 + y^2 = 4 can be rewritten as y = SQRT(-2 + ln(4)/ln(x)) which can be turned into a function.
Common definitions.
“equation: a statement asserting the equality of two expressions. ”
“function: an expression transforming one or more inputs into a single output.”
There is a relation between them, but they are not the same.
Equations are always subject to all the laws of mathematics, they can be re-arranged consistent with those laws and equations always operate both ways. With S-B if you have more energy you MUST have logrithmically higher termperature. If you have a higher temperature you have exponentially higher energy.
It is possible that the relationship defined by a function is two way, but it is not always true.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Stefan_Boltzmann_001.svg/330px-Stefan_Boltzmann_001.svg.png
“ex·po·nent | \ ik-ˈspō-nənt , ˈek-ˌspō- \
Definition of exponent
a symbol written above and to the right of a mathematical expression to indicate the operation of raising to a power”
Since you are insisting on being stupidly pedantic and engaging in sophistry
y = (10 + x)^2 – what is that exponential or Power ?
y = (10 + x)^(n+3) ?
I can make them even more complex if you wish.
I would note that for ALL of these y increase EXPONENTIALY with linear increases of x.
Mr. Benson and you seem to have abandoned your prior argument that Exponential requires e^x
Both David and ATS are hiding beer ignorance behind convention pretending that John is wrong. Some of the sentence structure might be better written but we are dealing with Physics, not sentence structure. This is a game played by the left.
Where has either of them taken a scientific statement by John and proved it wrong? They haven’t and can’t. Why?
1)They have an inadequate understanding of physics
2)They are leftists. Their job is find a missing comma and exploit it. They are not to be trusted, but we already know that about ATS.convention, pretending that John is wrong. Some of the sentence structure can be improved, but we are dealing with Physics, not sentence structure. This is a game played by the left.
Where has either of them taken a scientific statement by John and proved it wrong? They haven’t and can’t. Why?
1)They have an inadequate understanding of physics. John is virtually 100% correct.
2)They are leftists. Their job is find a missing comma and exploit it. They are not to be trusted, but we already know that about ATS. I hope David doesn’t follow in ATS’s wake.
John B Say re: hyours on May 26 @ 3:49 pm
False and full of error.
x^2 + y^2 = 4
y^2 = 4 – x^2
y = sqrt(4 – x^2), recall that is plus or minus.
Stefan-Boltzmann Law is an equation expressing the energy flux j* as a *function* of the absolute temperature T: with constant S one has
j*(T) = S*T*T*T*T = S*T^4
This is a power, not an exponential in the argument T.
Of course we can turn it around to express the absolute temperature T as a function of the energy flux j*,
T = T(j*) = sqrt(sqrt(j*/S))
where only the positive solution, T > 0, is physical.
This is the more interesting form for understanding the TOA, top of atmosphere, temperature of Terra given the energy flux from the sun, this later adjusted for albedo, of course.
Go learn some elementary climatology. This is sophomoric. Err, or rather in the course for sophomores.
We have been through all of this before – simple google searches will demonstrate that while there are people who use the terminology as you do, there are many that do not. Many Teaching texts are using the terminology exactly as I am.
Further there is no commonly used word – not by ordinary people – not by scientists for accelerating increases in a term EXCEPT exponential.
You continue to argue something that is both wrong and irrelevant after error and irrelevance have been adequately demonstrated to you is the worst form of sophistry.
Even if you were perfectly correct that your terminology is the only correct terminology – it would not change the FACT that CO2 and Temperature do not correlate strongly int he way that “atmospheric physics” requires.
You keep demanding that I read your favorite texts – which with certainty teach the same basic science that I am using.
They may use Arrhenius which is specific to GHG’s I am using S-B because it is more fundimental and much easier to visually understand.
But the issues I raise are present regardless of what valid laws of physics you use.
John,
“Presuming you have actually correctly cited my prior remarks”
You do not have to presume. It’s extremely easy for you to do a text search to find the comments I referenced and see that I accurately quoted from them.
“… they are WRONG to the extent I allowed Mr. Benson to draw me into calling S-B a function. I should not have. S-B is an equation.”
You do not accurately understand a lot of the math you’re using.
The S-B law is BOTH an equation AND a function.
The formal definition of a function from non-empty set A (the domain) to set non-empty B (the codomain): a function is a relation such that for every element of the domain, there is a unique image in B. The subset of B that includes all the images and only the images is called the range of the function. This mapping can be defined in more than one way, and a common way to define functions is with an equation — the defining equation for the function, also called its formula. If you doubt this definition of “function,” here’s an example from a math dept confirming the definition: math.ucdavis.edu/~hunter/intro_analysis_pdf/ch1.pdf (see p. 5, and on page 6 he gives an example of a function defined with an equation, g(n) = sqrt(n) ).
“You are correct I was not paying enough attention to Mr. Benson’s errors and incorrectly followed him into refering to S-B as a Function.”
It *is* a function, as every element of the domain has a unique image.
j* = (σ)(T^4), where σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant. The domain and range are both non-negative real numbers.
“Mr. Benson’s references to “The Exponential Function” – have no meaning.”
That’s false but beside the point.
“I am however correct that “An exponential Function” and “The Exponential Function” are not the same.”
Yes, that’s correct. One of the few mathematically correct things you’ve said.
“Mr. Benson’s (and now yours) claims regarding the application of exponential are pedantic and sophistry”
They are neither. If you look through any sufficiently advanced math text (e.g., a text used with undergraduate math majors), you’ll find many definitions. Mathematicians routinely define concepts, and understanding the definitions and using the terms accurately is essential to communicating math accurately.
“With respect to your claim, No Equation is a function.”
That’s absolutely false. There are infinitely many equations that are functions. Here are some simple examples:
y = x
y = 2x
y = 3x
y – 4x = 0 (this function is said to be defined implicitly rather than explicitly)
“Some equations – including SB can be used to simply derive Functions. In fact that is probably true of all equations.”
No, it absolutely is NOT true of all equations. Just as there are infinitely many equations that are functions, there are also infinitely many that are not functions.
“x^2 + y^2 = 4 can be rewritten as y = SQRT(-2 + ln(4)/ln(x)) which can be turned into a function.”
No!
First, you apparently don’t recognize that x^2 + y^2 = 4 is a circle with center (0,0) and radius 2. It is not a function because for most of the elements of the domain [-2, 2], there are 2 images in the codomain [-2, 2]. Because the elements of the domain do not have unique images, this equation does not define a function.
Second, it appears that you were trying to solve that equation for y, but your solution is wrong. If you solve x^2 + y^2 = 4 for y, the solution is y = ±sqrt(4 – x^2). That is not equivalent to what you wrote.
“Common definitions.
“’equation: a statement asserting the equality of two expressions.’
“’function: an expression transforming one or more inputs into a single output.’
“There is a relation between them, but they are not the same.”
First, I didn’t say that they’re the same. I explicitly noted that they are not the same, when I noted that some equations define functions and other equations do not. Also, some functions are not defined with equations, and instead a different mapping is used. BUT, the set of all equations and the set of all functions have a non-empty intersection, and that intersection is infinitely large.
Second, your definition for function is not the definition that mathematicians use. I gave the standard definition above. It is not about “transforming” elements of the domain but about mapping them. Also, what you refer to as a “single output” is better expressed as a unique image. The image can itself be multidimensional, as in a function that maps elements of R^2 onto R^2.
“Definition of exponent”
You are still ignoring the difference in meaning between “exponent” and “exponential.” They aren’t synonyms.
“y = (10 + x)^2 – what is that exponential or Power ?”
2
“y = (10 + x)^(n+3) ?”
n+3
“I can make them even more complex if you wish.”
Make them as complex as you want. I’m not generally a betting person, but I would wager that I’ve studied much more pure math than you have. I considered getting a Ph.D. in math and took a number of doctoral courses in math at one of the best math depts. in the US. I also taught Terminale math as a Peace Corps vol (Terminale is the 13th grade in the French system, equivalent to college freshman calculus plus a bit of other analysis and a bit of abstract algebra).
“I would note that for ALL of these y increase EXPONENTIALY with linear increases of x.”
No, y increases as a power of x, not exponentially. You are still unclear about the difference in meaning of “exponent” versus “exponential”/”exponentially.” Your functions are not exponential functions (at least if you’re using the convention that x is a variable and n is an arbitrary constant). They’re polynomials. In an exponential function, the variable is in the exponent, and the growth (e.g., rate of change as captured in the derivative) is proportional to the amount already present.
“Mr. Benson and you seem to have abandoned your prior argument that Exponential requires e^x”
I do not speak for him. **I** certainly never claimed anything of the sort. Exponential functions can have any of a variety of bases, not just e.
Your main problem isn’t that you don’t understand the math correctly; lots of people have mathematical misunderstandings. Your main problem is that you mistakenly believe you’re correct and have little interest in learning what’s actually correct.
Easy is a relative term. I do not consider it easy to have to search multiple pages across multiple articles.
And I chose not to do that.
Ordinarily I would assume good faith – but I am dealing with you and that assumption is too often false.
ANd you continue posting anonymously and therefore have no credibility/
“The S-B law is BOTH an equation AND a function.”
False, it is an equation – it can be rewritten or implimented as a function.
Regardless they are NOT the same thing.
“I would note that for ALL of these y increase EXPONENTIALY with linear increases of x.”
Still True,
“exponentially
adverb formal
UK /ˌek.spəˈnen.ʃəl.i/ US /ˌek.spoʊˈnen.ʃəl.i/
in a way that becomes quicker and quicker as something that increases becomes larger:”
I am not unclear about anything.
YOU are making the CLEAR mistake of presuming when there are multiple correct answers, that only one is acceptable.
John writing to Anonymous:
“I am not unclear about anything.
YOU are making the CLEAR mistake of presuming when there are multiple correct answers, that only one is acceptable.”
John, the discussion has gotten to the core of the arguments on the blog. The left, Anonymous, believes that there is only one answer or solution when there are many. David doesn’t know how to build a bridge, but he will tell the experts how to do it.
Both will force you to accept their authority and demand their truth to prevail. Both are leftists.
Anonymous then does his usual thing. He doesn’t like the fact that what you say rings true in the world of physics, so he deflects. The issue changes from climatology to the appropriate words acceptable for use.
“Your main problem isn’t that you don’t understand the math correctly;”
Incorrect. YOUR problem is that I do not express mathematical concepts in the language YOU wish.
None other than sophists would have any difficulty with what I have said. It is correct. It is in an accepted form.
It is just not in your prefered form.
Now you are trying to do the same thing with function as DB was attempting to do with exponential.
I have not bother to check your definition – and given that you are not trustworthy I am reluctant to presume it is correct,
but it appears acceptable on surface examination. At least the part that is an actual definition rather than YOUR exegesis.
I have not said that you can not often derive a function from an equation. That does not make them the same thing.
But it is not the only definition.
Nor am I going to continue another argument like the stupid one that you are expanding of from DB
That is essentially a claim that YOU own language.
You do not. It is important that we have a shared understanding of the meaning of words to be able to communicate.
It is also important that understanding is SHARED not dictated.
Language without shared meaning leads to chaos.
Language that is dictated leads to totalitarianism, and the inability to communicate concepts disfavored by those in power.
Before you continue this nonsense – both to read Orwell – Or just look around at the mess you are making of the world.
No an equation is not a function.
f(T) = QRT(E/s) is a different Function that derives from the same equation.
Again do you think before you post ?
“No, y increases as a power of x, not exponentially. You are still unclear about the difference in meaning of “exponent” versus “exponential”/”exponentially.”
exponentially
adverb formal
UK /ˌek.spəˈnen.ʃəl.i/ US /ˌek.spoʊˈnen.ʃəl.i/
in a way that becomes quicker and quicker as something that increases becomes larger:
Anonymous, are you vying for the position of assistant librarian?
John B Say, wrong again or rather, still.
Your attempts at mathematics simply confuse the absolutely standard terminology.
You can’t even do high school algebra properly.
“You can’t even do high school algebra properly.”
David, why don’t you quote John’s statement and correct it directly. Then quote his explanation directly and tell him where he went wrong, If you cannot do that, one concludes John is correct by default. The alternative is you prefer to play a word game where only your preferred definitions count. If that is the case, you are more of a librarian cataloguing definitions, instead of a scientist who knows how to use physics and math.
I have graphed What DB calls GF’s foundtion to derive temperature from CO2, and provided a link to a web site that will allow you to graph it an play with the values.
In doing so I have demonstrated that Even GF’s ECS of 2.4 will not result in CAGW – of course that assumes DB/GF’s formula is correct.
I am taking no responsibility for that.
John, based on the arguments of both sides, there is no need to graph things or even run the numbers. You are arguing with David, who doesn’t think like a scientist.
David’s back-up hasn’t proven your argument wrong. He has only shown discipline using terminology based on his choice.
David’s negativity proves him wrong or incapable of determining right from wrong.
Anonymous seems to have mathematics training. What he can do with it is uncertain. I don’t know if he can crawl out of the box and see the things not already there.
SM
I was ecstatic when DB provided T = sLog(c/280) as the means to derive Temperature from CO2 levels.
I beleive this is derived from Arrhenius, or it is what GF is using. I am not sure of anything except that DB accepts it as golden and specifies that GF has used it to establish s as 2.4.
PLEASE graph this – there are numerous graphing tools on the web.
I am not looking to personally vouch for the details of the math – but in PRINCIPLE this correctly preoduces a curve of the correct SHAPE reflecting the effect of CO2 on temperature.
This was what I was trying to get to with my discussions of S-B.
In the midst of debating S-B with me and a massive sophist rant about the language of Math,
in introducing this DB jumps through several steps I was looking to argue almost to the conclusion.
First graphe the curve, initially the most important thing to look at is the SHAPE of the curve. I am going to avoid names – because that will trigger a new sophist rant. The important thing is that it is convex with the arc growing ever flatter as CO2 increases.
This is NOT what the GCM’s produce. This is NOT what Hansen and warmists have produced and tried to sell for decades.
It is convex, not concave, Temperatures stall as CO2 increases, they do not rise exponentially.
In the most general sense this is related to S-B except rearranged with T alone on the left.
This cure makes it crystal clear that the predictions of the GCM’s require something more powerful than CO2 to drive future Warming.
So just from the shape of the curve you can KNOW.
All warmist claims MUST have something other than CO2 as a very substantial driver (or positive feedback)
Just to maintain linear increases in temperature – CO2 must increase exponentially – OR there must be some other positive feedback – Water Vapor or CH4, regardless, the hidden narative is NOT CO2.
There is alot more understanding of the problems of CAGW that can be gleaned from this curve.
I do not know that DB’s formula is correct, it looks about right, but I do know that it is the correct shape, and that is what matters.
The vast majority of my arguments are NOT all that complex. They do NOT attempt to undermine the fundimntals of claimate science.
They attack the catastrophism.
The existance of the Roman Warm Period, the Holocene Optimum, the Medeivil warm period the little ice age, are all SOLEY to demonstrate that climate is not “stable” there is significant natural swing.
The claim that human CO2 is the primary driver of modern climate REQUIRES thousands of years of prior FLAT temperatures.
The IPCC has abandoned Mann’s hockey stick, DB is not defending Mann’s hockey stick. These are accepted frauds at this time.
McIntyre’s statistical analysis and proof that you could feed Mann’s algorithm’s red noice and always get a hockey stick was damning.
But by arguing the Hollocene optimum, the RWP, the MWP and the LIA did not exist he is STILL trying to create a hockey stick
Without a hockey stick you MUST accept that there are large natural drivers of climate that you must account for.
With respect to the Antartic and Greenland Ice sheets
Even if you accept warmists claims are TRUE and ast NET effects – i.e. Greenland and Antartica are NET losing Ice.
It will take 20,000-100,000 years for Greenland to lose all its ice and far longer for Antartica.
But it is trival to prove those numbers are wrong. We know the mean precipitation in Greenland and Antarctica.
And we know their area and therefore we KNOW how much ice they gain each year, and that DWARFS loses.
We also KNOW this is true because Greenland and Antartica are claving Iceburgs into the ocean.
That means their Glaciers are GROWING. Glaciers grow because more new ice forms behind the leading age pushing it forward.
The friction of the Glacier moving forward melts ice but that MUST always be less than the yearly gains.
When we start to see the face of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers move BACK from the ocean edge – THEN we have net loses.
BTW the Glaciers in Alaska and some elsewhere ARE receding – and as they do, they are telling us when the last time it was this warm – a few hundred years ago, not thousands.
Finally, Antartica never gets above freezing. NEVER. So how is Antartica going to melt down ? In greenland 2/3 of the island never gets above freezing. The parts that do only do so for a few months and only at noon.
We see melting in the artic because: saltwater has a lower freezing point AND because warm currents flow under the ice.
I try to make the arguments I raise as SIMPLE as possible.
They also all tend to be variations on the “seen and unseen” – warmists tend too frequently to look only at the obvious first order direct effects, and ignore all the other effects that also MUST be true for their claims to be correct.
John, the exponential you describe (temp/CO2) is something that made rational scientific sense to me long ago.
“The friction of the Glacier moving forward melts ice”
I had asked a question and now you answered at least a part of it. I was thinking of static ice. Friction *moving forward* was the answer I was looking for.
There are other factors – There must be some warming due to compression.
But these are small
DB wants the water running under the glacier to melt the ice. It is as likely the ice will freeze the water.
If Antartica was a Bowl deep in the center and high at the sides there would be very little melting and the mass would continually increase
If the leading edge of a glacier is moving forward – even if it is pushing Ice into the ocean – then the mass behind is GROWING.
The Only variable to this is that what is happening at the leading edge today, MIGHT be the consequence of what happened 200km away, a year, a decade ago.
But that does not help warmists either.
If a Glacier is actually diminishing – the leading edge is moving Backward.
DB is correct that sea water can undermine and melt ice even when temps are below freezing. It happens at the arctic every year.
But this is a tiny issue
And sea water is no rising 200KM above sea level.
Lets see I provide dictionary defintions, excerpts from college and HS texts, numerous published papers, graphs out the whazo – demonstrate that your OWN formula does not produce the results you claim. nor correlate to reality.
And you:
Provide links to yourself.
Claims that some book somewhere will somhow prove you right with no explanation how.
Demands that we all read your prefered sources – because according to you they confirm your claims.
Most of them written by people with degrees in communications, not math or physics.
And you think I am the one who can not do algebra ?
S. Meyer re: yours of May 27 @ 4:56 pm
I already did fix the hash John B Say made of rewriting x^2+y^2=4.
Learn to keep up.
I’m keeping up, David, but it is hard with all your deflections. Deal with exactly what John said and then deal with the physics. When you get a response don’t keep running away. Answer it based on the physics, not word games, links, or insults.
Professor Feynman would not be happy with you.
You say you have done things – but you do not actually do them.
And thus far the math fallacies are all yours.
John B Say re: your slander of May 27 @ 5:13 pm
How would you know what their degrees are in? You don’t even know who they are, except Grant Foster. You wouldn’t have even known that if I hadn’t written it here.
Everything I linked to on the climatology page at BNC Discussion Forum was written by a physicist or, in the case of Tamino, a professional statistician. I presume his degrees are in statistics.
“How would you know what their degrees are in?”
Because for most of them you can LOOK IT UP.
They are either on Wikipedia or they have web pages with a full or partial CV.
“You don’t even know who they are, except Grant Foster. ”
Of course I do. I probably can name more of them than you can.
For starters, Gavin Schmit, Trenberth. Biffra, Mann, Dessler, Rahmsdorf, Hanson, Jones,
I have omitted people – like GF, and Cook who are NOT climate scientists.
As well as those like Soon. Christy, Spensor, Plimer, the Pielke’s, Lindzen, Easterbrook, Curry … that you are not likely to recognize.
I would note MOST “climate scientists” especially those over 50 have degrees in geology or physics as there were few or no degrees in climate science.
.
The above is just the ones I can name off the top of my head.
When you assume – you make an ass out of you and me.
Oddly – it is fine for you to ASSUME the degrees that people have – but magically, I am unable to actually check their degrees by say googling them.
Regardless, you make an awful lot of assumptions.
I have linked HERE to actual papers – stating what they would prove, or excepting them, or pulling graphs from them and linking those.
In many instances those graphs are from WARMISTS.
And you are correct – you REMINDED me that Tamino was GF. I had forgotten that.
Regardless, he is one of the leading appologists for the hockey stick and “hide the decline” – he is not trustworthy – regardless of his profession.
S. Meyer, a presumption on your part that I do not know how to design a bridge.
What is abundantly clear from these exchanges is that if I where the P.E. in structural engineering designing a bridge I would never hire, or if hired, immediately fire, John B Say. I don’t see how he could ever pass the E.I.T. examination, harder than just graduating with a BEng in structural engineering.
David, It is obvious to all (but you?), that John has a lot of knowledge. What isn’t obvious is that you have the knowledge to debate him. That is proven by your ad hominem and lack of courage to throw out the links and do the work yourself. I suspect you have more knowledge than you have shown to date, but how would we know for sure? Much of the Physics and pseudo physics of climate change is on the net for everyone’s use. You have to prove yourself. John has.
I would not trust you to design a bridge. You have made too many fundimental errors, and you are incapable of recognizing large scale error from inspection, by following some claim to its logical extension and discovering that is absurd, or just recognizing obvious errors.
If you can not do those things you should not do anything that peoples life depends on.
Further you are NOT a PE nor do you appear to be any other form of licensed professional.
You can not hold any position in any professional design practice – by law you must be licensed to own or hold a senior position.
I can own a structural or other professional design firm – and I do. I can perform tasks that require licensed professionals, and I can and do supervise hire and fire people who work under me to perform those tasks
Further outside of those professions I have either been the sole or lead engineer on numerous projects/products where failure is a life safety issue – people can die, or be seriously injured. I have also been the sole or lead developer in projects/products for the government – such as firmware in drones, HPC’s, defense systems, AEGIS, LAW Enforcement, and detection of illicit nuclear materials.
I have worked on projects so classified that even I do not actually know what they were for.
If someone ever manages to smuggle a dirty bomb into the US – there is a reasonable chance – I failed.
So you Already depend on my math and physics skills whether you know that or not.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 27 @ 8:35 pm
I’m not going to attempt to conduct a class or even a review of elementary climatology here. I have suggested appropriate texts. Go read those. Then possibly there is something further to discuss.
For less elementary matters, I *have* provided links to relevant ariticles. I’m not about to just copy those here; one has to go read what is stated by the experts. But I guess that these are too hard for you and John B Say, since neither of you actually goes to read even just the abstracts.
Which gets back to reading more elementary books. Now “The Long Thaw” is cheap and a good read; try it.
David, I’m not interested in your links or even a course from you on climatology. I am here in my private study relaxing while you twist and turn trying to avoid the obvious. Your understanding of climatology is wrong. You don’t have the energy or the stuff to debate John Say. Stick to the facts or bow out.
“I’m not going to attempt to conduct a class or even a review of elementary climatology here. ”
NO one has asked you to do that.
I have just asked that you demonstrate minimal competency in those areas,
Sufficient competency to prove you have actually rear and understood the tomes you are demanding other read.
You seem to fell you are entitled to demand that others go “educate themselves”,
but you have not demonstrated that you have any real familiarity with the arguments of science of the source materials you demand others read.
Constantly saying ” go educate yourself” or Read this text, when YOU have shown no evidence of having done so yourself is hubris and arrogance.
“For less elementary matters, I *have* provided links to relevant ariticles. I’m not about to just copy those here”
We are HERE! We are not on BNC or some other blog.
If you can not demonstrate competence HERE there is no reason to expect better from you elesewhere.
Nor is there reason to trust your recommendations.
There are more books and papers just on climate than anyone could possibly read.
I will take seriously the recommendations of people who have demonstrated enough knowledge that their oppinion might have some value.
You have not even tried.
There is no error you have accused me of so far that has been correct. You do not grasp that there is more than one accepted method, expression, or term for many things. Even when you are litterally right – you are still wrong in the sense that you are claiming that ONLY your approach or terminology is correct. The language of math and science has changed several times in my lifetime.
“one has to go read what is stated by the experts.”
I am familiar with the works of “experts” that have earned my trust.
“But I guess that these are too hard for you and John B Say, since neither of you actually goes to read even just the abstracts.”
I would be shocked if you have read more climate science papers than I have.
I have cited abstracts for You. The rules here prohibit posting large scale copies of other published works.
“Which gets back to reading more elementary books. Now “The Long Thaw” is cheap and a good read; try it.”
Given that the title is already error, Why should I read it ?
S. Meyer re: yours of May 27 @ 9:0 pm
Note that knowledge is justified true belief:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knowledge
John B Say is full of beliefs which are not true, and when somehow true, not justified.
Sorry, John B Say is not full of knowledge.
As for me, go to BNC Discussion Forum to see the quality of what Ι post. It is just a few clicks for you. I did post some of those links here; nobody followed to see the articles.
If you want to learn, go for it. “One can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” Go drink at the fount of knowledge; that’s the textbooks.
“Sorry, John B Say is not full of knowledge.”
If John Say is not full of knowledge then it should be easy for you to prove what he says wrong. But you can’t. Why?
—
“As for me, go to BNC Discussion Forum to see the quality of what Ι post.”
If you can post quality there, why can’t you do the same here?
—
” “One can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”
Are you a horse? John led you to physics that make the Warmists uncomfortable. Why can’t you figure this out?
JTB is the philosophical definition of Knowledge. I would note that it has 3 elements – beleif is only one.
UNfalsifiable beleif is religion – and you and warmists have demonstrated over and over that what you are shilling in unfalsifiable beleif.
We addressed that with the MWP. First you claimed that was just in Europe or the north atlantic. then it is regional, eventually it is only he northern hemisphere. And finally it become something like – well everywhere – but not everywhere at the same time.
There are about 1200 different papers using proxies from arround the globe, demonstrating the MWP as a GLOBAL phenonmena.
I provided a link to a Google map page with the location of each one and you can click on that to find the paper and data used.
I doubt you can name 1200 different proxies for CAGW in total – much less 1200 that agreed.
Your (and other warmists) beleifs regarding the MWP are the textbook definition of unfalsifiable.
There is no proof that you would accept, But worse you accept much poorer proof of CAGW.
S. Meyer, re: yours of May 27 @ 9:55 pm
On the contrary, my understanding is quite good for an amateur. I have read, with comprehension Ray Pierrehumbert’s text.
And considerable more.
You have simply been misled by John B Say’s snake oil salesmanship.
“On the contrary, my understanding is quite good for an amateur.”
Perhaps. But as an amateur you build bridges with Legos.
“I have read, with comprehension Ray Pierrehumbert’s text.”
Perhaps you did, but that doesn’t mean you know the subject matter. You consider him an expert. Why should I? We already know you limit what you read to those who agree with you. Presently you are debating John who has a lot of knowledge. He disagrees with you and a lot that your sources have to say.
Why should I trust an amateur and one who initially couldn’t answer the simplest questions?
Some of the people being cited by DB and ATS may well be experts – though they are far from the only experts.
In truth though the bulk of climate scientists do not agree with my positions – they also do not agree with the nonsense being sold here as supposedly the views of experts.
There is a small cabal of real idiots who have too much power in Climate Science who are driving the hysteria.
I do not agree with the IPCC assessments – and the evidence is that they overshoot significantly on everything. But even the IPCC outside the nonsense for policy makers which has no place in science is not predicting disaster.
I doubt either DB or ATS have read the IPCC assessments. Again though I have issues – one of which is that real debate is stiffled.
Just as no one should expect to find answers and BNC were climate loons pat each other on the back and crush dissent, even within the IPCC there is too little willingness to confront high quality scientific challenges. Real debate would likely substantially reduce the overshoot.
And it would take projections that are already so tame as to not justify any government involvement and lower that even further.
Regardless, for all of the problems with the real core of climate science today – the most serious problem is at the fringes – both with the small cabal of warmists that supress dissent and are openly political marxists power seekers. Who rant that the sky is falling – when it clearly is not. And it is those who have the ear of DB, ATS, the press, the censors at social media.
Just as we saw with Covid.
WoW! you have read a text! Lets all bow down and kiss your feet.
Given that you claim to have understood it – why aren’t you able to argue using facts, logic, reason, and the wonderful things about climate you learned in Ray Pierrehumbert’s text ?
Rather than a collection of fact free fallacies ?
I would note that the error’s of warmists rarely if ever lie with the science. They almost always are either statitical errors – usually in research, applying massive bias to data collection or in “applied science” – which is actually engineering something professors are abysmal at.
If you wish to build a bridge – who do you hire ? The professor of mechanics from MIT ? Or the Student with a PE license that has actually built a dozen bridges across the world ?
Those who can DO, those who can’t Teach.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 27 @ 10:10 pm
as I previously state, again and again, I’m not willing to post material here which neither you nor John will read in any case. If you actually care to learn, go to the BNC Discussion Forum to find the links. Study the articles so linked.
John B Say doesn’t actually know much. Can’t do high school algebra properly, etc.
“as I previously state, again and again, I’m not willing to post material here which neither you nor John will read in any case.”
But you will spend a lot of time writing and referring to junk science trying to impress people with simple mathematics and physics without directly dealing with the questions and physics provided by John. To prove your comments here, again you have referred me to your own writing on another blog. That doesn’t impress anyone. Do your writing here. You do plenty of writing, but none is responsive to the physics John has provided.
DB has posted incredibly little science – junk or otherwise.
His posts are primarily ad hominem. and fallacy, and demands that we all go to his favorite places to get re-educated.
When he tries to address actual issues – he gets bogged down in pointless details that often he does not understand, and are irrelevant
If you can not debate an issue outside of a silo of those who share your views – you have no idea how debate and discussion works.
As J. S. Mill noted. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. ”
You are the near perfect evidence of that.
I will be happy to engage with those who are open to honest debate – that is not going to occur on ANY of the sites you keep linking too.
The high priests of warmendom are notorious for being unwilling to debate at all – much less with those who know what they are talking about.
Instead they leave the debate to fools like you whose arguments are just fallacious appeals to authorities.
We have a growing cult of experts rising from the left – and you are an obviuous part of that.
Whether you like it or not – the Warmist nonsense is just one of the more recent malthusian failed end of the world claims all mostly by the same left wing nut cult of experts IYI’s.
We have seen the same thing with Covid. The EVIDENCE has been in since May of 2020 – Almost no public health policies were effective against Covid. But nearly all were very harmful elsewhere.
The only western country that did not see an all cause mortality increase in those under 65 has been Sweden – who did next to nothing.
There is no difference between lockdown countries and non lockdown countries, between red states and Blue regarding Covid, and accross the world ALL differences in Covid infections, hospitalizations, and deaths are explained by demographics and geography. NONE correlate to implimentation of the views of “the experts”.
More and more we find that the “experts” in government fawned over by the press were WRONG, frequently drowning in conflicts of interest, often deliberately lying. While the myriads of actual experts with often dramatically better credentials were spurned, banned, censors libeled and suppressed. And more and more we find they were RIGHT.
It increasingly appears that the goal of those in government was to NOT confront Covid, but to grow their own power.
We have terrified people – Before Covid we were spiking anxiety and depression. In the best parts of the world, in the best moment in history to be alive no matter how rich or poor you might be people like YOU have been terrifying people created a generation of young adults scared of their own shadows. Depressed, anxious suicidal.
After Decades of declining violence – Covid combined with the idiotic nonsense of the left has reversed downward trends in violence.
You rant that this is all about white supremecy – but more and more mass killers are black, hispanic, trans, eco terrorists, or if you were honest – they are just broken people being ammped by the times.
If you think that white supremecy is driving young white males to mass killings – what is driving up the murders, and suicides often in minority areas. What is driving up violence including mass killings by minorities ?
The drivers are obvious – it is not guns, it is not white supremecy, it is YOU. You legitimize the use of force to get whatever you want.
And you fail screwing people over and making them increasingly angry.
In healthcare you can sue a doctor, or insurance company if they screw you over – no wait mostly you can’t – because of stupid laws by the left. Regardless, when government takes over and you get screwed even more – there is no place to turn.
This is all related to Climate – it is all the same nonsense.
You not interested in science – your interested in power.
Over time we will change – it is likely that completely without government or marxist warmists that we will slowly move to less use of fosil fuels – we have been transitioning to ever cleaner energy as standard of living rises and we can afford to do so for centuries.
But the warmist nonsense, the use of force makes everything inefficient and expensive and reduces our standard of living.
Further – most of those marxist warmist want central planned solutions – which is ludicrously stupid. bottom up transitions nearly always result in small scale widespread solutions that work much better and are less fragile.
I have no worries that my children and grand children will suffer from global warming.
I have excellent reason to worry those like you will assure that in every possible way they will be poorer, less free, more anxious and depressed – and therefore some will also be more violent.
Regardless, Covid should have given us an object lesson in the failure of the cult of experts.
So far all the math errors are yours.
You are litterally at odds with even elementary school texts on basic math.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 27 @ 10:18 pm
You could have found this yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Pierrehumbert
As I stated John B Say knows little, as I have discovered in the past few days here.
You appear to know even less and have let JohnB Say “yank your chain”
“You could have found this yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Pierrehumbert As I stated John B Say knows little, as I have discovered in the past few days here.”
Why do you think I need to look him up.
Why do you think what you say counts? In this discussion you are having with John, you can’t do the physics and respond physics to physics. It is obvious.
You can assume anything you wish about me, but that is what you do with on the subject of global climate change. You assume.
DB – the person who has come up short over and over is you.
By your own admission – you have no interest in discussing actual issues regarding climate science.
Your arguments are limited to
Your wrong
Your stupid
Go get re-educated.
It is like we are in the midst of the cultural revolution.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 27 @ 10:24 pm
Quit Just Making Stuff Up!
For the nth time, it’s not my writing, just the links I have posted on BNC Discussion Forum. When I posted some here, *you* didn’t bother to attempt to read the articles.
If you haven’t the background, fine. Then read the appropriate introductory texts by the experts. I started with Ruddiman’s text
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruddiman
“Quit Just Making Stuff Up!”
Can you tell me what I made up?
—
” *you* didn’t bother to attempt to read the articles.”
I don’t have to I read your articles. I am looking at your responses to John which should have all the information I need, but it doesn’t. You are unable to use physics to prove your case. You rely on unproven formulas, numbers, fudge factors and concepts. I thought you were going to deal with physics, but you haven’t. John is dealing with physics and you say he isn’t smart. Therefore, you should easily be able to prove him wrong using physics and math without relying others to explain what you cannot.
SM ?
Have you read “the chronicles of Zion” ?
“Das Kapital” ?
“Meine Kampf” ?
I guess that means you are not qualified to comment on anti-semitism, marxism or naziism.
“SM ?
Have you read “the chronicles of Zion” ?
“Das Kapital” ?
“Meine Kampf” ?”
John, I noted that the response seemed to be directed to me if you used SM? as my initials. It should be directed to David. We are in agreement. David is acting inappropriately.
It was not directed at you.
The point was that demanding that someone read something is not an argument.
If we are “making things up” – you should be able to point that out directly.
If you have actually read the stuff you claim and you are familiar with it and a bit less arrogant,
then you would be able to argue the facts.
I strongly suspect I have read MORE of the sources YOU favor, but I have also read the criticisms, the dissents.
Which you certainly havent.
In fact that is how I deal with MOST possible all issues.
As J. S Mill said “if you know only your own side, you know little of that”
We see that with you on issue after issue.
You do not even know that much about your own positions.
You cited JTB – but you seem to be ignoring Justified and True and focused entirely on beleif.
If science is something you beleive in – you have made it into a religion.
S. Meyer re; yours of May 27 @ 10:35pm
You obviously don’t understand the first thing about the natural sciences.
As for climatology, I continue to state the forcing equation
f = σ*log(c/c0)
as a good and useful approximation for understanding the projected temperature increases. I linked to an article justifying this; you and John B Say just ignored it.
Protective of your ignorance, aren’t you?
David, why do you repeat the same things over and over again? All you had to do was take John’s physics and math and rebut it with physics and math. Why were you unable to do that?
“As for climatology, I continue to state the forcing equation f = σ*log(c/c0) as a good and useful approximation for understanding the projected temperature increases. I linked to an article justifying this; you and John B Say just ignored it.”
You are correct I ignored your article. Correct.
What I did do is graph your forcing equation using your value for sigma and your value for c0 and you do not get the results you want.
You do not even get the results you want for a ECS of 5.
The first fundimental problem – which if you had the math knowlede you claim is that YOUR equation is for a log curve.
The Climate projections are all inverse log curves. They have the rate of warming increasing, rather than decreasing.
I would note, that as this argument progresses, I learn how to reframe my launguage to avoid your idiotic tangents.
I am not saying anything different than I have from the start. I am just substituting phrases like “inverse logarithmic” rather then “exponential” to avoid getting your panties in a bunch.
I have no idea if you have the correct term for CO2 forcing. Nothing looks obviously wrong with it.
I do know that your function does not provide the result you claim.
I also know that your CO2 Term is just one of many that work together to determine the actual temperature.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 27 @ 11:30 pm
You Just Made Up what is to be found on the BNC Discussion Forum. You Just Made Up that what I have posted here is “junk science”. The logarithm formula is first publicly available via IPCC 1990, as you would know if you had bothered to go read what is at the BNC Discussion Forum.
You are too lazy, i.e., unmotivated, to go read some basic climatology. So there is no point in attempting to remedy your profound ignorance and blind prejudice.
Finally, John B Say has simply misled himself and you as well.
David, on the one hand, you call John ignorant. On the other hand, you can’t directly show John’s physics to be wrong. That is how theories like yours disappear. The proponents of those theories cannot manage the logical science presented by others.
Whether I am motivated or not doesn’t change the world of science and physics.
You keep repeating the same things to me. Why?
That is right – keep evading discussion of climate, or physics, of math.
Now you want to argue about the characterization of a warmest cult blog ?
YOUR the one that keeps introducing incredibly vague appeals to authority.
You should not expect to be treated as credible if your response is always some poor appeal to authority.
I have already noted – that for all their problems the IPCC is at odds with you on many points.
I have no doubt if I wasted the time digesting your sources – even though I likely would not agree with them – they would not support you.
You do not know your own sources.
John, I understand many of the scientific studies are good but, as usual, limited by the study’s parameters. Much of the problem lies in the advisory opinions that put things together and lack a scientific basis for their conclusions. They also lack the benefits of a red and blue team to hash out the details.
Additionally, I have read that many scientists placed in the leftist agreement column disagree substantially with David. Therefore it would not surprise me if things copied from some of David’s references were presented to him, David would fight them tooth and nail, telling them they don’t know basic algebra or physics.
Aside from the chapter on Policy the IPCC work is mostly not garbage.
The bottom IPCC predictions – are likely extreme top possible future, and they say some stupid things,.
But mostly they are not that bad.
They also have almost nothing in common with the nonsense that is spewed – except that the scientists who produce the IPCC work do no correct the nut jobs and openly admit that public exagertion to terrify people is justified’
‘
An example of why value judgements are not legitimate science.
“Aside from the chapter on Policy the IPCC work is mostly not garbage.”
That is true, John.
Remarks to David from me stated that many scientific studies were good if interpreted within the study’s parameters. I was more concerned over the advisory opinion and summary than the science in most studies.
Most scientists agree there is global warming, and so do I. We are in that cycle. Most scientists believe man contributes to global warming, and so do I. The problem is not with these beliefs. There is difficulty with the craziness and fundamental outrageous behavior of those that use climate as a tool to control. Whatever warming man contributes is slight compared to nature. Even if I am in error, the proposed solutions to global warming are wrong. We can manage what we are facing in the reasonable future through adaptation. Failing that, we can rely on the known mechanisms of cooling the planet.
My confidence that humans have played any role in global warming weakens over time.
We do not understand the CO2 cycles involving the ocean very well. The Oceans off gas massive amounts of CO2 that drawf human CO2 by more than one order of magnitude.
But the also near simultaneously absorb massive amounts of CO2.
Contra the left there is no balance, nor rhyme or reason that we know of for how much or little CO2 oceans release or take in.
Also frequently ignored is that Climate is the sum of myriads of forcings – not just CO2.
DB is trivially deceived by the claim that CO2 makes up 83% of the warming.
That is highly unlikely.
If you have the sum of a number of positive and negative terms – these are NOT peices of a PIE. If you have CO2+1, H20+2, H2O-3, Land use +1, Areosol +.3 what percent is CO2 ?
The Sum is 1.3 CO2 is +1 but H2O positive forcing is +2 and negative forcing is -3 both much larger than CO2.
Further it is POSSOBLE that CO2 forcing is approximately constant (slowly declining), but other forcings are not inherently fixed. Land use changes was likely high in the late 20th century and has rapidly diminished. Areosols have likely declined slowly. H2O varries greatly year to year and is with near certainty much larger than CO2 regardless of whether it is positive or negative.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 27 @ 11:37 pm
I did. Repeatedly. John B Say was stuck with mistaken high school algebras and pre-calculus so it was impossible to get beyond that. I guess that John B Say is now off redoing what Grant Foster is expert at, so maybe there is some hope…
David, you are not being honest. You occasionally dabbled in physics, but yours was either known formulas or physics based on questionable assumptions. You never went step by step proving John’s physics was wrong. It wasn’t.
Additionally you dealt in conventions. I don’t care what letter one uses or the definitions of words. I care about the physics. I was interested in your physics disproving John’s like his disproved yours. Sort of like a dueling physics situation.
Your statement that Grant Foster is an expert does nothing to accomplish your task of proving your theories right and John’s wrong.
John wins the debate unless you can bring new physics to the table.
I am not aware of DB even “dabbling” in Phyics or science in his responses.
Appeals to authority are fallacious specifically because they are not a logically valid response to an argument.
And appeal to authority is not math, it is not scienjce, it is not physics, it is not climate science, it is not argument.
DB has vascillated between SB is inapplicapble and sophistry about the correct mathematical language to express something in,
when the context did not require the correct mathematical language and regardless my language was mathematically correct.
We have had about a weeks debate over a fairly simple and obviously true statement.
S-B requires exponentially increasing energy for linearly increasing temperatures.
Tha is a simplified restatement of Stefan Boltzman.
John, in case it was lost, my last response to David earlier today said:
“David, you have said nothing new and what you have said is meaningless.
I think if we took every word you wrote that wasn’t an ad hominem, repetition, wrong, off topic, non responsive to the argument, links and referrals, etc., we might have two lines of stuff all in agreement with John. The other hundreds of pages were junk.”
I would have been glad had he brought legitimate physics and mathematics to the table and debated specific theory, but he didn’t do that.
This is not about Who wins.
It is about what is correct.
“This is not about Who wins. It is about what is correct.”
John, for you it is about physics. For David it is about the culture war. Winning in the sense I use it is that the culture war lost, no one won; in the context of physics, nothing is gained unless there is free discussion where the parties are looking for answers, recognizing that todays answer might be displaced tomorrow.
I do not know what this is about for DB.
Too often he is at odds even with Warmists.
For a while I was calling his posts sophistry – but that presumes a veneer of plausibility
He goes past that eventually
David is a leftist. Leftism is his faith based religion.
DB you are fighting over terminology – not content or actual meaning.
The core to your claim is I am using the wrong words to describe math that not only do we agree on, but its a law of physics.
Further I have pointed out that my language is used in scientific papers, college, HS and elementary texts.
Further you have been absolutely completely WRONG about my use of the word “exponentially” I am using it in the context of “rate of increase”. You completely ignore that and variously pretend that I am confused about e raised to a power – which you introduced out of thin air. While I am sure you can rewrite S-B in terms of e, that is not the normal form. Or that I am confused about the differences between a variable with a constant exponent and a constant with a variable exponent. Those are not the same, nor have I said they were. In fact YOU introduced constants to a variable exponent – they are not present in S-B.
What I am discussion is exponential growth not exponentiation.
The stupid errors have nearly all been yours. My only mistake was getting confused by your out of thin air introduction of the exponential function – which is entirely irrelevant.
You are constantly tossing out red herrings, and straw men.
The entire math debate you and I have had is from start to finish completely irrelevant and driven by YOUR confusion about exponential growth.
More recently I am referring to “inverse logarithmic” growth – the same thing, because so far that does not result in your spraying tangential nonsense.
On issue after issue you keep losing.
Because I know what I am talking about.
Because I know how to find information.
And because I not only know math quite well but more important I am very good at logic.
I would suggest that you might wish to read Bastiat’s “that which is seen and that which is unseen”.
It is sort of about economics, but mostly it is about getting past the first order effects of something.
The “Spirit of Mawson” expedition chartered a ship to go to repeat Mawson’s 1912 antarctic expedition.
They famously got caught in antartic ice and had to be rescued by a russian ice breaker – because bays in Antartica that were free of ice in 1923 were frozen sufficiently to crush moden ships in 2013.
Absolute proof Antarctica is colder than 100 years ago ? No. But pretty good proof, certainly excellent reasons to reject flipant warmist claims.
I have pointed out to you that the least likely explanation for so called “ice losses” in greenland or antarctica is CAGW, and that it is far more likely that ice being pushed out into the sea is because Greenland and Antarctica are gaining ice.
Calculating correlations does not require expertise.
It just requires access to the data, a small amount of care with math and today the understanding of how to use statistical functions on a spreadsheet. Though if you insist – the formulas for the calculations are well known.
Much of this excercise is counter productive – as you will not accept the results anyway, and because you can tell by inspection, and you can graph YOUR CO2 forcing term and it is logrithmatic. That alone falsifies YOU climate models – because their curves are INVERSE logrithmatic.
Further this is not a fixable problem. Physics dictates that “exponential increases” – oops, “inverse logarithmic” in energy are required for linear increases in temperature.
This does not absolutely invalidate GCM’s – but it ABSOLUTELY invalidates the simplistic claim that All current and predicted warming is the result of CO2.
Easy is a relative term. I do not consider it easy to have to search multiple pages across multiple articles. And I chose not to do that.
No one suggested you do that. All of the comments of yours that I quoted are on a single page of a single article: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/12/protesting-justices-at-justices-homes-should-be-a-subject-of-condemnation-not-prosecution/
you continue posting anonymously and therefore have no credibility
I don’t care whether you consider me credible. The fact remains that it’s extremely easy to confirm that I was quoting you accurately with a quick text search on the single page I just gave the URL for.
“The S-B law is BOTH an equation AND a function.”
False, it is an equation – it can be rewritten or implimented as a function.
No, it’s true that the S-B law is both an equation AND a function. The equation defines (is the formula for) the function.
Regardless they are NOT the same thing.
No one said that equations and functions are the same thing. They aren’t, and I specifically told you that infinitely many equations aren’t functions. But some equations *are* functions, and the S-B Law is one of them.
The set {4-legged animals} and the set {mammals} aren’t the same thing either, but it’s easy to find animal species, such as dogs, that are both mammals and 4-legged. Same thing with the set of all equations and the set of all functions: they have a non-empty intersection.
I am not unclear about anything. YOU are making the CLEAR mistake of presuming when there are multiple correct answers, that only one is acceptable.
No, I’m pointing out that in discussing math, you need to use mathematical definitions, and you’ve made a very large number of mathematically false claims. You couldn’t even correctly solve x^2 + y^2 = 4 for y, and when your mistake was noted, you couldn’t even bring yourself to acknowledge it.
None other than sophists would have any difficulty with what I have said.
All mathematicians will point out that many of your claims are mathematically incorrect. Do you consider mathematicians to be sophists?
I have not said that you can not often derive a function from an equation. That does not make them the same thing.
FFS, learn to listen more carefully. I am not saying that functions and equations are the same thing. I’m saying that the S-B Law is both a function and an equation.
That x is an element of both set A and set B does not imply that {A} = {B}. *You* are mistakenly interpreting my claim to mean something false and then rejecting my claim on the basis of *your* false interpretation instead of paying attention to what I’m actually saying. You are disinterested in understanding.
That is essentially a claim that YOU own language.
No, John, it is not *my* language. It is the language of *mathematicians*. You are rejecting mathematical language in favor of common English, despite the fact that you’re discussing math.
When one discusses math, one should use the mathematical terms correctly, according to their mathematical definitions.
Since it’s clear that you’re not only going to persist with your original false claims but add new ones, I won’t respond further.
Anonymous writes to John: “No one suggested you do that. All of the comments of yours that I quoted are on a single page of a single article: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/12/protesting-justices-at-justices-homes-should-be-a-subject-of-condemnation-not-prosecution/”
Anonymous, the link is faulty, at least at my end.
Just so you know, you confused me. Without dealing with the veracity of your statement, “But some equations *are* functions, and the S-B Law is one of them.” I did not previously recognize this is what you were saying. (Take that for what it is worth, very little. There is much said, in so many different ways, and much of it extraneous. The discussion turns because of the nature of the argument.) However, how does that one statement change the ultimate debate where physics is involved? I don’t know why we waste so much time in such disagreements. Can you tell me? Is it a way of proving that John doesn’t know everything, or does that information dispute John’s physics? The latter doesn’t seem probable.
“No, I’m pointing out that in discussing math”
John is not discussing the subjects of math and physics. He uses math and physics to disprove some of the things David is saying.
“All mathematicians will point out that many of your claims are mathematically incorrect. Do you consider mathematicians to be sophists?”
Are you talking about terminology or the actual mathematics? There are many people that know the “terminology” of bridge building but can’t build a bridge. There are also those who can build a bridge and might use different terminology whether it fits into “Roberts rules of order” or not.
For example, in your next paragraph you utilize the Acronym “FFS” which probably has 100 or more meanings, including polite and impolite ones. If someone chose a different acronym, that would not mean they can’t build a bridge, while the one choosing the “proper” acronym, hasn’t proven he can build a bridge.
“No, John, it is not *my* language. It is the language of *mathematicians*. “
John is not a mathematician. He is an engineer (architect) who actually builds things. To perform, he has to have a very strong knowledge of physics and mathematics. Are you qualified to build a bridge? No. You might be a good mathematician and “precise” in your wording, but you can’t build a bridge.
it is not a question of what I consider.
An anonymous post has no real history. There is no means of establishing credibility without making assumptions.
Anonymous posts stand alone.
It is your choice to do so. But it comes at the price of credibility.
Others can be like DB – who thinks that GF the Mann appologist is credible. You can nost stop people from trusting people who have proven to be untrustworthy.
But when you post anonymously you deliberately divorce yourself from reputation.
“No one said that equations and functions are the same thing. They aren’t, and I specifically told you that infinitely many equations aren’t functions.”
No a complete moron.
That should have been the end of everything.
“But some equations *are* functions, and the S-B Law is one of them.”
Nope, many equations can be transformed into functions, some trivially.
S-B can be used to define a function. It is not a function. Just as a word is not its definition.
I am listening to you – you are not listening to yourself.
And once again you are off into irrelevant sophistry.
YOU have again drug the debate off into something you are both wrong about and which had nothing at all to do with the issue.
I made the mistake of missing that the first time when DB went off into an irrelevant rant about functions.
John,
Sorry, there was a typo in one of my close tags (italicizing your comments instead of adding quotation marks, since some of your comments included quotes).
The following should have been …
I have not said that you can not often derive a function from an equation. That does not make them the same thing.
FFS, learn to listen more carefully. I am not saying that functions and equations are the same thing. I’m saying that the S-B Law is both a function and an equation.
That x is an element of both set A and set B does not imply that {A} = {B}. *You* are mistakenly interpreting my claim to mean something false and then rejecting my claim on the basis of *your* false interpretation instead of paying attention to what I’m actually saying. You are disinterested in understanding.
Since you are being pedantic. I can not “listen” to you.
I can only read your posts. Regardless, I read them more carefully than you write them.
I did not claim you said functions and equations are the same thing.
S-B can be trivially transformed into a function – that does not make it a function as is.
I would further note that we are only debating this because of DB’s sophistry and pendantry.
My initial remarks made no refernece to a function.
The statement that DB took issue to was that S-B requires exponential increases in energy for linear increases in temperature.
Whether in common english which was the actual context, or the language of math – that was correct.
DB and later you drive the debate into functions and the esoterica of different forms of exponentially increasing functions and equations.
DB presumed error desribing the relationship of Energy and Temperature as exponetially increasing – going into a rant that S-B was not The Exponential function.
All of this is sophistry on the part of DB – and later you.
You were both wrong – in that even the language of math is not so narrow as to permit only one means of expressing many things, and that exponentially increasing is legitimate in the language of math, and that the context of the discussion is not the language of math.
John B Say re: yours of May 28 @ 3:28 pm
False. and on the contrary, it is you who couldn’t properly do the high school algebra associated with the descartian formula for a circle of radius 2.
It was you who kept bringing up the quadratic formula and graphs of parabolas, neither of which have anything to do with climatology.
It was you who continued to misunderstand “exponential”.
You even failed to understand that functions are expressed by certain equations.
So I doubt you are capable of understanding much climatology. Too bad.
Nope, You continue to blame me for the places your mind goes.
First, I did not make this into a deep math debate until you did.
The point which I thought I could make in a sentence or two using S-B was that you do not have the curves that warmists keep predicting from CO2 alone.
You made this about the exponential function – I did not.
You could not make up your mind wheter S-B applies I still do not know what you think about that as you have contradicted yourself so many times.
graph your
y=2.4log2(c/c0)
and
y = sqrt (0.004x)-1
and you will find they are close approximations in the range we are dealing with.
And if I wanted to spend the time I could find a much better fit.
The Point which you Breifly seem to grasp is that climate scientists are selling the WRONG CURVE.
There is a separate point that neither the made up climate scientists curve nor any correct approximation of a CO2 curve match realty.
The fact that YOU wanted to go deep into unnecescary math causing all kinds of confusion and error – mostly on your part – is YOUR PROBLEM not mine.
I have eventually gotten you to commit to T = sLog2(c/c0)
Whether correct or not it is atleast approximately the right shape.
Which is all I was after.
So after hundreds of posts – all you chasing nonsense. We are alteast dealing with a curve of the right shape.
That alone rejects lots of warmist nonsense.
I would further note that though I am not excepting your formula as Correct at this time – it is atleast the correct curve.
And it IS a good approximation of the actual underlying SCIENCE.
What is constantly being sold by warmists, what the models produce is NOT science – atleast not so long as you claim CO2 is the primary driver of climate.
Exponential: characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent)
Still right.
John B Say re: yours of My 28 @ 3:50 pm
The facts:
(1) Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas. I, indirectly, provide a link to Tydall’s 1859 paper describing his experiments, see the BNC page. Alternatively, see any textbook on atmospheric physics. These provide considerable more detail, re: MODTRANS.
(2) Global temperature is rising rapidly. Use any of the global surface temperature products. For that matter, lower troposphere measurements.
(3) Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising. We’ve previously been over that.
So it remains solely to determine the function form and the constant of proportionality, called the equilibrium climate sensitive and the TCR, transient climate response is the more immediate matter.
(4) First openly stated in IPCC 1990, the function form is
f = τ*lg(c/280)
where lg is the logarithm to base 2, used so the doubling the concentration gives 1,
the TCR τ is the constant to be determined from measurements of the data, and c is the concentration of CO2 in ppm. The constant 280 is used as the beginning year and is taken to be 1880 CE. Of course, any other beginning year can be used but do recall that the American Meteorological Society states that climate is 30 or more years of weather data, so be to use enough data.
(5) There are at least 3 different derivations of this logarithmic function form from fundament physical laws. The 3 I have found are linked at the BNC web site. One starts from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
(6) So it only remains to obtain the TCR τ from the data by statistical methods. Grant Foster did so, obtaining an amazingly high statistical significance. We conclude that this logarithmic function form is a very good approximation!
(7) The resulting value of TCR is in good agreement with the recent review article finding for the most likely value of climate sensitivity. That article uses a wide variety of various proxies. So all of this is coherent science.
Therefore, all the nay-sayers are simply wrong. I don’t inquire into their motivations but surely some have been amply compensated by the fossil-fuel interests. That I even somewhat regret bringing up, but not enough to delete.
So then there are the environmental consequences, 3600 pages of these in the latest release of the IPCC report, I am told. The universe is a cruel place and consider Matthew 25:40.
CO2 is a GHG that is a given.
Why does stating something in an 1990 IPCC report make it correct ?
How was this derived and Where from ?
This nonsense linking to yourself on another web site is idiocy.
Provide a direct link to the derivation
My guess is that it is From Arrhenius or S-B
Regardless I would like to see where this formula came from.
Thin air is not good enough.
S-B is a LAW of Physics. Arrhenius is derived from it.
I am not saying that this is wrong, only that there needs to be an actual foundation for it.
Arrhenius is dT =s*ln(c/c0)
The data I have has 284ppm of CO2 in 1850 – that is 30 years before.
This is not a big deal. It does not change the shape of the curve only the base temperature
i.e c/280 means define T at 280ppm CO2 as zero,
2). “global temperatures are rising rapidly” – relative to what ?
We can not agree on past temperatures. You reject the existance of the LIA, MWP, RWP and Hollocene optimum. You might as well reject the last. millions and billions of years of history.
You can not claim that global temperatures are rising rapidly without a reference. And you can not claim they are doing so as a result of Human CO2 without far better understanding of the past than you have.
First you are Starting loosely from a KNOWN minima – near the bottom of the LIA. While the error bars get huge as we go backwards – even BEST recognized declining temps all the way back to approx. 1750.
I beleive even you have ceded that the we are dealing with about a 1.2C change over more than a century.
Hadcrut5 has a 1.091C increase from 1850-2014.
Why is that “rising rapidly” ? Why is that “unusual” ?
HadCrut5 shows 0.582C of temp increase since 1979, UAH shows 0.3875C
Why are either of these unusual
Hadcrut shows a 0.09C increase since 1998. UAH shows a 0.304C DECREASE since 1998
3) C02 is rising – very close to linearly since 1958. ALL the formula we are dealing with will result in a slowing rate of increase in temperature with linear increases in CO2. They have to AGAIN it takes exponentially more energy for each increase in temperature.
Where is exponential energy increases coming from with linear CO2 increases ?
6). FALSE – You are making another assumption – that all changes in temperature are do to CO2. You can not derive the effect of CO2 without either knowing as a fact there are no other effects, or knowing those effects have not changed over the period you are using to derive TCR.
Otherwise you are not really calculating the Forcing due to CO2, but the aggegate forcing from myriads of factors.
HadCrut5 shows warming slowing in the 21st century. UAH shows an actual decline. (to be clear that is by dT = (t1-t0) not trend lines.)
That COULD be consistent with the diminishing returns from Log2(c/c0). Or it could be because the impact of some other factor such as Land Use changes has maxed out. Or it could be the result of combinations of many factors you have not accounted for.
I have already addressed this with you previously with my criticism of the problems trying to forecast using equations with multiple terms.
The Global Temperature forcing is
dT = sLog2(c.c0) + …….. dozens of other factors each of which could be variable.
It is very bad science to assume that the entire effect is from a single term.
Even Warmists have claimed in the past that H20 is a GHG atleast 4 times stronger than CO2. That is correct – in the lower atmosphere.
In the upper atmosphere it is a negative feedback. There is nothing in dT = sLog2(c/c0) that factors in that upper and lower clouds are NOT the same from year to year.
7). We already have poor coherance between your formula and value of TCR and the HadCrut data. I think being off about 20% over a century and a half is not particularly coherent.
If 1C of warming is a big deal, then 0.2C of error is a big deal too.
There is a gigantic gulf between the basic science – and actually accurately predicting anything – particularly something as complex as Climate.
The “motivations” problem is with Warmists.
We see this with your exegis on TCR – to get the results you want you must disregard everything that could confound your result.
You must ignore the fact that you have a significant error.
You must ignore the fact that your simple CO2 driven equation has a completely different curve from the models.
This is extremely important – the Models purportedly capture everything – not just CO2 and they are running about double or more reality.
If your simple CO2 alone model is correct – and all other factors cancel – then the models are WRONG.
That could be true – but it is not a problem we can just wish away.
Regardless, the models DO purportedly have other factors in them and they are running much hotter.
That should mean that the Models have other feedbacks that are equal to that purportedly from CO2.
If that is correct then your CO2 TCR is way way way high.
Regardless, you do not just get to ignore the problems.
You have done the same thing over and over.
The existance of the LIA, the MWP, the RWP, the Holocene optimum and other warm and cold periods inherently means you are missing enormous amounts from really understanding the variability of climate.
I provided you several proxies that demonstrate the MWP – you claimed it was only in Europe, then only in the North Atlantic, then only in the northern hemisphere, Now you are agreeing that it was everywhere – but not at exactly the same time.
Basically you are hemming and hawing to salvage your pet thesis.
If the MWP and/or the LIA occured – you are back to the draing board. It means you do not correctly understand past climate, and therefore can not possibly understand present and future climate.
The hockey stick has been abandoned by most everyone – it was a fraud.
But you are STILL assuming that the past climate was fixed and stable – because if it was not it means you do not understand it well enough to predict.
As to “consequences” – the science on that is absoluely abysmal.
You have been ranting about the Great Barried Reef – but we know the primary fo driver there is cyclones. They kill tree and branch coral which grows back rapidly. There is no global increase in huricanes and cyclones therefore no correlation to warming.
It is absolutely possible that in recent years the GBR has been hit frequently.
Global huricanes and cyclones are not variable, But landfall at spcific places is highly and randomly variable.
BTW that means there will ALWAYS be somewhere you can say Hurricanes were worse.
So you failed with your Coral claims – though I am sure I will get lots of excuses and claims that I am somehow wrong.
Regardless there is no increasing trend in huricanes and cyclones.
Next we hit this nonsense about ice sheets.
It is self evident that You and Warmists have made seveal simple errors – the most obvious being advancing glaciers and therefore more ice bergs and melt water are the sign of GROWING glaciers not declining ones.
Honestly every single claim you have after that is just a long collection of made up nonsense.
Lots of confusion fromt he fallacy of large numbers.
Absolutely the Antarctic and Greenland shed hundreds of GigaTonnes of Ice each year.
They also inarguably gain hundreds of Giga Tonnes every year – with near certainty more than they lose.
And you keep this nonsense about Greenland (or antartcia melting down next year and rising SL by 20M or more.
Nearly all SLR is the result of thermal expansion Not melt water or ice bergs.
SLR is a few millimeters per year and has been close to constant for nearly 2 centuries.
But Greenland is going to melt down tomorow!!!!
We have heard dire predictions from climate scientists – and their compatroits throughout science for decades, and they have been WRONG about everything. The sky is not falling.
If YOUR claims about greenland are correct it will still be fully covered in ICE 10,000 years from now. And antartica for even longer.
If the entire arctic Ice melted – SLR would not rise – but the economy would boom as trade routes would be shorter.
If the entire Antartic Ice shelf over the sea melted – SLR would not change.
None of these are happening – there is almost certainly more Sea Ice in antartica today than when Mawson visited in 1913.
But we are fed disaster stories – Greenland is at a “tipping point” Ocean water is going to magically climb thousands of miles to melt Ice hundreds of kilomters from the coast, and thousands of metters above seal level.
A purported lack of precipitarion will leave Greenland with .37M less new ice MAX and that tiny change in albedo through 2500M of ice is going to cause it all to rapidly melt.
According to the Climate Knowledge Portal – a WARMIST site. Greenlands mean precipitation has gone from 600mm/year in 1901 to 681mm/yr in 2020
The p[recipitation Trend line is Increasing not decreasing.
My guess is that your Guardian article made stupid claims based on a 1 year drop rather than the actual trend.
This is part of what is so infuriating about dealing with WARMISTS.
You LIE about everything.
I can pretty much guarantee that ANY fact you claim will at best be a one year blip or only a small fraction of the story – if it is actually true at all.
Evey one year change is proof of the end of the world – recovery is ignored. Long term trends are not real.
You measure Ice loses but ignore gains.
You do not understand that floating ice can not raise sea level.
NO one has time to debunk 3800 pages of your garbage.
This is the result when government gives tens of billions of research grants a year for CAGW – but NONE to debunk it.
No one gets money unless they find something so we can be sure we will get tens of billions of poorly thought out CAGW claims per year.
You talk about “motives”.
It is incredibly well known that if you subsidze somehing you will get more of it.
If you spend billions to find claims of CAGW – you will get Billions of dollars of poor quality claims.
Spend 1/10th the amount that is spent on CAGW for 1 year on debunking it – and CAGW will be GONE.
The best evidence that CAGW is a hoax is the very evidence you keep raising for it.
It is the incredible tap dancing that has to be done, the massive amount of fundimental information that has to be ignored to find evidence of catastrophe.
Looking into your Guardian Claim I found a WARMIST site with precipitation back to 1900.
That had a Greenland yearly mean figure almost TWICE what I had found earlier
Further it found a strong upward trend in precipitation since 1900.
Precipitation has increased almost 20% in the past 100+ years.
A bad year in greenland today is the precipitation levels of a Decade ago and still higher than a century ago.
What is always true of Warmist distaster claims is that they are blind to 90% of the facts.
Incredible cherry picking and deliberate blindness.
That is what you get when you pay for a specific outcome.
The motive problem is with warmists.
John B Say re: yours of May 28 @ 4:08 pm
I just posted a long comment which whet through all the facts which show that the global warming logarithm equation rises to the level of knowledge. Too bad you have had a difficult time understanding the argument. Got it now?
You are not getting it. No one is challenging the GENERAL assertion.
But details actually matter.
S-B is a law. If it is found wrong that shakes the foundations of Physics.
Your equation from IPCC 1990 is a plausable inferance from S-B without a clear derivation.
And I need more than “saying so”.
Why Log2 ? I know the rationale for Log2. I do not see how you got it from S-B.
That is important, it is the difference between emprical – which can easily be challenged, and directly rooted in the laws of physics and fixed physical protperties.
Further, there is a presumpiton in your equation that Energy capture is linear with CO2 concentration – I highly doubt that is true.
Regardless, where is the support for that ? is it empirical or is it based on the laws of physics and properties of materials ?
If you could actually directly and fully derive this equation from S-B – there woudl be no question what TCR was.
But there is a question – that inherently means the derivation is not complete. That as an example we really do not know enough about CO2’s energy capture behavior to state it as a law of physics with constants that are calculable from properties rather than empiraclly.
Just to be clear though I have lots of questions about this equation – in General it is likely in the proper form whether the details are correct.
That is important becuase it defines the shape of the curve and that shape is not a match for reality or to the climate models.
It is closer to reality than the models are.
But something is obviously wrong – it shoudl be self evident you are missing things.
John B Say re: yours of May 28 @ 4:54 pm
Wrong and wrong again:
(1) Exponential growth on refers to functions of the form a*b^(cx) for constants a, b>0, and c, neither a nor c being 0:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
Yes, it is inverse logarithmic, although nobody actually calls it that.
(2) Antarctica has been studied for a long time with NSF being the lead US agency but other countries have program as well. Here is a starter page:
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/
I just try to keep up.
1) Been through this already, Done, with it.
Still up to your ears in sophistry.
2). I have no idea what you think that means.
Antartcica has been studied for a long time, and every couple of years the change their minds about everything.
Though I have no idea what you are complaining about.
There are photographs from 1913 – less ice.
BTW Antartica is a continent – with a modern population of 1000-5000 people.
What is it that you think I am supposed to get from your link ? that Glaciers in antartica do not work like those elsewhere ?
Or that saying Climate change every paragraph makes it such that Ice will melt from higher temperatures in a continent that never gets above freezing.
Ice melts in antartica for one of 3 reasons.
The Friction of the worlds largest glaciers against the rock below. The heat of volcanic activity in some parts of the continent, and slightly warmer ocean water flowing under the iceshelf.
Thre are so many OBVIOUS things about antartica that you warmists are oblivious to – including the simple fact that even if Antartica was melting as fast as you think it is, and there was Zero new ice forming every year – we would be deep into then next ice age before much of antartica was ice free.
Besides you have another Data Source that tells you that you are wrong.
Sea Level Rise. Nearly all the little SLR we have is from thermal expansion.
This is from warmist sources – I beleive the IPCC
It is bunk, but it is YOUR bunk.
Even the IPCC does not think there is significant SLR from Antartica – now or in the future.
regardless we know the current SLR with reasonable accuracy.
Further Warmests have Bet there asses that 90% of “excess” heat from CAGW is stored in the oceans – because they cant find it and the energy budget for the earth does not balance for warming without that missing energy.
So you have a limited amount of Global SLR and you have to divide that between all the idiotic claims you make – Warming oceans, missing energy, ice sheets melting, Greenland and antartica melting, ….
When you exaggerate One – you have nothing left for the rest.
It constantly surprises me the massive problems warmists have with Math and Logic.
But then we just saw some of the supposedly most brilliant minds in public health completely F’up Covid. So why would we expect climate scientists to do better ?
https://imgs.search.brave.com/jt-JCF1oET00ESAA364anL98M09BoAVFIfW0Rzlkw5k/rs:fit:552:407:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL3d3dy55/YWxlY2xpbWF0ZWNv/bm5lY3Rpb25zLm9y/Zy93cC1jb250ZW50/L3VwbG9hZHMvMjAx/Ni8wNC8wNDE2X0Fu/dGFyY3RpY18yLnBu/Zw
John B Say re: yours on May 28 @ 5:04 pm
You persist in repeating your basic errors, misunderstanding the relevant physics. Try reading one of the dozen or more texts on atmospheric physics.
Nobody says that CO2 is the sole cause of global warming. It is about 83% of the total heat-trapping trace gas load, sufficiently stable so that the correlations are superb. So using just the CO2 suffices for projections.
You keep claims of error, but you do not show error, you do not even identify specific error.
And then you resort to telling me to read more of stuff that you can not explain ?
John B Say re: yours of May 28 @ 5:02 pm
Wrong! A linear increase in energy gives rise to a linear increase in temperature:
https://spark.iop.org/energy-and-temperature-0
“Wrong! A linear increase in energy gives rise to a linear increase in temperature:”
You just massively violated S-B which is a LAW of physics.
I doubt you can find any but the most ignorant climate scientists who will back you up.
Even your own Equation that you are pushing is at odds with what you are claiming.
Again – think before you post
BTW there is nothing in your link that says linear energy increases result in linear temperature changes.
All it says is that the same energy into two different masses will result in differnet temperture changes.
True but mostly irrelevant to climate change as we are dealing with the same earth from year to year.
And the same components.
The Climate models and your function presume we do not jump midstream to a different planet
Treating the Stefan-Boltzmann law as a function of the absolute temperature, the independent variable, to determine the energy FLUX as the dependent variable, we see that it is an instance of a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Power_functions
and in particular a 4th power function.
As only positive temperatures are physical, as a function of the energy FLUX to determine the absolute temperature it is a 4th root function.
In neither case can the exponential identity
exp(x)exp(y) = exp(x+y)
be obtained. So this law cannot be said to be exponential.
This is a dead issue – you have already lost.
Even your warmist friends at IPCC and Wikipedia accept this.
The function you and GF propose depends on S-B
Move on.
S. Meyer re: yours of My 28 @ 9:47 pm
On the contrary, all of the main parts of each IPCC report summarize the peer-reviewed literature. The so-called Executive Summary of each IPCC report is prepared by scientists working together with representatives of the sponsoring governments. I explained this previously and it seems not to have stuck.
Your second paragraph is also wrong. No actual scientist would disagree with what I have attempted to explain, most recently and cogently in mine of May 28 @ 4:25 pm.
“On the contrary, all of the main parts of each IPCC report summarize the peer-reviewed literature. ”
David, tell us who is the ultimate authority on what goes into the advisory and the summary?
Does the advisory board have a red team and a blue team?
Are there dissenting opinions? Take a look at the us Supreme Court. Decisions are made with dissenting opinions published.
Where is the scientific debate? No one person understands all the studies or even many of them. You either lack knowledge or common sense.
—
“No actual scientist would disagree with what I have attempted to explain”
That is laughable. Your attempts failed and all to frequently wrongly based.
DB it is increasingly obvious you are completely clueless.
I have addressed this and other nonsense before – repeatedly.
Nothing has changed.
Your still wrong.
Any scientist who Ever claims to be able to tell you what you should value – is far affeild of science.
At best science can tell you the outcome of some actions. Not whether they are good or bad.
Values is not the domain of science
John B Say re: yours of May 29 @ 5:20? pm
The functional form of a logarithm for the climate forcing due to CO2 is from IPCC 1990. As I stated earlier.
Which the IPCC derives from S-B though you deny that.
John B Say re: yours of May 29 @ 4:20 pm & 4:22 pm
Your have it entirely backwards. I pointed out, repeatedly, the correct functional form of the (approximate) climate forcing due to CO2. *Finally* you tried it. Don’t claim credit due to others. Is that how you got ahead in life?
Somehow I am reminded of the Dilbert cartoons. You have pointy hair too?
You are *still* wrong about the use of the word exponential in mathematics. This since a MAGA rally.
Mr. Benson please read your own posts.
You are constantly I am wrong – withour ever saying about what
Putting warmist nonsense into a spreadsheet is not “agreeing with it”
Though it appears I agree with more of the IPCC than you do.
Regardless I am using YOUR numbers and YOUR formulas to prove they do not produce YOUR results.
Not to claim they are right.
Citing your discrepancies with other warmests is not a conclusion that they are you are right.
Nor is using your claims and numbers to refute you.
What are you 4 ? Were way past exponentially increasing. Your wrong and your irrlevant.
John B Say re: yours of May 29 @ 5:13 pm
IPCC 1970 references a paper, unobtainable by me, earlier paper by Wigley. For 3 different derivations of the functional form σ*log(c/c0) see the articles linked on the BNC Discussion Forum site. Ι copied at least one of the links over here and you didn’t read the article then; be d****d if I’m going to bother to copy it again just for you. You were able to be find HadCrut and some Swedish site, so you can certainly find my BNC page.
No, once again, the functional form in question is certainly not Arrhenius; you obviously have not read his paper. Of course, if you went to the BNC site, you could; I linked to a copy.
Using the correlation coefficient between a surface temperature product and the CO2 concentration to find τ, the TCR, in τ*lg(c/c) — lg = log2 being convenient here — just sweeps up the other het-trapping gases as part of CO2. As the forcing due to CO2 is known to be 83% of the total, this is not a major matter as the whole thing is an approximation anyway.
For the role of water vapor, learn some climatology. I’m not going to try to teach it here.
DB, you are out of date as usual about pretty much everything.
You have provided slightly more information in this post than previously.
But not nearly enough for a credible argument.
And you gloss over serious problems.
I can write a forcing equation using multiple forcings that contribute 83% of the net.
All that requires is enough negative forcings. ‘
It is probable that all other GHG’s have the sam log form. But not the same coeficients and rate of increase
Until about a decade ago the ECS of water vapor was presumed to be 4. It is now well accepted that H2O is both a positive and negative forcing
It was also beleived some time ago that Aerosoles were a larger negative forcing than CO2 was positive.
.
John B Say re: yours of May 29 @ 5:58 pm
I only address, once again, the Great Barrier reef and the great ice sheets.
(1) The experts on corals state, unanimously, that only cooler ocean temperatures will restore the Great Barrier reef. II wrote this once already. Go read it yourself, instead of Just Making Stuff Up.
(2) As reading just a little about Greenland and Antarctica will show, the land level is ever deeper the further inland. I mentioned this before and you ignored it. Going to the site for Antarctic glaciers that I earlier linked, and in preparation for your A levels (I doubt that you could pass) you would have learned that currently both ice sheets are yearly losing mass on balance.
The rest of your Just Making Stuff Up is too confused to address in detail. Fundamentally, it is wrong about a science which you clearly fail to understand, completely and utterly. Try reading the Real Climate site. Begin with the Start Here button in the upper left.
(I don’t know why I bother…)
Back to appeals to authority again.
Pretty much everything that govenrment :”experts” say is wrong.
Regardless, you can find numerous articles about GB corals in recovery over the past 5 years. Has it gotten Cooler ?
Corals recover when they are not subject to numerous cyclones.
And BTW that is the oppinion of YOUR experts.
2)., Yes we know according to your Antartica is the only continent that is below sea level. And Greenland is a massive island below sea level
We have massive equivalents o death valley.
Glaciers in Antartica and Greenland are climbing uphill to Calve Icebergs and have been doing so for centuries.
Do you actually think before you post this nonsense ?
There is some evidence That Antartica may be sinking into the mantel a bit.
https://imgs.search.brave.com/Vlt8PE9WU7lc8kAUlBFg616fDRNbJFARSewwEgoiL1U/rs:fit:782:1000:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnJl/ZGQuaXQvcjA5eDYz/bWhuYTEzMS5wbmc
Correction Greenland has ridges lining much of the coast with the Ice Basin occupying the rest ofthe center of the island.
i
Glaciers STILL force Ice into the Sea from the Edges typically through gaps in the ridge lines or through areas with little ridge.
Regardless Glaciers Still work uniformly the same – if they are advancing – pushing Ice at their leading edges – they are Growing. not shrinking.
You will know Greenlan is actually in trouble when it is NOT Calving ice bergs into the ocean
You remain completely incorrect about Antartica, Which even warmist data does not actually show as melting.
Ice over water as in parts of antartica and the artic will not raide sea level regardless of what they do.
The artic melts significantly each year and freezes completely in winter with no effect on sea level.
Ice over water can not raise sea level.
https://imgs.search.brave.com/6hXeFC9ge2Zaz1WajdKzDU7yFmZJEf6FNjQzdXNgxkE/rs:fit:712:1024:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdHJh/bmdlc291bmRzLm9y/Zy93cC1jb250ZW50/L3VwbG9hZHMvMjAx/OS8wNi9sYWtlcy1i/ZW5lYXRoLWdyZWVu/bGFuZC1pY2Utc2hl/ZXQtbWFwLTcxMngx/MDI0LmpwZw
It is obvious that you are confused.
But my remarks are not confusing.
They are deliberately expressed as simply as possible.
Further I deliberately choose big simple issues where Warmists have clearly jumped the shark.
I also choose to debate issues where for the most part the critical facts are not in doubt.
The size of Antartica and Greenland are known.
The temperatures are known
the precipitation is known.
The difference between an advancing and retreating glacier is known.
I would point out with respect to Greenland that many of the facts I site and my analysis is unnecescary.
Greenland is 2.166M Km2. 680mm of mean precipitation is added each year. All of that must go somewhere.
That amount is between 5-10 times what is supposedly lost through water flowing to the ocean or calved into the ocean as ice.
You can do the math yourself.
This is a common error of warmist, and other IYI’s – it is the fallacy of large numbers.
You calculate the losses and get a huge number and completely forget the gains.
You also can not seem to grasp that except under extraordinary conditions – ice does not melt when the temperature is below freezing.
purportedly 200gT of ice is melting in Greenland,
giga Ton is 1km3 of ice.
It takes 343J to melt 1gram – 1cm3 of ice. That is 6.9×10^19J That is about 200 times the total energy of the Krakatoa erruption in 1883. that is the total global energy consumption in 2008.
I do not know why you bother either.
You clearly do not know much about the topic.
Nor do you understand why knowledge is not found in a bubble.
It is not I that needs to leanr anything from Real Climate.
It is Real Climate that needs to address the criticism of myself and others.
If all you know is your own side, you know little of that.
You do not seem to understand that this is not a game where you can refute a challenge by convincing yourself there might be a plausible explanation.
A thesis is correct when it holds up to ALL criticism, when most honest disenters are convinced – not when the true beleivers are.
My concern for the future is not about CAGW, it is about holding the fraudsters to account.
Those who sold us malarchy on CAGW should be remembered as idiots – so that future scientists are more careful about their claims.
Those who sold us the Collusion Delusion hoax – should be held accountable.
I do not expect Sussman to be convicted by a DC jury, but the press should return their pulitzers, and they should learn to be skeptical of self serving gossip, and no one should trust those in the press that bought this nonsense in the future. The FBI should b disbanded – we have known for a long time they are a self licking ice cream cone, this is just a new example.
Politicians who sold this garbagfe should Lose elections.
The public health experts who took control of our lives destructively on the promise of thwarting covid should never hold positions of trust or power again ever.
But these things will not happen.
It is those who speak truth whose reputations are destroyed.
It is the liars who profit.
And it is the guilible like you who are responsible for that.
“Those who sold us malarchy on CAGW should be remembered as idiots – so that future scientists are more careful about their claims.
Those who sold us the Collusion Delusion hoax – should be held accountable.
I do not expect Sussman …”
John, all these things are true, but the only solution is to change direction. Those in leadership positions of today, as a rule, are not the ones to suddenly reverse their path. The outsider, Trump, was the type of engine required whether or not you liked his morals, twits, personality, business practices, etc. He is like an icebreaker forming new channels and leading others away from the swamp. We needed him for a second term, but that did not happen. We require more outsiders willing to travel the path he set. We need those presently in government who have learned from him and have no fear of being attacked for who they are.
Though the rate of left harm is accelerating – “exponentially” – it has taken a long time to get to where we are today.
There are two ways to fix error. the first is to recognize it when it is small and change course. This is the NORM in free markets.
It is the NORM when people are free.
The alternative is FAILURE. That appears to be where we are headed.
Democrats should be worshiping Sienema ad Manchin right now. Think of how bad Inflation would be if the Nonsense that democrats wanted had passed ?
To those on the left who wish to Blam Trump for part of this – no problem. Trump NEVER should have approved the first or subsequent Covid Stimulus.
But each incremental increase in deficit spending “exponentially” increases the potential inflationary effect.
Democrats MIGHT get lucky right now and inflation has peaked and the coming recession will be small and short.
But the inflation – and the resulting recession are the consequences of spending.
Further there is alot going on.
I think we are OK – particularly as the Ukraine war is going badly for Russia – the fact that it is not long ago over is a major victory for the west and for the US.
There was a huge danger with that this war would result in a major step away from the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
Americans do not understand how big a deal that is.
US Fiscal profligacy will not be as severely punished so long as we remain the worlds currency, No matter how abysmally we behave.
But there is little China would want more than to put a dent in the US reserve currency status – and many developing nations could be persuaded to follow.
I also think that while it will take some time – most major governments seek to strangle it, Digital currencies will eventually prevail.
Again the are far more attractive to less developed countries.
Regardless we are probably not there – but all this nonsense puts the US’s status regarding the world at risk – and that has HUGE economic consequences.
It would be just deserts for the Woke to have to live in a world where the US was NOT the sole superpower, the light on the hill, the beacon of freedom for the world.
Regardless, Failure is a great but very painful teacher.
That appears to be where we are headed.
John, as usual I agree with you. I have been discussing things with Laurie who appears to be very poorly informed gathering her replies from headlines or talking points. While doing so, all I can think of is that none of the individual things going wrong are the equivalent of an uneducated American public that doesn’t even know what Nazism, fascism and communism are. They don’t know the difference between what the American Constitution lays out and what the leftists desire which in general is the opposite.
When they run into economic problems or feel restricted in their desires, I don’t think they will relate that to how they handled the political process.
I grow more pessimistic every day.
Worse still the most uneducated are all too often the most educated.
While there has always been a significant element of the highly educated – an even intelligent who are also stupid – even Bonhoeffer found the smart yet stupid to be more dangerous than the actually malevolent,
We seem to be factory producing intelligent idiots. today – though I do not understand DB – he is old enough to know better.
Populist Republicans like Tucker Carlson – and Trump are making hay attacking the “elite”.
Politics is strange when the GOP is the party of the working class and democrats are the party of the wealthy elites.
Regardless we have been and are building a highly educated and intelligent clerisy – that is also incredibly stupid.
It is entirely possible that someone on the left with two still functioning brain cells to rub together might make better arguments than DB.
It is actually terrifying that he continues to rant about things he is obviously wrong about.
He can not make up his mind from moment to moment whether S- B applies to climate – despite the fact that Arrhenius – derives from S-B.
And he is making this nonsensical argument about energy Flux. Factor in time and you have POWER – in what world is that not energy ?
What is it he things that objects radiate when they get warm ? Cheese puffs ?
What does he think Radiation is ? Phlogistons ?
Regardless we have a generation of nervous, anxious despressed young adults who however intelligent they are have no ability to think critically,
They are the epitomy of Nasseem Talleeb’s IYI’s – Intellectual yet idiots.
We are at a weird moment in time where ordinary working people have more ability to think critically than the college educated.
Sometimes I argue the constitution – I think it is a fantastic document – but it is no the word of god.
But it is the collected wisdom of 150,000 years of human existance regarding the relationship of man to government.
A right does not exist – because the constitution says it does – though I am happy when it does.
It exists because humans have free will, free will is a requirement for morality, and very few infringements on the free will of a person are moral.
Further unlike the nonsense of the left – that thought – and thought in myriads of other areas is all intrinsically intertwined, inter dependent, and to an enormous extent self consistent.
It is about as close as we can come to absolute truth.
Not only is my idea of how government should work resting on a moral foundation, but it also rests on a functional foundation – it is efficient.
I am not personally a utilitiarian. But with few if any exceptions utilitarians end up at the same place as I do on everything or nearly everything.
They start from – it works therefore it is correct and moral. I start from it is moral therefore it is correct and works.
Regardless the pinnacle of western thought is all entirely self consistent over all domains.
Something that is not true at all with the left.
It is highly unlikely I am wrong about the balance of ice gains and losses in antartica or Greenland. If I am wrong – that can be established with FACTS – and those facts will be to the best extent we can acheive in a complex world self consistent.
Western thought requires that inconsistencies be rooted out.
That if the predicted rate of warming and the actual rate are significantly different – we accept that something is wrong in out thesis.
DB is surprised that NASA found that Antartica was gaining ice mass.
I am only surprised they admit it and that their paper does not have dozens of weasel words about unquantifiable risks and vulnerability.
Or that they have not messaged the data to get the outcome they wanted.
Leftism fails because it is an ideolgoy of unmoored ideas that are not expected to be consistent.
I am actually surprised he Biden presidency has failed this badly this quickly.
I am also suprised that Biden’s approval is not 1/2 what it is now.
Biden’s current approval is about the same as Trump’s worst. But Biden has F’d up by the numbers from day one. While Trump’s numbers were not down because he made mistakes, but because he was constantly lied about and so many beleived crazy lies.
But again the left does not require that what they beleive is true must be consistent – consistent with reality, consistent with the rest of what they beleive.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Ayn Rand
“Worse still the most uneducated are all too often the most educated.”
John, distressing and seemingly doesn’t make sense. I believe there is a genetic link to risk taking. There are also those that are very self-serving andsome of whom have no conscience. Up bringing is important. I don’t know if you are familiar with David Horowitz. I will assume you are. The parents were devoted Stalinists. He divorced himself from Stalin and became a leading figure in the New Left. His parents remained Stalinist. I have spoken to him personally on numerous occasions, but more important I knew of him since he was young and wrote for Ramparts Magazine. He later became editor and then (owner?) publisher. He was the intellectual advisor to the Balck Panthers. He was revolutionary and far left.
Then suddenly a change. A death was involved, but I often wonder about a personality who so radically shifts, and wonder how can such a shift occur so radically. He was intelligent then and intelligent now. His autobiography tells a lot about his mindset, but there is a big gap. He was committed to leftism and now he is committed in the opposite fashion. He is quite brilliant.
What is the normal politics for a human. Survival is one of the requirements. The American Constitutional Republic is an aberrancy.
John B Say re: yours of May 29 @ 6:13 pm
For at least the 3rd time, go study a text on atmospheric physics. It will explain everything about the heat-trapping properties of CO2 and the other global warming gases.
DB – I have. It is clear YOU haven’t.
I am not expert, but I am familiar down to the molecular level.
You do not seem to have a clue how GHG’s actually work. You have no understanding of how the formula you spout came about.
They are not magic numbers that were made up that happen to correlate with something interesting.
They are the math behind what i happening at the atomic level.
John B Say re: yours of May 29 @ 11:42 pm
Wrong again, repeating you same *basic* mistake regarding Stefan’s Law of blackbodies. It is an equation about energy *flux*, not energy.
And, by the way, it only applies to blackbodies and approximations thereunto.
DB – please read some of your own sources.
You are completely clueless. What is it that you think Energy flux is ? Twinkling ?
Or are you unfamiliar with the law of conservation of energy ?
Radiated energy – which you are calling “flux” must equal incident energy for the object to maintain the same temperature.
Since you are clueless about S-B try reading about Plank’s law of radiation it loosely explains the relationship between temperature and color.
Color is set by the frequency of the emitted.
S-B applies to everything that radiates energy.
There is an entire section in wikipedia on applying S-B to earth
And how to adjust for things that are not perfect black bodies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 12:44 am
There is no chapter of any IPCC report on policy.
Quit Just Making Stuff Up.
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 12:50? am
I have no idea what you attempting to communicate. The scientists who study the environmental consequences of, in part, global warming, can then point out the effects of basics such as shelter, food, clean water, livable temperatures, …
Such basics seem unproblematic to me. But then, I recommend Mathew 25:40.
Your bible verse does a good job of explaining.
Positive morality is the domain of the individual of religion.
It is not the domain of science, it is no the domain of government. s.
Science is the discovery and systematizing of knowledge.
It has nothing to do with values. Science can not tell you how to distinguish good from evil.
In YOUR verse – YOU are judged based on what YOU do for others.
The judgement is INDIVIDUAL
You do not get to ride the coattails of others.
You are not a good person – because you protested racism.
Or you voted for equal rights laws.
If a master orders his slave to care for someone who is sick – whose conduct is virtuous ? The slave who only did as ordered ? Or the master who did nothing ?
Read the entire parable you cite.
The moral duty to do good is individual, it is not collective. It is not a government duty.
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 1:02 am
Quit Just Making Stuff Up.
Go out at look at a glacier yourself; I have. Several. Alternatively or in conjunction, read what those who study glaciers have to say. I have.
The water under glaciers melt its way to the terminus, for glaciers with positive ground slope. For those with negative ground slope, as in West Antarctica, the grounding line continues to retreat. As I stated, in Icy Bay the complete collapse was rapid.
Go study first. Comment later.
Or not at all.
You are really clueless.
Read the defintion of grounding line from your own sources.
The “retreat” of the grounding line on the glacier you cite is the undercutting of the below sea level and under water leading edge of the glacier by ocean wate
If you run an advancing glacier into and under water you can have the grounding line retreating – but only so far as the coast line.
It is entirely possible that the entire leading edge of the glacier will melt or break off at the coast line. The Glacier will CONTINUE to advance.
This is no different from what I noted before – Glaciers that are calving into the ocean are ADVANCING.
Glaciers that are pushing ice into and under the ocean are ADVANCING.
Regardless are you unable to accept what your hero’s at NASA and Wikipedia say.
Antartica is GAINING mass/ice.
This stuff is really basic.
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 2:05 am
Wrong again! IPCC 1990 just cites Wigley’s paper for this functional form of the approximate forcing due to CO2.
Not only are you able to read my mind – now you are reading the mind of the 2500+ ipcc authors.
I would assume that scientific reports are not filled with pages of character development that what is included is necescary, relevant and correct.
Or atleast that was the intentions of the authors.
I used the Arrhenius page on Wikipedia to edit and update a BNC page:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background?page=1&scrollTo=8350
wherein I choose to call the equation
Δt = τ*lg(c/c0)
the Arrhenius-Wigley rule.
I will use that name henceforth.
I would suggest you go publish yourself.
You have as much qualifications (pretty much none) as most “climate scientists” you are as good at statistics as GF – to quote the smothers brothers – “That is not a compliment”
Thwaites glacier campaign:
https://www.wired.com/story/antarctic-glaciers-are-growing-unstable-above-and-below-water/
Again – who cares if the entirety of the glacier that is past the coast line was to break off and melt that MIGHT has a small ONE TIME impact on SLR – that is all.
The Glacier would continue to grow. And it would likely do this all again in a few decades.
Further – some glaciers are advancing some retreating. that is normal.
Nothing consequential will occur unless the melt of land Ice significantly exceeds the creation of new land ice as a result of precipitation.
That is not the case.
What ?I do not understand regarding you and warmests – is why you think there is something consequential happening to ice in places that are always or 99.99% of the time below freezing.
Absolutely you can melt ice on antartica and greenland. But none of the ways that Ice will melt in a island or Continent that is below freezing are going to be fundimentaly different if the Temp was a few C colder.
The rate of melt from friction will be the same, The rate of ice transitioning from land to sea and melting will be coupled to the amount of precipitation falling on the land – not the temperature – so long as that temp is always below freezing.
The rate of sublimation – will be about the same.
I beleive your satelite thermal images showed purportedly warm ice that might be melting – on a few hourse of a single day in mid june – possibly the only MOMENT year round that Greenland is above freezing – MAYBE.
I would further not that your false color image only tells us the ice is warmer than at another time, not whether it is melting.
ICE at -4C is warmer than ice at -10C – neither are melting.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 01 @ 5:54 pm
Too mAny errors to correct all, once again. As for the role of H2O is regulating the surface temperature, do note that water vapor is temperature controlled. Here you are:
https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
And again:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Us humans what done it.
Well, yes, anthropogenic carbon dioxide is responsible for about 83% of the global warming:
https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/carbon-dioxide-causes-80-global-warming
You do not seem to understand math. While the actual strngth of the contribution of CO2 is not credibly established,
An equally important factor that you miss is that the ultimate forcing is the sum of numerous positive and negative forcings.
Some but not all of which may be relatively stable.
Some may be small, some may be very large and many are negative.
The various forcing are NOT a pie chart
1 + -2 + 0.5 + 1.5 ….
Is 1 100% ?
One of many reasons the climate models are so complex is that there are a long list of forcings
And as I stated before – from the start H20 was much larger than CO2 – but CO2 was supposed to increase H20.
Turns out H2O is a very strong positive forcing. but it is also a very strong negative forcing.
But provide us all another Cooke link telling us not to beleive our own lying eyes or CERN or ….
S. Meyer re: yours of May 28 @ 10:50+
Each IPCC Executive Summary is unanimously approved by all participants in the drafting.
As for the science, the debate is in the peer-reviewed literature; one has to keep up. As I stated, the IPCC sections summarize the scientific knowledge.
And indeed, no knowledgable scientist would take exception to my BNC Discussion Forum links and hence the summary here of May 25 @ 12:28 am. I’ll ask, in case someone has some time to spare.
David, you need to keep up. You are talking about consensus science. Were our greatest Nobel Prize winners in the sciences consensus scientists?
There is always debate, but in the end the head decides what goes into the advisory and the summary. We don’t hear contrary opinions.
You obviously don’t read studies any longer. They might be peer reviewed, but the advisory isn’t and peer reviewed isn’t what it used to be.
“And indeed, no knowledgable scientist would take exception to my BNC Discussion Forum links”
If your statements on BNC reflect what you say here, true scientists would laugh mainly because you are anti-science and secondarily because your were wrong too many times, deflecting most of the time.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 28 @ 11:55 pm
You don’t know what you are talking about. Read the Executive Summary from any of the IPCC reports.
“contrary opinions”: this is scientific discourse, not an opinion poll. You are Just Making Stuff Up again.
If by studies you mean the peer-reviewed literature, yes I do read it. If you had bothered to go to the BNC Discussion Form you would note that I even link to peer-reviewed articles. Quit Just Making Stuff Up.
And I’m not anti-science nor have I been wrong in my comments here. Quit Just Making Stuff Up.
David, you have said nothing new and what you have said is meaningless.
I think if we took every word you wrote that wasn’t an ad hominem, repetition, wrong, off topic, non responsive to the argument, links and referrals, etc., we might have two lines of stuff all in agreement with John. The other hundreds of pages were junk.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 29 @ 8:20 am
Protective of your ignorance, are you not? Let’s see: recently you couldn’t read what I wrote about urine without mistaking it. I have, repeatedly, corrected John B Say about energy, temperature and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He is protective of his ignorance as as well. I attempted to correct John B Say about standard mathematics regarding the word “exponential function” and “exponential growth”; I guess he couldn’t bother to read the Wikipedia pages on these matters.
As for CO2 changing the climate, I’ve done the attributions correctly, but your are too ignorant to follow it. But then I suggest reading “The Long Thaw” but you and John B Say are too protective of your ignorance to give it a try.
So I conclude that this is essential hopeless. You are in the thrall of the snake oil pitchman.
“you couldn’t read what I wrote about urine without mistaking it. “
David, you said: “If one just drinks urine, one dies.” That is not true and I explained it. You keep making errors without correcting yourself. Let’s start with this example. Then we can see who doesn’t know what he is talking about. Unfortunately you will disappear, or at least you will not respond directly explaining your quote on urine.
I have read what you have written and it is more of the same. Error, ignorance and incompetence.
DB youare of in never never land.
There are likely some poorly edicated Warmists who would buy the nonsense you are selling
But you are litterally undermining the foundations of Climate science.
You can not possibly have read the tomes you are selling.
Maybe GF can explain S-B to you – wait he is a stistician.
Do you understand how CO2 works as GHG – a CO2 molecule is struck by radiant energy and it radiates a different frequency back in a different direction.
At its core this is particle physics – and S-B applies.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 29 @ 5:56 pm
Go ahead! Drink *just* urine, nothing else!
I suggest you ask your doctor about that before you start.
“Go ahead! Drink *just* urine, nothing else! I suggest you ask your doctor about that before you start.”
You stated that one would die if they drank urine. You were wrong. There are people that drink their urine for “health” benefits. Doctors will tell you it won’t kill you but too much of anything will.
You have been consistently wrong and are wrong on this issue as well, but note how you refuse to admit it.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 29 @ 6:48 pm
You misquote me. I stated *just*.
The waste products in urine are *waste* and are therefore expelled. Accumulating these is poisonous. Which is what happens if those chemicals are not diluted.
Don’t know any basic biology, do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urophagia
Army Field Manual states not to drink urine just like don’t drink sea water.
“Army Field Manual states not to drink urine just like don’t drink sea water.”
David, presently you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole you dug. You proved yourself a fraud. You didn’t know all these things and had to be told even after you accused others of not knowing. I gave you the full answer and it is sickening to know professors use your type of fraud on students.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 29 @ 8:43 pm
Well, the point was to shows that you can’t read what I write. I asserted *just*. You left that out. I called out on it.
On this stupid point I am correct. I don’t know just which insanity will overwhelm someone who *just* drinks urine, but I have read about the deaths of individuals who *just* drank sea water.
On the general point of biology, I am correct. Ingesting waster products is bad for health. Those are wastes for a reason.
But back to climatology, please. Oh, I forgot, you are too protective of your ignorance to bother to learn any…
David, you showed yourself to be a disingenuous fraud. Your words, ” urinate your drinking water.” shows how you soil everything you touch. Now you know you can drink your urine, and if you only drink *just* urine or *just* water, you will eventually die. Wow, your intellect, or lack thereof, takes you everywhere.
“On this stupid point I am correct.”
Not really. You pull an ace of spades from a pack of Ace of spades. To you, x=2y is not the same as 2y=x leading you to tell everyone else they are wrong. You are math-challenged and rely on memorization rather than the ability to calculate.
“but I have read about the deaths of individuals who *just* drank sea water.”
And you thought the same about urine, but you can’t admit it, just like you can’t admit you believe in the myths of global warming.
“On the general point of biology, I am correct. Ingesting waster products is bad for health. Those are wastes for a reason.”
That is wrong as well. What is waste for one organism is supper for another. You think CO2 is a waste product, but CO2 causes plants to grow.
“But back to climatology, please. Oh, I forgot, you are too protective of your ignorance to bother to learn any.”
You know a lot about the subject of climatology. The only problem is that almost everything you know is wrong. When faced with physics-based climatology, you resort to being a disingenuous fraud.
S. Meyer re: yours of May 30 @ 12:26 am
Fine! You just go ahead and breath in *solely* what you exhale.
Been nice knowing you.
“Fine! You just go ahead and breath in *solely* what you exhale.”
David, there is no need for me to do so. I do not hyperventilate, but you do not know what that means. Sometimes breathing in what you exhale is a treatment. You sound like an excitable guy who might have experienced bouts of anxiety expressed through hyperventillation. Use a paper bag.
The above example is another case where CO2 is needed. Breathing into a paper bag permits you to rebreathe CO2 replenishing it after one of your bouts of hysteria where hyperventilation existed.
You do not seem to know the fundamentals of any of the discussions you engage. Your understanding lags, whether discussing CO2 in the body or the CO2 in the atmosphere.
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 1:16 am
Actually, it is not particle physics. It is atmospheric physics. In detail much more complicated than the constitutive Stefan’s Law.
It is actually particle physics. It is literally about radiation (you know those energy fluxy things) striking CO2 molecules being absorbed and then being re-radiated.
It is exactly what is described in planks law.
Here is a simple version.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
John B Say re: yours on May 29 @ 11:30 pm
About Antarctica, try just reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thwaites_Glacier
Perfect example of Warmist fear mongering – the fastest ADVANCING glacier in Antartica is “vulnerable to retreat” ?.
The Grounding line as used in your example means nothing more than that ocean water is undercutting the leading edge of the glacier
That MAY be a sign of Global Warming – it also may be the result of normal ocean current cycles. It is NOT a sign of a glacier in retreat.
So long as the Glacier is flowing forward – the farthest back the grounding line can go is the sea level line.
The fact that the glacier is movingf Forward FAST is evidence that it is GAINING mass
Again Glaciers do not move forward through magic – they move as a result of the force of gravity on the Ice behind them.
The greater the mass the greater the force of gravity which is what pushes glaciers forward.
The only caveat to this is the speed of the leading edge is likely a factor of the mass in the recent past not at the moment.
And once again like Greenland antarctica is 14,200,000 km2
26,500,000 gigatons of Ice
From Wikipedia
“Satellite measurements by NASA indicate a still increasing sheet thickness above the continent, outweighing the losses at the edge.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
But lets assume that Antartica is actually shedding 200gT of ice per year. It is actually gaining about that much,
That would Still take 150,000 years for Antartica to be ice free.
You do not grasp the extent to which dumping tens of billions of dollars in research money into CAGW guarantees that scientists will ALWAYS find some way to claim that anything they find is evidence of warming.
We can be absolutely assured that as a result of Covid and the massive future research spending that it drives that scientists will terrify us constantly about the prospects of the next pendemic – which they will tell u will be worse and is a few years at most away.
Covid was a once a century event – BARELY the 1918 Spanish Flu was much worse.
We will likely see something like Covid once more in the next 100 years.
But you can be assured that health experts will terrify us of it.
And will be paid well by government to do so.
Vulnerable to retreat? Yes, like Icy Bay did. So the glaciologists want further campaigns to study Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers. Currently there is a unknown, unquantified risk.
However, the more recent NASA study you provide is of interest. It illustrates why more research is desirable. It certainly isn’t warmerism, whatever that nonsense might be.
Whjenever you here the word “vulnerable” in any context – it pretty much means you are about to be sold a bill of goods.
Unquantifiable risk is the same as – what follows is not science.
Regardless this is trivial there is a quantifiable risk that the lead of the glacier will melt back to the coast where it will remain as more ice is pushed into the ocean.
Not the end of the world.
Again – phrases like “Vulnerable to retreat” and “unquantifiable risk” have no place in science at all.
If you can not quantify the risk you can not justify doing anything about it.
This is again one of the moral failures of the left.
You presume that by saying “the sky is falling” – you are justified and taking what ever action you wish to thwart that.
Even if you actually PROVED the sky was falling, you would STILL be required to prove your remedy would work.
Phrases like “vulnerable to retreat” and “unquantifiable risk” bypass your obligation to prove actual risk AND prove actual effectiveness before FORCING Remedy’s that have nothing to do with the purported problkem on all.
I would note YOUR Icy Bay Glacier has had 3 large advances and retreats in the past 4000 years.
I thought that there have only been large swings in climate since 1880 ?
As is typical YOUR claims about Icy Bay – even when they slightly support some claim of yours – also undermine many of your other claims.
There are few if any places on earth where ‘climate” has remained fixed over the past 2000 years – or any period you choose.
The only really long periods of stability were the ice ages.
I would further note that the conditiions are Icy Bay and Antarctica are radically different. Icy Bay is retreating. It is retreating on land.
While antartic glaciers are ADVANCING – while the portion in the ocean is being undercut by sea water that is above freezing.
A sign that there are problems in Aantartica or Greenland would be LESS ice loss per year – SLOWING flow of Ice and the Ice retreating onto land and exposing Antartic or Greenland land that has not been seen in 100,000 years.
More Ice or water flowing to the ocean means the Glaciers and ice sheets are HEAVIER and Pushing harder to the sea.
Despite the NASA study I linked – that does not mean I have confidence in more studies.
NASA has been oscilating over Antartica for decades.
There isevidence that Antartica is sinking into the mantel slightly – because of the increasing mass of the ice.
We should not forget that the mantel is a fluid, that continents and even oceans float on. more water in the ocean causes the oceans to sink and the continents to rise.
More Ice on land causes the continets to sink and the oceans to rise.
Warming water changes volume but not mass – Sea Level rises but continets do not rise and oceans do not sink.
All fo this is going on at the same time and not in the same way accross the planet.
I am far more trusting of measures of precipitation in greenland and antartica than satelite altimeters, In theory with really good instruments and no bias, it is possible to get the ice thickness right.
But NASA measurements in the past have reach conclusions that were completely wrong – given FULL knowledge of the facts.
Precipitation measures are easy. They need not be taken real time. They are not fooled by the way the continent rises and falls in the mantel.
Further we have very short histories with most satellite measures.
How can you tell what the satellite measured ice thickness would have been 40 years ago ?
But we can know whether the Ice grew or shrank this year from Precipitation.
I hope and expect we will get better over time with other means of measuring.
We have been measuring LT temps from satellites for 45 years. we know what we are measuring. we know how well we are measuring it.
We have been measuring sea ice extents by satellite for decades – we are likely pretty good at that. We have not been measuring ice thickness by satellite for very long.
We do not have past data for trends, we also need losts of earth measures to calibrate the satellites, and we have many ways we could go wrong.
I am glad the more recent NASA work says the ice is growing. But that does not mean i think it is trustworthy yet.
I would note – that is NOT a condemnation – it often takes alot of effort to get things right.
The UAH and RSS measures had lots of problems at the start. These were all hashed out in public over more than a decade. The raw data was and is available to all.
Christy and Spensor were MOSTLY Right, but they got somethings wrong. Further the collaboration/competition with RSS serves everyone well.
RSS still runs SLIGHTLY hotter than UAH (using the same data) but the difference is tiny. Both are far closer to each other than to the Surface measures. Which are themselves far more different than the satellites.
I would note that you hear ALL the studies that claim that things are warming disasterously, and you rarely if ever hear the later retraction or the new study that says something different
You also hear all the studies that are really about something else – but have a throw away line about CAGW in order to secure current and future funding.
As I said before – throw tens of billions into CAGW research – and you can be sure that you will get lots of evidence of what you are looking for.
“Oh, no, the spots on yellow spotted lousiana bullfrogs are turning blue – most be global warming, thank you for the check and here is my next study for you to fund”
John B Say re: yoursd of Memorial @ 9:48 am
A fast advancing glacier might be thinning and losing mass as the snout extends to the melt zone. Or in the case of Antarctica, where the ice becomes a floating shelf, hence contributing to sea level rise.
You *could* learn some glaciology beforehand so that you don’t just demonstrate your ignorance of the matter at hand.
You conflate different things pretending they are the same.
FAST or SLOW all land ice that melts contributes to SLR. Even if it does not melt until it is in the ocean.
BUT all precipitation that freezes on land REDUCES SLR.
A fast moving glacier means that the Mass behind it is increasing, and that near certainly means the loses at the leading edge are less than the gains back on the continent.
Further a growing glacier – i.e. A fast moving one (in most cases) must be reducing SLR more than increasing it.
I would further note that glaciers all over the world are declining, and glaciers all over the world are advancing.
Outside of Greenland and antartica these contribute next to nothing to SLR – there is just far too much water in greenland and antartica.
But they are a measure of what is occuring locally.
And often times as they decline they also tell us what past climate was like. The Denali glacier in Alaska = which Obama infamously used as an example of CAGW – IS declining now.
But in doing so it is exposing tree stumps it burried a few 100 years ago as it advanced. In otherwords Alaska was warmer than it i now when those Trees grew a couple of hundred years ago.
It is important to look at more than the surface.
I linked you to That which is seen and that wihich is unseen.
It is nearly always what is NOT obvious that has the greatest impact.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 01 @ 7:15 pm
The mantel is certainly not a fluid! I would have supposed that you learned well about the stress-strain tensor for materials. No structural engineer are you!
As one learns in the first course of geology, the continents are sima floating on the sial of the mantle. Isotascy obtains so the rock is depressed under the ice. I think that I posted this before; do try to keep up and avoid *so much* inanity!
Of course the mantel is fluid.
Wikipedia
“The Earth’s mantle is a layer of silicate rock between the crust and the outer core. Its mass of 4.01 × 1024 kg is 67% the mass of the Earth.[1] It has a thickness of 2,900 kilometres (1,800 mi) making up about 84% of Earth’s volume. It is predominantly solid but in geological time it behaves as a viscous fluid. Partial melting of the mantle at mid-ocean ridges produces oceanic crust, and partial melting of the mantle at subduction zones produces continental crust.”
“The mantle makes up 84% of the Earth by volume, compared to 15% in the core and the remainder being taken up by the crust. While it is predominantly solid, it behaves like a viscous fluid due to the fact that temperatures are close to the melting point in this layer.”
And most importantly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
“:Isotascy obtains so the rock is depressed under the ice. ”
It would help if when you post you are clear about what and where you are talking about
Regardless, if you look up your own words you make my point.
i would suggest that you might use words that you actually understand.
“Isostasy (Greek ísos “equal”, stásis “standstill”) or isostatic equilibrium is the state of gravitational equilibrium between Earth’s crust (or lithosphere) and mantle such that the crust “floats” at an elevation that depends on its thickness and density. ”
I would also suggest that you read what I wrote – not run off into flights of fancy assuming I must mean more or less than I wrote.
Antarctica is losing it:
https://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
You might as well be citing Der Sturmer.
Do you have an actual scientific paper or a REPUTABLE source ?
Preferably more than one – say 1200 since that is the number of papers finding the MWP accross the globe that you reject.
John B Say, re: yours of Jun 01 @ 8:39 pm
Wrong again. A fast moving glacier might be because of incresed lubrication from melt water flowing under the glacier.
Learn some actual glaciology, hmmm?
You really are clueless.
And What Melts the ice to create melt water under the glacier ? Friction.
In some parts of the world you can get away with the pretense that ambient air temperatures are melting glacial ice on the surface – but not 100’s and 1000’s of meters below the surface.
At the bottom of a glacier the temperatures are 0C at the MOST – but for friction (or alternately significant heat from the earth)
This is even more true in Antartica where the Surface temperature is below freezing 99.99% of the time 99.99% of the continent.
Melt water acts as a lubricant, and the more weight on the glacier the more friction the more heat the more melt water.
The sun does not get 1000m down into a glacier.
John B Say, re: yours of May 26 @ 3:57 pm
The equation
y = x^2
gives y as a function of the variable x. Therein y is a power of x, the 2nd power, as the exponent is 2.
The equation
y = 2^x
gives y as a function of the variable x. Therin y is an exponential in the variable x, to the base 2. We say that y = y(x) is an exponential function.
Certain letters of the Greek and Latin alphabets have universally fixed meanings in mathematics. The Greek lower case letter ‘pi’ always denotes the ration of the diameter to the circumference of a circle, pi=3.14158… The Latin letter ‘e’ always denotes the base of the natural logarithms, e=2.7…
So to make exposition briefer, one just says ‘exponential’ for an exponential function
f(x) = a*e^(b*x)
irrespective of the constants a and b.
That you don’t know the above represents a serious gap and defect in your education.
I am tired of having to micro-parse what you write.
On the surface what you have written appears correct.
But I have made the mistake of assuming you knew what you were talking about before, and been proven wrong.
What is WRONG with what you are saying is that it is INCOMPLETE.
Every equation or function where the output increases even more with each incremental increase int he input is EXPONENTIAL.
That is the dictionary definition of exponential
It is the common use of exponential,
it is the scientific and mathematical use of exponential.
y = 2^x is exponential.
y = x^2 is exponential.
e is recognized fixed constant. But e^x is not any more special than 10^x of 16^x or x^10.
We can express things in terms of natural logs, base 10 logs, or base 153 logs.
To the extent e is special like other special constants it reflects certain commonly appearing ratios
I would note that Wikipedia calls the inverse of a natural log, a natural exponential.
So you are back into semantics again trying to pretend that something general exponential is always and only something specific.
Ask any mathematician:
y = x^2
is not exponential. It expresses that y is the square of x.
Go read an elementary textbook. Any textbook. In any language.
I have not only read elementary texts – I have pasted excerpts, linked to them, provided images of pages.
You are just plain WRONG.
You are arguing a convention that does not even appear to be close to the norm.
Your way of expressing certain things may be accepted, but it is not required and may not even be the norm.
Further you are really being stupid here.
I was educated and work in multiple fields where math like this is the norm.
I am educated and work in structures, electronics – on rare occasions down to the atomic level in silicon, forces on axles in motion,
atomic particle detection.
I use math and physics in these forms in one way or another every day.
First differences for y=x^2: Each row has an increased result as x increases by one, x = 1,2,3,4… Given is x^2 followed by 2*x
1 2
4 4
9 6
16 8
…
to suggest x^2 = (x-1)^2 + 2*x + 1
Indeed, (x-1)^2 = (x-1)(x-1) = x^2 -2*x +1, qed.
So squaring can be done by first differences and we have linear growth. The same idea applies for any fixed power. Try it for x^3 to obtain quadratic growth…. All of these have power law growth. These are special cases of polynomials, which are said to have polynomial growth.
But z=2^x goes
2
4
8
16
32
…
so that 2^x = 2*2^(x-1), a law for exponential growth.
Thereby, b^x is called the exponential function with base b, b > 0.
y=x^2
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Fa07/Keys/Assignment%202/Assignment%202_files/image005.png
“What is WRONG with what you are saying is that it is INCOMPLETE.”
John, all of mathematics is incomplete (see, e.g., Gödel’s incompleteness theorems). That something is incomplete does not make it wrong.
In your claim
“That is the dictionary definition of exponential
“It is the common use of exponential,
“it is the scientific and mathematical use of exponential”
the first two are sometimes true (as long as you’re using an everyday dictionary and not a math dictionary), and the third is false.
Over and over, you confuse the common English meaning of “exponential” with its mathematical meaning. Stop relying on standard dictionaries and Wikipedia to understand math. Use a good math dictionary/reference.
See, for example:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentialFunction.html
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentialGrowth.html
Your claim that “Every equation or function where the output increases even more with each incremental increase int he input is EXPONENTIAL” is false.
The mathematical term for “the output increases even more with each incremental increase int he input” is “increasing and concave up.” Only some of the functions in that set are exponential functions. f(x) = x^3 is a function that behaves as you describe but is not exponential (again: in an exponential function, the variable is in the exponent). In your claim “y = x^2 is exponential,” that function is concave up, but it’s only increasing for half its domain; on the other half, (-∞, 0), it’s decreasing.
“e^x is not any more special than 10^x of 16^x or x^10” is false too.
Have you ever taken calculus? If not, then that explains some of your mistakes. But if you have, you should know that y = e^x is the sole function such that f(x) = d/dx(f(x)) and f(0)=1.
The derivative of 10^x isn’t 10^x.
The derivative of 16^x isn’t 16^x.
The derivative of x^10 isn’t x^10.
BUT, the derivative of e^x IS e^x. It is extremely special in this sense.
If you haven’t taken calculus, consider taking a calculus class.
Beat that straw man to death.
This is not about the incompleteness of math.
This is about the FACT that the laws of physics preclude CO2 alone from coming close to producing the predictions of warmists.
Aside from fights over the value of ECS – the curve bends the wrong direction.
While you are wrong about exponential – I have provided links to math tests and papers at various levels using the term as I have.
But that is STILL irrelevant.
DB challenged my claim that “S-B dictates that linear increases in temperature require exponentially greater energy.”
This is not about math dictionaries vs. ordinary use. It is not about 10^x vs x^10 it is not about e^x, it is not about the difference between a power and an exponent.
It is about DB’s objection to the word exponential to describe the increase in energy.
This has been a giant red herring on the part of DB – and now you, that woudl still be a red herring even if you were actually correct.
But you are not.
This is not about Common use versus mathematical use. It is about the use of the word exponential to describe the rate of increase.
I have not yet thought of another single word description for an “increasing rate of increase”, but even if there was one – there is no math specific term for “increasing rate of increase”
To the extent that you and DB are correct about ANYTHING, it is that YOUR choices of language is ONE choice when applied to a context that had nothing at all to do with what was being discussed.
DB erred multiple times by going down a rabbit hole that had nothing to do with the discussion. He obviously erred by idiotically misreading the meaning of exponential in a context where it was clear.
This is textbook sophistry – so why are you joining him ?
“increasing and concave up.”
You make my case.
there is no one word mathematical equivalent description of the relationship of E to T in S-B the best available word is “exponential” – which is both mathematically correct and correct in common use.
I would further note that exponential as used to describe the relationship of energy to temperature in S-B is as precise as “increasing and concave up”
I would note that even “increasing and concave up” is a visual or geometric description It is a reference to the graph of something not the thing itself.
Can you read ?
You have presumably read my attack’s on DB for sophistry – so why are you now jumping in with both feet.
Sure e^x has properties that 10^x does not have. Just as 10^x has properties that e^x does not have.
Regardless I said it was not “any more special”, and later specified that it did have its own unique attributes.
Next you keep jumping to conclusions. Worse still about what I know and do not know.
I am aware that the derivative of e^x is e^x
That does not change anything.
I am posting on a blog – not writing a math text. H311 even math texts do not require that every discussion of a term requires listing ever attribute of that term.
Again Sophistry.
I am criticizing you for errors and false assumptions that you DID make.
You are attacking me for errors that only exist in your head.
It is not wise to make assumptions about what you can not know about others.
When I call you stupid – it is for things you have actually done or said – not what I think is or is not in your head.
John B Say re: yours of May 28 @ 5:29 pm
You continue to misread the Stefan-Boltzman equation. It specifies that the energy FLUX, NOT THE ENERGY, varies as the 4th power of the absolute temperature.
Secondly, this is not an “exponential increase”. An example of an exponential increase is the chain reaction of ionizing radiation in a nuclear bomb explosion. Or the growth of an algae sample in an dish of nutrient.
Your back ranting nonsense.
Why is it we have to keep returning to stuff that has been resolved.
Your fighting your own sources.
YOUR formula purportedly derives from S-B
Arrhenius derives from S-B
S-B specifies the radiated energy of an object at a given temperature.
That must exactly equal the energy CAPTURED by the object otherwise the object either gets warmer or colder.
From Wikipedia Climate Sensitivity
“Radiative forcing is one component of climate change. The radiative forcing caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (from the pre-industrial 280 ppm) is approximately 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m2). In the absence of feedbacks, the energy imbalance would eventually result in roughly 1 °C (1.8 °F) of global warming. That figure is straightforward to calculate by using the Stefan–Boltzmann law[note 2][18] and is undisputed.[19]”
https://imgs.search.brave.com/ua7gym_V6DFkT7XsU4vHLf_YGZ99Pr_sFYPASBvB7Bs/rs:fit:1200:513:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovLzMuYnAu/YmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29t/Ly1WWUhKLUdxbmNU/ay9Ud0kzZUxrMDJX/SS9BQUFBQUFBQUF1/OC9YVU94bHJkbDI1/Yy9zMTYwMC9MZXkr/ZGUrc3RlZmFuLkJv/bHR6bWFubi5wbmc
Use whatever name you want. The hotter something is – them massively greater energy it radiates.
And if it is going to remain at that temperature it must capture the same amount of energy that it is radiating.
This is really fundimental physics. the temperature of an object is the energy of motion of the atoms and molecules in the object.
John B Say re: yours on May 28 @ 5:11 pm
I have shown, it appears further down, that you are completely wrong about the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Don’t tell me what you are going to prove – prove it.
John B Say, if you require a single word description for the form of the formula in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, it is
polynomial.
That is less precise than 4th power or even power law.
Really ? Well atleast you are accepting that there is more than one word
Regardless, you are wrong – but we have been over this before.
“exponential
Exponential describes a very rapid increase. An exponential rise in the number of first graders with head lice might be a result of all the hat sharing that’s gone on lately.
Exponential is also a mathematical term, meaning “involving an exponent.” When you raise a number to the tenth power, for example, that’s an exponential increase in that number. When your next door neighbor describes the exponential growth of her rose bushes or the exponential increase in members of her book group, she means that there’s been a sharp, fast expansion of both things.”
Just correcting an error I made earlier, when I said “f(x) = x^3 is a function that behaves as you describe but is not exponential.” That’s only true on (0, +∞); on (-∞, 0), it’s increasing but concave down.
None of this is relevant.
There is no reason for me to waste my time trying to figure out if it is correct becuase it does not apply.
John B Say re: hyours of May 30 @ 12:42 am
What is the scientific unit for energy?
What quantity does the scientific unit of watt specify?
You are still *dead* wrong.
https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/Joule_to_Watt_Calculator.html
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 12:13? am
That’s better, just not good enough yet.
You surely understand the difference between
(1) Quantity: “I have a thousand dollars.”
(2) Rate: “I spend a thousand dollars every month.”
The latter is money *flux*.
Stefan’s Law describes energy *flux*.
As for where my comments appear, I am never certain why one place rather than another. Who knows where this will show up?
Apparently you can not understand that you can not spend $1000 if you do not have $1000.
This is tedious as you are not only at odds
with all climate scientists – you or pretty much at odds with anything that depends on fundimental physics.
You are back up to your neck in sophistry.
Let go of stupid fights that do nothing but expose your ignorance.
How is it that you think CO2 warms the earth ?
Using your rhetoric – by “spending $1000/month” continuously
John B Say re: yours of May 30 @ 12:26 am
That won’t do for mathematics, science and engineering. Here we use terms of mathematics only as defined in mathematics.
Doubly false.
There are myriads of mathemtaical terms that have multiple meanings in math.
And myriads of terms that mean the same thing – in math.
There are also terms that are convertable. you can talk of watt/hours or of joules. or calories
We also use terms from common language when we are desribing math – either were precision is unnecescary or where it does not exist.
Exponential – an increasing rate of increase is legitimate in math. I am not aware of another single word description of the same concept.
More sophistry, more beating a dead horse.
S. Meyer, I already did. John B Say clearly did not understand that the “e” in e^x is a constant, the base of the natural logarithms, and that x is the variable of the exponential function written e^x.
He thought it was just an alternate notation for a power, x^n, where again x is the variable and n is a constant. His favorite, having nothing to do with atmospheric physics, is x^2, x squared.
I don’t think that I need to go on, given that his misunderstandings are so elementary. The exponential function,
exp(x) = e^x
is fundamental to mathematics and hence to physics.
I can’t answer what is in John’s mind however, different disciplines can use alternate conventions because of conflicts that cause confusion. For example, what does SLR mean? You will say Sea Level Rise, while a photographer might call it Single Lens Reflex.
Now, I realize you might be talking about still something else, but what was in his mind can only be answered by him. What is in your mind is clear. If one can’t win the argument with the facts, try showing your opponent to be ignorant. Where John is concerned, that isn’t a smart move because he is knowledgeable. That puts the focus on you.
S. Meyer, there is no alternate notation for the exponential function. The notation is standard everywhere in the world.
John B Say only gives a veneer, a pretense, of being “knowledgeable”. He actually only is entirely superficial. As I have stated, II suspect a brain stroke.
David, if you are talking about character usage, you are wrong.
You are wrong too about John having a stroke. Your observations, a figment of your imagination, do not meet the criteria of a stroke patient.
S. Meyer, I am indeed correct that
exp(x) = e^x
is a world standard of mathematics.
I now find that I have used the wrong name for the approximate CO2 forcing equation,
F = S*log(c/c0)
where, as far as I can now determine, the credit is due to Tom Wigley. So calling that the Arrhenius law possibly led to some confusion.
“S. Meyer, I am indeed correct that
exp(x) = e^x”
David, that is correct but adds no proof to your other claims including your claims about John.
If I were more like those on the left I would be diagnosing Benson right now – his errors are common for certain “differently abled” people.
“I am indeed correct that
exp(x) = e^x
is a world standard of mathematics.”
You are correct, but that is completely tangent to the discussion.
I never mentioned “the exponantial function”.
I spoke of “an exponential function” – S-B.
There are several other errors you have made – but they are not important and my goal regardless of what you might think is not to embarrass you.
“I now find that I have used the wrong name for the approximate CO2 forcing equation, F = S*log(c/c0)
where, as far as I can now determine, the credit is due to Tom Wigley. So calling that the Arrhenius law possibly led to some confusion”
Nope, your error is not relevant.
S. Meyer, see mine of May 23 @ 9:47 pm. I continue to assert that John B Say is completely befuddled. I’m not the only one here who thinks so.
David, you can assert whatever you wish even though it isn’t true. What John is or is not doesn’t change the problems with present-day climatology theories.
I provided simple questions which you couldn’t answer. That was more than enough proof that you had no expertise in the field and that the propaganda wasn’t correct.
You can assert whatever you want. I am still waiting for evidence.
What appears to be true so far is that you are reading words that are not present in my posts.
S. Meyer, here is are two derivations of the CO2 forcing (approximate) equation
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/eqn%20derivation.pdf
There are no problems with climatology beyond the more minor matters that further research by competent scientists will eventually resolve.
Restate your ‘simple questions’, please.
From the website: “The assumptions we will make allow us to represent the real atmosphere.”
David, I worry more about the assumptions than I do the physics.
David, here is a financial view of climate change. The full article is available at the WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-financier-tells-some-climate-truths-stuart-kirk-hsbc-mark-carney-11653340776
A Financier Tells Some Climate-Change Truths
And for doing so, Stuart Kirk was suspended by HSBC.
The Editorial BoardMay 23, 2022 6:37 pm ET
WSJ Opinion: Disney Pays the Price for Woke Business Politics
WSJ Opinion: Disney Pays the Price for Woke Business Politics
Review & Outlook: What started as a row over parental rights legislation has resulted in the Walt Disney Company losing special privileges in Florida—and serves as a wake-up call for other CEOs. Images: Reuters/AP/Miami Herald Composite: Mark Kelly
By
HSBC executive Stuart Kirk gave a presentation at an investor conference last week, taking banking regulators to task for overbaking the financial risk of climate change. What was he thinking? As punishment for his heresy, the British bank has sent him to re-education camp.
Mr. Kirk is, or at least was, the bank’s global head of responsible investing, so his candid presentation titled “Why investors need not worry about climate risk” naturally attracted attention. We understand why banking regulators and businesses that hope to make money off the coming tidal wave of climate regulation might be offended by his truth-telling.
There are lots of problems with climatology – as with any science – but that is not the issue.
No one is claiming there is no such thing as climate science. Nor for the most part are the underlying physics being challenged – despite the fact that climate is a nascent science – about as old as psychology which has had mouch of the past 70 years of its work gutted recently.
Your argument is a red herring.
I cited IPCC AR4 – the same text is likely in later IPCC work, regarding the derivation of ECS.
Major points.
There is no means to derive ECS directly.
It is derived from the Global Climate Models.
It is an estimate.
What I have been arguing with you is that thought he real world data we have does not and can not tell use what the ECS of CO2 is,
it actually can tell us with high probability what it ISN’T.
If we assume that CO2 is the dominant factor in modern warming – a core claim of Warmists,
Then we can approximate ECS by eliminating all other terms and solving the CO2 and temperature curves for their direct relationship.
It is VISUALLY obvious that you will get a very very low value for ECS if you do that.
But you are free to do the math if you wish.
ALTERNATELY, you can assume almost any higher ECS value you want – and again fitting against existing data will require an additional term which is the agregeate or all other forcings, and that term given actual data must be significantly larger than whatever CO2 ECS value you calculate.
One of many fundimentals that you do not appear to grasp is that the actual SCIENCE underlying global temperatures is a very long SERIES forcings.
This is commonplace in all sciences.
Sometimes we are able to conduct controlled labortatory experiments were all other terms are fixed and in that way establish for certain a physical property – atleast under laboratory conditions.
But that is not always the case. A substantial portion of the sciences requires determining properties using real world data, and mathematical regression to isolate the impact of individual terms.
You keep trying to pretend that something fundimental to most sciences is not true.
You keep attacking me – but over and over and over – you expose yourself as lacking understanding of important fundimentals of science, math physics.
It has taken several days for you to grasp something I knew – just from inspection – that Arrhenius, S-B and Plank were related.
We also wasted several days because you are looking for any possible weakness in my arguments – which is excellent, but then you are not reading carefully.
I have never written about quadratics – except in response to you. Nor have I written of THE EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION. What I have written is that S-B is AN EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION.
We have wasted days on this error of yours, and you have not yet let go of it.
I am not writing a scientific paper here for publication, I am not striving for absolute precision in what I am writing – so you might occasionally find inconsequential inconsistencies in my posts.
S-B specifies that the energy required to maintain the temperature of an object is the 4th power of the temperature.
Climate Scientists claim that CO2 Forcing – ECS is per doubling of CO2
I am not looking to debate either of those. It does not matter to my argument the specific curve that relates CO2 to temperature.
What matter is that the Real world relationship is either linear or with temperature increases slightly declining.
And whether you like it or not that simple obvious fact FALSIFIES CAGW.
You can dish out all the scientific papers you want. You have still lost the debate to reality.
You can jump up and down till you are blue in the face saying “experts say” – the debate is still over.
The debate is and has never been about “climate science” – it is about “climate religion”.
S. Meyer, but the assumptions are part of the physics. “Local thermodynamic equilibrium” is just the assumption that all is static. As a first approximation it is quite reasonable; the globe only has small changes to the weather over the course of a year.
The assumption of transparency avoids picking nits. From Wein’s Law one sees that most of the power from the sun arrives at the longer wavelengths so the fact that the sky is blue is readily ignorable.
Ok?
” the assumptions are part of the physics”
They are not a part of physics or “the physics.” They are assumptions. Using physics one might be able to determine that one gallon of gas can get todays automobile to the moon and back. The physics might be correct but the assumptions are wrong.
“the assumptions are part of the physics.”
Many of yours are not
“Local thermodynamic equilibrium” is just the assumption that all is static. As a first approximation it is quite reasonable; the globe only has small changes to the weather over the course of a year.
The actual dynamics of global climate are readily ascertainable, and the presumption of stability by warmists is obviously false.
You have already lost the debate over the MWP and RWP – We know that temps higher than the present and as low as 1750 have occurred frequently in the past 2000 years and that even more dynamic range has existed NATURALLY over longer periods.
Yet warmists ignore that.
If you can not hindcast the RWP and MWP then your climate model is incomplete and of limited use.
It is REASONABLE when predicting weather to assume that natural variations that have periods of years or decades are irrelevant tot he 4 day forecast. But Climate is not a 5 day forecast.
With respect to insolation – as has been noted before – the simple pure solar model correlates and predicts between 5-10 times as strongly as the GCM’s
To anyone with a functioning brain – that means there is something we are missing about the influence of the sun and planets.
You can rant and rave about the earliest moment the industrial revolution could have impacted climate – it was NOT during the RWP or MWP.
S. Meyer, re: yours of May 24 @ 7:38 pm
You fail to understand physics. For example, Newton’s laws of motion are approximations, quite good ones except for very high speeds. Such as light: see Einstein’s approximations in that case. Don’t assume that we have the final equations for the evolution of the universe and all within it.
Your gasoline story fails the energy test immediately; don’t be fatuous.
The two assumptions for the carbon dioxide forcing function are, as I have stated, quite reasonable. Do you doubt Wein’s Law? All the data collected over the centuries by the meteorologists? Don’t be fatuous.
David, your last comment makes no sense. Are you OK?
I would be able to express a view on the data collected over centuries by “meteorologicsts” if that RAW data was readily available to ordinary people – it is not.
In fact we KNOW that data has serious problems – warmists tell us that all the time and then make adjustments to it.
But this is not done transparently.
Regardless, we do have a transparent source for uniform measures of GLOBAL temperatures from 1979 forward – we have 44 years of robust transparent data, transparent algorithm’s We know of and can publicly address all the issues.
We do NOT have that with thermometer records – not even since 1979.
S. Meyer, re: yours of May 24 @ 9:10 pm
I am at a loss to explain further as each and every sentence I wrote is standard and simple English.
Exposition in mathematics and physics begins with axioms, i.e., assumptions. It then proceed to derive logical consequences from those axioms. These consequences are not divorced from the assumptions. In physics one looks to observations and experiments to justify the assumptions.
Try to state what you fail to understand, please.
David, you totally missed the point. “The physics might be correct but the assumptions are wrong.”
Another derivation of the logarithmic forcing (approximate) law:
http://nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2018/08/26/Why-CO2-Forcing-Is-Logarithmic
But this one is harder to follow.
You keep trying to argue something that no one is debating.
If energy relates to temperature exponentially, than temperature relates to energy logarithmically.
You are still blind to the fact that over the past 44 years the trivially observable relationship between CO2 and Temperature does not conform to that LAW.
That means either:
Other factors dwarf CO2 in significance
The Forcing rate of CO2 is incredibly low
or both.
Here is another dose of reality for you.
This has nothing to do with “science” directly – EXCEPT that it is self evident that the smartest investors int he world – regarding of what they SAY are investing as if CAGW is nonsense.
Also notyed is the massive amounts of government money in CAGW. Austrailia is spending 30B/year essentially to subsidize the living of the high priesthood of CAGW and put out more of this dogmatic propoganda you keep parroting.
And Australia is one of the least consequential western sources of funding for CAGW propoganda.
Why are we subsidizing jobs for these loonies ?
S.Meyer, re: yours of MAy 24 @ 11:05 pm
Sorry, but you are wrong. The assumptions are the first part of the physics. The calculations are the second part. If the assumptions are bad, the derivations are meaningless with regard to physical reality.
But in this situation, the assumptions are quite reasonable. Too dispute the assumptions would require measurements. The measurements indeed shown that the two assumptions in question correspond closely, but not precisely, to reality.
A more famous case is the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Using Newton’s “action at a distance” inverse square law for gravity there is a unexplained 0.43 seconds of arc per year discrepancy in the precession of Mercury’s orbit. That is very small, so Newton’s law isn’t far off. But it took Einstein’s theory of general relativity to explain the precise orbit of Mercury; a different collection of axioms, i.e., assumptions. That doesn’t mean that Einstein is ultimately correct, just better.
“The assumptions are the first part of the physics.”
Which is where my statement “The physics might be correct but the assumptions are wrong.” comes into play.
You sound like you have lost your mind. You are providing responses to thin air and not dealing with those words sent to you by me.
You conflate axioms and hypothesis.
The goal of science is to have the least possible number of axioms.
And Axiom is something we can not prove, but which must be true for the rest of math and science to be correct
While a Hypothesis is NOT foundational – it is just the start of a point of enquiry.
The problem with warmists is that hypothesis’s that have been falsified by real world conditions never get revised.
The scientific method which is supposed to be an iterative process. is short circuited and instead of reacting to its failures doubles down on them.
S. Meyer, re: yours of May 24 @ 7:32 pm
Finance has nothing to do with the science of climatology, hence current climate change, only various consequences. Here are some consequences:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/opinion/india-heat-wave-climate-change.html
Having been to Delhi, Agra and Kanpur just before the monsoon began I have so hint of what is being expressed by this author.
But this is off-topic as far as I am concerned.
Finance has a great deal to do with Climate Science.
When governments put vast amounts of money into research to demonstrate a specific outcome – they get the outcome they are paying for.
Further the way that people outside of government spend money and take risks is incredibly important.
It is a direct reflection of the thinking – as opposed to the words or the smartest people in the world regarding what they expect to actually happen.
I would further note that one of the massive problems with CAGW is how it has gone way beyond science.
The cost of CAGW is NOT a science question. Climate scientists are NOT economists or bankers. Yet the IPCC is making poor predictions of the economic costs of global warming. Why in god’s name should anyone trust people with really poor mathematical and statistical abilities with financial calculations ?
You are still not able to see the glaringly obvious. I have repeated over and over the mathematical claim that the models are off by 2.5 std dev. But there same things is readily observable VISUALLY.
You keep claiming with a variety of arguments that the value for ECS is derived correctly – if so why are all the models running far too hot ?
I can tell you that dung will burn far cleaner than hydrogen but no matter how much “science” I have to support that – the toxic pollution observably coming from a pile of burning dung falsifies that.
If you had the value of ECS correct – the models would not be off by 2.5 std dev.
If you had the value of ECS correct – we would not have 23 years of temperatures that have barely increased.
If you have the value of ECS correct – Billions would not be invested in properties in the Maldives.
If you had the value of EVC correct – the earth would be much warmer than it is.
Back to the finances – sort of.
There are many factors that go into measuring the credibility of what is not known for certain.
A major one of those is what risks those holding strong views are willing to take.
It is incredibly well known that even the smartest of us are far more prone to be wrong, when there is no personal cost to being wrong.
As Nasseem Talib notes – you should trust those who have “skin in the game” more than those who do not.
Mr. Benson is more than wrong – he is irrelevant.
It does not matter if I or anyone else is a racist, sexist, autistic, has Aspergers, or vascular demensia
All that matters is the argument – the facts, the logic and the reasoning.
David Benson comes from academia. In our world failure mens being fired. In his world failure and crazy ideas can mean advancement. (TS)
If DB is an academic – please tell me where so I can recommend that no one send their kids there.
We can not get to the fact that current data for CO2 and Temperature falsifies high values of ECS and thus the GCM’s.
Because he is busy in irrelevant pedantic and stupid semantic arguments in which he is also wrong.
John, to my knowledge, he is retired for some years and is probably near 2 decades older than you if I have figured out both of your ages. I think his training is in electrical engineering and since he ate lunch and was at dinner with Feynman, my guess is that he went to CalTech. I could be wrong about all these details. I forget the name of the university he may have been at, but I think it is in Washington State.
John B Say, re: yours of May 25 @ 1:58 am
The evidence my be found in
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
I only read what John’s words are. The trouble is he assigns meanings to some of the words which are incomplete disagreement with there practice of mathematics and physics, worldwide.
So he makes a compete hash of it.
“I only read what John’s words are.”
David, you are reading through blinders. Like a horse you are only seeing where you are permitted to go.
Your arguments that my use of words disagrees with standard practice – is as is typical of you.
Both FALSE and irrelevant.
All that matters is that my use is correct.
It obviously is.
It is also consistent with the use on several of the sites YOU have linked to.
It is further obviously correct as there are myriads of laws of physics and science that are exponential equations that do not include e.
The formula for kinetic energy.
The formula for the motion of a projectile
The electrical power forumla
as just a few.
“The trouble is he assigns meanings to some of the words which are incomplete disagreement with there practice of mathematics and physics, worldwide.”
That is true of YOUR use, not mine.
Do you actually think about the arguments you make before you make them ?
Read what you wrote and then think for just a millisecond – what response can I expect ?
It should take minimal effort to grasp what my reply will be and little more to grasp that it is correct.
John B Say, re: yours of M25 @ 11:25 am
(1) IPCC is wrong. Grant Foster devised a way to obtain TCR directly, from which ECS is obtained. Once again, you can read this @ Tamino’s OpenMind blog.
(2) It still remains that S-B is not an exponential function of the argument T, but the 4th power. Ask any mathematician or physicists for that matter. Even all engineers.
(3) I have provided the links necessary to understand derivations of the logarithmic dependence of surface temperature on atmospheric CO2. From Tyndall’s 19th century fundings, we know that CO2 is a heat trapping gas. Now go read the derivations, if you are able to comprehend those derivations; I currently doubt it. Show me worng!
“Show me worng!”
David, without using assumptions, show me the physics that prove you correct.
Then show me the assumptions you would like to use and prove them right.
You can’t. Your conclusions are based on assumptions, and many of your assumptions are based on earlier assumptions that have a high likelihood of being wrong.
“IPCC is wrong.”
Wow!
“Grant Foster devised a way to obtain TCR directly, from which ECS is obtained.”
There is no such thing.
Further as YOU say Foster is a statistician not a climate scientist.
One with a long history of fraud and error.
GF is up to his ears in defending the “Hide the Decline” nonsense.
Which is statistical fraud.
“Once again, you can read this @ Tamino’s OpenMind blog.”
Why would I ever read Tamino ?
That is like following Adam Schiff on Russian Collusion.
“When people tell you who they are, beleive them the first time”.
When you tell BIG lies, demonstrably false lies, when you engage in hoaxes,
No one should ever beleive you again.
You should seriously think about this as you make these idiotic arguments fixating badly on bad scientific grammar as argument rather that directly addressing issues.
It refects badly on you.
Worse because you are not only inrrelevant – but even wrong in your irrelevancies you look worse.
Jess, everytime I revist this, I find another reason you are an idiot.
“The exponential function” and “an equation with an exponential term” are radically different
S-B is not “The exponential function”, it is not “an exponential function” it is “an equation with an exponential term”.
S-B is not in the form f(x) = …. it is in the form E = …..
One side of an equation can sometimes be treated as a function, but they are not the same.
To recap, I have never used Quadratic – except in response to your use.
I have never said “function” except in response to your use.
This idiocy from you is like confusing “absolute Temperature” with the abs(x) function.
It is increasingly a mistake for me to assume that you are even to middle school algebra in your communications.
“(2) It still remains that S-B is not an exponential function of the argument T, but the 4th power. Ask any mathematician or physicists for that matter. Even all engineers.”
You are correct S-B is not an exponential function – it is not a function at all. It is a law of physics expressed as an equation. it states the FACT that E varies exponentially with changes in T. It also states that T varies logrithmatically with variations in E.
logrithmatic is the inverse of exponential. If you have one you have the other ALWAYS.
Power, exponent, exponentiation, and exponential are all terms used when refering to numbers or variables that are multiplied repeatedly.
a^n is a to the nth power, where the exponent is n.
a multiplied n times is exponentiation,
If a is a variable. the value of the term a^n grows exponentially as a increases.
This is all elementary school math. Any mathematician of physicist that is using these terms differently does so in error.
Because S-B is an equation – if you know all variables but one, you can derive that one mathematically with certainty of being correct, regardless of which one.
As it is an equation it is subject to the other laws of mathematics. Functions MAY be bat are not by defintion.
No one should not have to explain any of the above to anyone who has passed 6th grade math.
“(3) I have provided the links necessary to understand derivations of the logarithmic dependence of surface temperature on atmospheric CO2.”
No one is debating this as a concept. But there is a great deal of difference between CO2 is a factor in temperature that when all other factors are constant has a logarithmic or exponential relationship – depending on which side of the equation you are looking at,
And your false assumption that in the real world where all factors are not known and certainly not constant, you can derive temperatures solely from CO2 or visa versa.
Further the logarithmic or exponential relationship between CO2 and Temperature – even if all other factors are fixed, Does not alone allow you to predict temperature from CO2. You must know the coefficient that scales CO2’s impact on temperature.
That coefficient is not directly determinable from the physical properties of CO2 – it is not like the atomic weight of a molecule that is the sum of the mass of the particles that make it up. It can only be determined empiracally.
Accepting for the moment your/GF’s claim that it can be determined statistically, which is in theory possible given enough data, for the result to be correct it woulds have to be constant. You would have to get the same result over 250 years and over 44 years.
Even warmists have been fighting over the correct value for ECS for decades.
Different scientists derive ECS different ways and get different results.
At most one of them is correct, but more likely NONE.
I would have to think about this further – but the problem strongly resembles another difficult physics problem I had to solve, and I am pretty sure that if there are multiple different calculated values for ECS by different climate scientists using different methods,t hat absent obvious mathematical or statistical error, the lowest one is the one most likely to be correct. I am pretty sure the nature of the problem and the likely causes of variability inherently mean that all answers converge on a lower bounds.
I am not as of yet asserting that is certain. But something to consider.
Regardless, it is still certain that ECS is constant, and of many results only one at best is correct.
Finally whether GF or IPCC calculates the value, when that value is used in the Climate models – unless they correctly forecast and hindcast, then either the models are wrong or the value of ECS is wrong on both.
The models are not correctly forecasting. Something is wrong – the most obvious error is ECS.
But even if you have ECS perfectly correct all that means is that you are missing a very large negative forcing.
And you do not need a climate model to grasp that either ECS is much lower than warmists claim, or there is one of more negative forcing that you either have wrong or are missing that are very large.
GF could be perfectly correct about ECS – which I doubt – but he is still missing something.
“Finance has nothing to do with the science of climatology”
Actually the “science” of climatology has a lot to do with Finance. I sent you an article that I thought might interest you since it explains some of the effects of “science” vs science. Like you did earlier, you lost focus.
John B Say re: your of May 25 @ 11:42 am
The Berkeley group around physicist Muller obtained the raw surface temperature data for the land-based measurements to form their own land surface temperature product. This is in essential agreement with the land-only surface temperature products from the Japanese group, from NOAA, from NASA and from the British. All 5 groups made their own adjustments, many are required, to the land data.
If you actually understood atmospheric physics you would understand why the lower troposphere measurements provide a poor proxy for the surface temperature. But, I opine, you could demonstrate the same TCR of the lower troposphere to the atmospheric CO2 concentrations using standard statistical methods, ala Grant Foster.
Quit bloviating and go do it! It would actually be a publishable result in a climatology journal, I opine.
“If you actually understood atmospheric physics you would understand why the lower troposphere measurements provide a poor proxy”
I think John had to correct you earlier on this subject.
According to DB’s beloved Climate Scientists, Warming is more pronounced at layers other then the Trophosphere – we purportedly will see more pronounced warming at higher altitudes in specific latitudes.
Theromoeters can not measure that.
Wow, so there are 5 members of the secret Cabal with access to the actual data.
17 US intelligence agencies purportedly said Putin wanted Trump in 2016.
51 Former and current members of the intelligence community said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian Disinformation.
You do not seem to grasp that transparency is NOT some collection of self appointed experts agreeing with each other.
No one disagrees that some adjustments are necescary – but that does not make any adjustment a necescary adjustment.
Nor is “trust me” a valid argument.
Though it is not public, the surface temperature data has been arround for a long time.
What were thought to be the proper adjustments to the past were made along time ago.
And yet with each new itteration YOUR sources keep making more changes to the distant past.
If you want your results to be trusted – do them out in the open, explain what you do, subject it to criticism and scrutiny.
All that said, except that they cover a longer period of time, the Surface temperature data will never be equal to the satellite data.
Partly because the former is not transparent, but mostly because there are problems that just can not be fixed.
The earth is not evenly covered by surface temperature stations of equal quality. The western world has more surface stations than the entire rest of the world. Single stations in Russia and Africa provide us with data for regions as large as all of alaska and often with highly varied climate. The quality of recordings are not even close tot he same from site to site, and as you go further into the past – these problems get worse and worse.
Even if those producing the global surface temperature record were open and honest – the quality of the “product” would be poor at best – even in the modern era.
There are problems with the satelite record but these are small at worst, and they are hashed out in public for all to see.
You can download the satelite data yourself, you can use the existing algorithms or your own – everything is public and you can confirm or reject the results. None of this is true of the land records.
First NO ONE measures the surface temperature.
The thermometer records are taken at 1.25-2M above the ground and are the air temperature at that height.
They are spot measurements of air at a single point. Each is at a different elevation above Sea level.
There are a wide variety of standards that are supposed to be followed – but even int he US they tend not to be well followed.
They are dramatically effected by very local conditions such as shading and he actual surface material that they are on top of and adjacent to. they are not even close to evenly distributed accross the surface. I can go on and on listing the myriads of problems with the thermometer records. Some of which could be fixed, many of which can not.
We both agree that adjustments must be made, But adjustments are inferior to just doing it right, and even without bias adjustments might fix or introduce new errors. But when adjustments are not transparently made there is no reason to trust them.
The TLT temperature measure is a weighed average of the air temperature of the lowest 10,000M of the atmosphere. The weighting favors the lowest 5000m of the atmosphere.
Finally climate science, weather, everything hat you fixate on is about the entire atmosphere – not random points on the lowest 2M.
If you are actually looking to measure Global Warming – the lower Trophosphere is the part of the atmosphere everything lives in.
I would further note that the satellites give us data not just about the TLT but various layers int he atmosphere.
The thermometer records can not do that. The only other choice is balloons and rockets. and those are used to calibrate the satelite measures but not sufficiently numerous to provide a global record of the atmosphere.
Only the satellites do that.
YOUR warming theories make specific claims regarding arctic and antartic temperatures as well as the mid, and upper trophosphere and even higher layers.
The purported signature of warming is supposed to appear first and strongest at places the satellites can measure – but thermometers can not.
The TLT satellite record may not perfectly reflect the temperature 1.5m above my back deck.
But it does a better job of measuring the temperature of the cube of air that I live within.
You can make a good estimate of the ECS from the TLT records, and given the very low average warming and the linearly increasing CO2 you would get a value that was at best 1/4 what the models are using.
That is actually self evident.
Actual warming has been abotu 1/4 that predicted by warmests, and models.
ECS is obviously 1/4 the warmest predicted value.
Still not interested in anything from Tamino.
S. Meyer, re: yours of May 25 @ 12:25 pm
I have already complied links to correct physics in
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
Learn enough to read all those articles or accept the judgements of those who know how to do so.
David, my gripe is not with standard physics. It is the assumptions you make, your circular reasoning, and the fact that you think quoting yourself is proof.
Still linking to yourself.
John B Say, re: yours of May 25 @ 12:30 pm
No, energy is not related exponentially to temperature. Obviously you don’t know what you are ranting about.
Either read with comprehension the articles linked in
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
or else accepts the judgements of those who can do so: physicists and some climatologists.
“No, energy is not related exponentially to temperature. Obviously you don’t know what you are ranting about.”
Really ? Well damn Arrhenius, S-B and Plank to H311.
I guess we are going to have to redo all of physics.
John Say, re: yours of May 25 @ 12:55 pm
The governments of many countries support climatology along with all the other sciences. The US federal government supports this basic science via NOAA, NASA and NSF, also maybe DoE for more applied portions. Then IPCC has, since 1990 anyway, periodically attempted to summarize what has been learnt and is available in the peer-reviewed journals. All the above irrespective of consequences for finance. PERIOD.
The so-called GCMs have been typically used to project into the future as well as estimate various quantities such as ECS. However, there are other methods used to estimate ECS; there is a literature on this subject. I suppose that this is summarized in the IPCC report as well; I’ve never looked for it.
Policy makers use this information to plan as best as possible for the future. Not my area of expertise. I point out that the safe use and control of ionizing radiation is another area informed by science. There is disagreement there about just what preventative measure need to be taken. The same holds for taking preventative measures to preserve other aspects of a livable planet, including the climate.
One can keep abreast of many of these matters by reading
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/
Your dissertation is excellent proof of all the problems.
Have you ever heard of the “self licking ice cream cone” ?
If you pay people to find problems that will result in giving them even more money – you can be assured they will find something to spend lots of money on.
I have seen local governmnts hire consultants to do feasability studies to determine if something needs done.
If new schools need built or new roads and bridges. Once in a blue moon someone with integrity comes back and says no.
Why should you ever trust the research of anyone who is not spending their own money to impliment the results ?
You have produced a long list of acronym agencies – that we are purpotedly to trust.
We are on our 6th IPCC report – and while the IPCC reports are actually far tamer than the nonsense you spout, still we are undershooting the best case scenario of prior reports.
Regardless, you have already told me the IPCC is wrong, prior analysis of the law dome cores is wrong – according to you.
In fact anything that disagrees with your predefined expectations is wrong without regard to facts.
I am surprised at your faith in all these acronym agencies – as you are perfectly happy to piss all over them if they do not produce the results you want.
Regardless, science is not the role of government. We did not seek independence from England to provide academics the oportunity to swill at the public trough.
If you actually want rigorous science (or anything else) you need to remove it from government.
In the past year we have spent trillions of dollars – and all we have to show for it is inflation.
Trust in government is at an all time low – which is a very good thing – government is not to be trusted.
Even if CAGW was actually real – the last people you would want dealing with it are the peers of the same idiots who blew trillions of dollars accomplishing nothig with Covid – while reaking havoc on the economy, our mental and phsycal health. and making a mess of things.
Whether the planet is liveable or not is up to nature – not humans.
It has been doing that job for 3.5B years.
Homo has only been arround for a few million – and for most of those the planet has been far more inhospitable to man than it is now.
Homo Sapiens has only been arround for about 150,000 years – and again through most of that the planet has been more inhospitable than now.
You are full of Hubris.
What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Psalm 8:4-8
John Say, re: your of May 25 @ 4:41 pm
Stubbornly and completely wrong, still. For example, kinetic energy, (1/2)mv^2, is a formula which is linear in the mass, m, and a 2-order power in the speed term, v, i.e., v^2=v*v. It is not exponential in the speed! That would be something like
2^v = 2*2*2…*2 v times. Completely different and certainly not the measurable kinetic energy.
Doubling down on stupid I see.
The correct word for a an accelerating rate of increase is exponential.
The term for the rate of increase of a 3^n term is exponential.
The term for the rate of increase of a n^3 term is exponential.
A^3 is often called A to the 3rd power. the exponent is 3.
3^a is often called 3 to the ath power. the exponent is a.
Both are exponential terms.
Your argument is based on use that is not even a convention. It is not even more common than the alternative.
There is nothing wrong with refering to the power of an exponential term – and CONTRA your nonsense there is not even a convention that variable to a constant exponent are called powers while constants to a variable exponent are called exponents.
I have produced innumerable references accross the web from Wikipedia through college and elementary math texts that are all using the same terminology as I am.
And again – there is no other term for an accelerating rate of increase except exponential. There is no “powerential” word to refer to exponential terms that you appear wish to rename power terms.
That you continue this idiotic argument just makes you look stupid.
That you started it is almost worse.
My initial argument – which your went into this bizzare sematic attack, was that S-B defines an exponential relationship between Energy and temperature.
YOU want on a sematic rant about the alleged proper name of that form of equation – which was both irrelevant and wrong.
NO matter what label you use for S-B – it still defines as a law of physics that the energy of an object increases EXPONENTIALLY with its temperature, and that incremental increases in temperature require EXPONENTIAL increases in energy.
Every bit of that is 100% true – it is a LAW OF PHYSICS. It is a law regardless of your semantic games.
You also seem to think that playing word games changes facts.
While there is no other simple term for the increase in energy that is required to increase temperature other than exponential.
It would not change anything if there was.
I can define the term Brillig as refering to the rate of increase of the value of a variable raised to an exponent and then correctly say that
“Brillig increases in energy are required for incremental increases in temperature”
I would suggest reading Orwell regarding the disastrous effects of authoritarian control of words and their meaning.
I am constantly amazed at your ability to read something and entirely miss the point.
Regardless it is kinetic energy that increases exponentially with speed.
You do not seem to grasp the difference between exponent, exponential, and exponentially.
You also can not seem to grasp the most important point from the start – which is way in which variables on the left side of the equation must change when those on the right side change.
You have some kind of defect which causes you to entirely miss the point of any discussion and focus on irrelevancies
Here is a link to a recent paper (abstract) with many authors which assesses the likely range of the climate sensitivity using a wide variety of different methods:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background?page=1&scrollTo=8353
As stated, the climate sensitivity is about ewhat was already suspected. Grant Foster’s nifty statistics just gives more evidence.
Of course, onbe ought to go an read it, not take my word…
David, you don’t get it.
What do you get when you mix a quart of fresh milk with a quart of spoiled milk?
Answer: Spoiled milk.
I have no intention of following your links to yourself.
If you expect me to take any interest in what you seem to think is compelling – link it directly
Beyond that my interest in your paper would be academic at best.
If you managed to find some work that proved beyond any doubt that ECS was 8 or 16,
that would not solve the problem with CAGW.
Contra GF – you can not simply statistically derive ECS from CO2 and temperature Data. You would have to control for all other variables.
What is self evident from the graphs of CO2 since 1962 and the graphs of temperature over the same period is that the rate of increase is low and slowing. That it is at best a tiny bit faster than the prior 250 years – and for the last 2 decades much slower.
If you proved that ECS was 16 that would mean that some other force or forces that you have not identified have a negative effect almost as large as CO2.
My assertion that ECS is likely to be about 0.25 is just a guess based on inspection making the assumption that increases in CO2 are the primary driver of rising temperatures. Those assumptions may be wrong. With respect to CAGW it is not important. The NET change in temperatures from all causes is not concerning and appears to be diminishing.
You do not seem to understand what “falsify” means. You can prove ECS (though I doubt that) or significant other portions of the CAGW thesis – so long as the whole together does not accurately hindcast and forecast, you are with certainty wrong somewhere. You either have a term like ECS incorrect, or you are missing other important factors.
It is not my job to prove WHY you are wrong.
THAT you are wrong is self evident.
I would separately note the observation I have made from the start – CO2 and Temperature do NOT relate to each other since 1962 in a way that supports claims of a high ECS.
You claims that GF calculated ECS from CO2 and Temp since 1880.
This is science. Whatever the results of his calculation they must be correct – not merely from 1880-2022, but for every subinterval between.
If GF’s value does not work perfectly – not merely over all but for each individual decade, there must be a factor explaining the differences – and not merely a claim of a of an explanation – but a mathematical demonstration of a factor that adjusts to the real world data.
You do not have that. That is not science. it si not math, it is not statistics.
If you do not have high statitical significance, your results are near meaningless. and you do not get high statistical significance without near perfect matching, that either requires that there are no other factors, or that you have identified them all and perfectly accounted for them.
Warmists do not do that.
That is not math, it is not science, it is not statistics.
Economics is orders of magnitude simpler than science – the drivers are very well understood – even if their interrelations and inter actions are not. Yet economists can not hind cast and forecast with the accuracy climate scientists claim.
Repeating Climate is orders of magnitude more complex than economics.
John B Say re: hyours of MAy 25 @ 5:16 pm
I am retired, so I have time for this nonsense you generate.
I recently linked, indirectly as always, to a review paper which uses multiple lines of evidence to constrain ECS. Guess what? To the long expected range of around 3 K for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
I would suggest you go and study the abstract.
If ECS was 3K temps would have increased by over 3K since 1880.
They have not.
This is just stupid.
And you wonder why climate science is destroying peoples trust in science overall.
Let me be clear – idiots like You – or the rest of the warmist cabal. or the nutjobs that sprayed Covid lunacy at us
are destroying public trust in science – and honestly that trust is DESERVEDLY tanking.
You are all charlatains.
You have wasted hundreds of posts and nonsense that is no more than sophistry and pendantics.
You want to go to war over the use of words rather than actual meaning.
Your nonsense about S-B and powers and what not are efforts to destroy communications.
It does not have the slightest meaning with respect to actual issues.
It is nothing more than a demand that others frame their arguments in your prefered way – and a ludicrously stupid claim that your way actually reflects the norm – which it does not.
Regardless, even if you were correct – you arguments would still be pointless efforts to hide from the facts.
I provided the S-B graph – you can call the shape of that curve whatever you wish, You can invert the curve and graph incremental increases in energy vs. temperatures and get a logrithmic curve – because log curves are the inverse of exponential curves.
The physics of CO2 and temperature is that Radiant energy strikes CO2 modules and scatters back.
There is no mechanism by which linear increases in CO2 can result in greater than linear increases in back scattered energy.
It should actuall be obvious that CO2 energy capture must be LESS than linear – because CO2 will impact inbound and outbound energy.
It will partly trap energy reflecting back to space, but it will also reduce the energy reaching the surface from space.
You can not get what you predict from what we have or will have.
When what you claim to be science runs afoul of simple logic.
Logic always wins.
People are not capable of grasping difficult science.
But ordinarty people who have to deal with the real world where choices and actions have consequences tend to be better than ivory tower scientiests at simple things – like “That does not make sense” or what you claimed did not happen, I do not know why you are wrong but you are obviously wrong.
You have lost and continue to lose ordinary people deservedly so.
HOWEVER you harm actual science in the process. When people like you or warmists or the covid Cabal F’up they tend to undermine confidence in ALL science.
Here are the raw temperature records:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records
So John B Say is wrong yet once again. Why am I not surprised by this?
David, I looked at your numbers. It sounds like you have changed from “climatologist” to weatherman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
John B Say re: yours of May 26 @ 12:29 am
You are wrong about the “predicted” warming as there is no such thing. What there are are *projections* depending upon different amounts of global warming gases being added anthropogenically to the atmosphere.
I have given a link to a paper which establishes a most-likely range for ECS. In it many different sources of information are combined to state that, indeed, ECS is close to 3 K for a postulated doubling of atmospheric CO2.
By all means cut off your nose to spite your face by avoiding reading Open Mind; after all, you wouldn’t want to learn something new, would you?
You really can not escape sophistry,
Predicted Projected – the part that matters is FAILED.
“the exponential function” != “an exponential function”.
S-B is an exponential function.
No, John Say, ask any mathematician or physicist.
Stefan’s Law is a 4th-power function of the absolute temperature.
I highly doubt every physicist would answer the same.
But that does not matter.
You are still arguing meaningless sematics.
Most of what you have said is right.,
all of what I have said is right.
The conflict you are fighting over is purely semantic.
+100
John B Say, what you write is wrong and wrong again.
It is wrong mathematically; it is wrong physically.
I’ve provided a link which lists the relevant papers in physics, complete with links. I now doubt that you are capable of actually understanding any of those.
David – S-B is derived from Plank, and Arrhenius on CO2 is derived from S-B. I provided you sources for that.
And climate scientists use S-B all the time – it is referenced in the IPCC AR4 and probably later versions.
S-B is a law of physics. It is also an equation.
I can not keep straight your positions regarding S-B as you keep changing it.
There is no reason to even look at your papers. In the highly unlikely event they support you – they are obviously in error.
There is also no reason to take you seriously. Your arguments are nuts.
The ONLY person talking about “the exponential function exp(x)” is YOU.
The discussion is about S-B, Plank, and Arrhenius – all of which are exponential functions.
Absolute garbage, You clearly fail to understand what Arrhenius did in his 1896 paper.
The Planck function is obviously, by its very form, neither a power law nor an exponential function. Have you even read its definition?
I am not interested in parsing whether you have made some error in your tangents.
Plank applies, S-B aplies, Arrhenius applies. Arrhenius is derived from S-B and S-B from plank.
They are related.
We can use whichever is easiest to use in the context – or we can make our life harder and use one whose fit requires more manipulation.
John B Say, re: yours of May 25 @ 4:49 pm
You still have the Stefan-Boltzman law wrong: It relates the energy flux, also called power, written j*, to the absolute temperature T of a blackbody via
j* = s*T*T*T*T = s*T^4
It is the 4th power of the absolute temperature T, “T raised to the exponent 4”, not some exponential.
“The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time j* (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T:”
You are both wrong and it does not matter. Pretending S-B is about energy flux – makes your problem WORSE.
What I have said – which you keep ignoring is that E varies exponentially with T – that is correct, it is also gramatically correct, physically correct, and mathmatically correct.
You are also incorrectly claiming about your constraints on the words exponent, and exponential, but as that has no impact on the core argument. I am not going to waste time correcting you – go read some elementary math texts.
You engage in sophistry and pedantics, and worse still – you are wrong about them.
regardless they are meaningless tangents.
Here is the S-B graph of energy as it relates to temperature.
A graphic representation of what I am saying.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Stefan_Boltzmann_001.svg/330px-Stefan_Boltzmann_001.svg.png
John B Say, re: yours of May 25 @ 1:49 am
Fine, here is the argument, the reasoning based on observations:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
Go study that to see correct argumentation!
Still linking to yourself.
Make your argument here.
Please try to do better than you have so far.
Try avoiding further stupid semantic debate.
John B Say, re: yours of May 25 @ 11:34 am
Both the RWP and the MWP are North Atlantic phenomena, not global. Both a minor perturbations as the climate system is never precisely static but always slightly changing. That is not the issue.
You need to learn some climatology. You continue to flounder in your misconceptions.
In particular, the assumption in question is just amounts to averaging over the globe for entire years, not decades or centuries. Harmless.
The Antarctic is STILL not in the north Atlantic.
BOTH the RWP and the MWP have been found in several proxies in the Antarctic.
We have been through this.
“Both a minor perturbations as the climate system is never precisely static but always slightly changing. That is not the issue.”
That is true of many things – including most everything you and warmists use to rant about CAGW.
It is not however true about the RWP and MWP.
“You need to learn some climatology. You continue to flounder in your misconceptions.”
We have been at this for a long time.
You lose more and more ground on every issue you raise.
It is increasingly evident you do not know much about climate, physics, math, logic, ….
John B Say, re: yours of May 25 @ 11:37 pm
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-was-the-medieval-warm-period-155294
Not global, wrong yet once again.
Like not willing to read anything I linked over on the BNC site; willful ignorance. Or my two posts at the very top of the page — not sure how those ended up there.
It is nonsense like that is why people do not trust you.
First – you are the one who seems to focus on creditials – a communications site is little different from CNN – not an especially trustworthy source.
Next – the claim that warming was not happening unifromly accross the globe – fine – we do not have uniform warming accross the globe today.
Further the arguments presented are the most blatant sophistry – the argument is essentially – because we do not beleive that CO2 varied there could not have been actual global warming.
Lets be clear – it is absolutely established that CO2 is a GHG – it is not even close to established that CO2 drives global temperatures.
That MAY be correct, but there is no actual proof of that.
The statistical strength of the correlation between CO2 and Temperature is POOR,
Anyone with a modicum of statistical background knows that when a correlation is poor that means one of several things,
You are correlating against a dependent variable rather than an independent variable.
Or you are dealing with a complex system and significant independent factors are ALSO effecting what you are trying to correlate to.
I have noted before that the correlation between solar and planetary cycles is 5 times stronger than CO2.
We KNOW that insolation is not sufficient to account for the changes in temperatures – but the correlation is still far better than CO2.
A wise scientist would contemplate how else solar cycles could cause the earth to heat besides radiant energy transfers.
Abstract
Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659
Aparently there is even a google map of the locations that various studies have found warming (or cooling) during the MWP
You can click on each of the almost 1300 studies and papers nearly all of which support the GLOBAL existance of the MWP.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=0%2C0&z=1
You can play all the games you want – The MWP was followed by the LIA.
BOTH as well as their proximity cause you significant problems.
Are you actually going to argue that Global Temps in 1750 were uniform for the prior 1500 years ?
That the really was no LIA ?
You are littlerally arguing the long ago debunked hockey stick.
I do not particularly care about the details of the LIA, RWP or MWP,
The fundimental issue is the idiotic warmist presumption that the planet has had an incredibly stable temperature over the past 2000 years.
Though even this is just the tip of the probelem.
CAGW requires that the planet has an unvarying temperature for hundreds of thousands of years.
And that is indisputably false.
You have accepted Milankovitch cycles. That means you have accepted natural variation int he past that was caused neither by humans nor by CO2.
But somehow this magically all ended a few thousand years ago ?
If you want anyone to beleive what you call climate science – you can not expect them to play these essentially political games – something worked one way in the past but differently now.
And as for the Romans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
so John B Say strikes out again: not global.
Just so I am clear – your claim is that regional variations that are as much as 2C warmer than the present are no big deal – but if the same variations occur globally – we will all die ?
Lets assume the MWP and RWP and LIA were regional – there is ample evidence that is false. And frankly the Warmest claims of 2000 years of stable temps are based on a small number of REGIONAL proxies. Aparently anything that supports warmist nonsense is global.
But anything that does not is regional.
Regardless, it is undeniable that some parts of the world were much Warmer in the MWP and RWP than even now.
Yet, that periods and places are not cataclysmic – in fact people thrived exceptionally in the warmest periods int he warmest places.
You regional argument is garbage – but even if true – it refuts the claim that we should be concerned about warming.
S. Meyer, re: yours of May 25 @ 12:14 pm
If the assumptions are incorrect, the conclusion is not physics. Physics is more than just the mathematical derivations. Learn about it:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/
David, start using quotes and stop changing what other people say. It is unseemly for a person to do that type of thing.
What I said was: “The physics might be correct but the assumptions are wrong.”
Now I will add that if David’s assumptions are wrong, David Benson’s answers are wrong. Physics helps us get to the answers but is dependent on the variables being correct. The variables of David Benson are either wrong or unproven. David Benson doesn’t know the difference.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records
So John B Say is shown wrong yet once again…
About what ? Your NOAA source aside from Spin said the same thing I said.
I do not consider the NOAA standards even close to as good as what we have for satellite data.
And North America is probably the gold standard for climate data – the rest of the world sucks.
You think this means something ?
The NOAA standards for the US are pretty poor. But they are stellar compared to the rest of the world.
None of this addresses any of the problems I have pointed out to you.
I am pretty sure I understand Benson’s error now. Though I do not understand how he did not grasp it himself much sooner.
“an exponential function” and “the exponential function” – are not the same thing.
S-B is AN exponential function it is not THE exponential function.
The StephanBoltzman Law us NOT an exponential function. It is a 4th-power function of the absolute temperature.
is NOT
David, John has no interest in learning from people he disagrees with. He regularly assumes that he understands more math than he actually does. You are correct that S-B is a power function, not an exponential function.
The pinhead tries to be relevant but instead demonstrates his ignorance.
Ad hominem is not argument.
What is this nonsense about relevant ?
Do you read what you write before you post ?
Is your goal in posting to be “relevant” ?
Mine is to be correct.
“Power and Exponent Definition
Power: In Mathematics, the term ‘power’ defines the raising a base number to the exponent. It denotes that the two basic elements of powers are “base number” and “exponent”. Base Number is defined as a number which is multiplied by itself, whereas the exponent represents the number of times the base number is multiplied. In short, power is a number expressed using the exponents. It implies the repeated multiplication of the same factor. ”
You are argument semantic nonsense – as is Benson.
Further this semantic nonsense is irrelevant to actual issue being discussed.
It is typical left wing nut nonsense – badly arguing over definitions as the means to cloud the fact that they are WRONG.
S-B
E = sT^4
No matter what name you want to give that – it means linear increases in T require exponential increases in E.
DB has been engaged in a poor semantic debate from the start, which has help up poorly.
A I read back further I recognize that his error is not Confusing “the exponential function” with “an exponential function”.
But tryijng to pretend that “an exponential increase” is a direct reference to “the exponential function”.
S-B is a power function, it is also an exponential function those are the same.
But even power fundamentally we do not say there is a “power” increase in Energy as Temperature rises.
We say there is an exponential increase in energy as temperature rises.
So DB’s idiotic claim was semantic garbage from the start – it not only is a mangling of the meaning of words, it is a mangling of grammar.
No matter whether mathematicians and physicians call S-B a “power” or “exponential” function, the language for the rate of increase of the variable on the opposite side of the equation from the variable raised to a power is called EXPONENTIAL.
DB is either being deceiptful or stupid and you wish to join him ?
““an exponential function” and “the exponential function” – are not the same thing.”
Yes, John, I think I mentioned something similar to that when I told David “alternate conventions because of conflicts that cause confusion.”
On further consideration – DB’s error is even more fundimental.
While he is now arguing convention – where he is also wrong.
The core error on his part is confusing “exponential” as the description that as best as I can tell is the only name for the rate of increase of the left hand term in what DB is now calling a power function, which is also quite commonly called an exponential function.
Exponential as I have used it is a general adjective
DB is conflating that with a noun phrase including an adjective and pretending they are the same.
That this discussion has degenerated into a stupid game of semantics is reflective of the deceit and/or stupidity of DB.
He is hiding from the point.
John B Say, re: yours of may 25 @ 55:00 pm
You still have it wrong. An increase in the energy flux corresponds to an increase in the 4th power of the absolute temperature, not an ‘exponential increase’.
Benson, in your travels between generalities and specifics are you doing so to be deceitful?
SM
Since you are intent on playing word games – here is SB in graphic terms.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Stefan_Boltzmann_001.svg/330px-Stefan_Boltzmann_001.svg.png
“power function, it is also an exponential function those are the same.”
No, John, power functions and exponential functions are NOT the same.
Power functions have the form f(x) = kx^n, where the coefficient k and the exponent n are real numbers. They are a proper subset of polynomials. For example, the formula for the area of a circle, A(r) = 𝜋(𝑟^2), is a power function. So is the formula for the volume of a sphere, 𝑉(𝑟)=(4/3)(𝜋)(𝑟^3). So is the square root function, f(x) = (x)^(1/2). In a power function, the variable is in the base, and the exponent is fixed.
Exponential functions have the form g(x) = b^x. They are not polynomials. In an exponential function, the base is fixed and the variable is in the exponent.
Stop being flippant about “semantics.” Semantics is about meaning. The meanings of words matter. A claim about a power function may not be true about an exponential function. For example, in calculus, if f(x) = x^n, then the nth derivative of f is always constant; however, if f is instead the exponential function f(x) = n^x, then the nth derivative is NOT constant.
You mistakenly focus on the meanings of “power” and “exponent” (which are synonyms) instead of the meanings of “power function” and “exponential function” (which are not synonyms). Note that “exponential” is not a synonym for “exponent.”
More nonsense.
The pedantry and sophistry took a while to figure out – you and Benson are Both incorrect.
But you are also off on a very stupid tangent.
S-B is not a function it is an equation.
You and Benson continue to fixate on description of the T^4 term, rather than the effect of the right side of the equation on the left.
The Effect is exponential.
I would note that your efforts to distinguish “power” from “exponent” are complete idiocy.
T^4 and 10^n are exactly the same – if T is 10 and n is 4.
Regardless the FACT is that incremental variation of T results in exponentially increase E in S-B.
Which si my core point which both of you have wasted enormous time evading.
Lecturing me when you are wrong – just makes you look like the fools you are.
You can google all of this.
With certainty you can find a Few sites describing things as You and D-B, but check enough sites and you will find that there is nothing incorrect about the language I am using. Further it is MORE normal than yours.
I have provided numerous links demonstrating that you are engaging in pedantry and sophistry.
DB can not even make up his mind wither S-B applies.
While you can safely assume that what I write is what is in my mind.
More importantly – just do not try to read other peoples mind’s.
It is a bad idea and none of us are good at it
Mr. Benson
Still mind reading – badly.
“John B Say clearly did not understand that the “e” in e^x is a constant, the base of the natural logarithms, and that x is the variable of the exponential function written e^x.
He thought it was just an alternate notation for a power, x^n, where again x is the variable and n is a constant.”
This is both false and an ASSUMPTION made by you – not only with no evidence – but contradicted by the evidence.
YOU presumed that e^x is the ONLY valid exponential notation.
I did not use e^n because S-B does not use e^n
The Stefan-Boltzman Law is a 4th-power expression in the absolute temperature T. It is not a exponential function of temperature. I fear you understand neither mathematics nor physics.
Go actually read the Wikipedia pages, hmm?
Please read the same Wikipedia page you are referencing.
I would suggest the footnotes on how S-B applies to climate – including references in the IPCC AR4 report
as well as other footnotes.
The fourth IPCC report explains how ECS is estimated:
“Due to computational constraints, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a climate model is usually estimated by running an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is largely determined by atmospheric processes. Efficient models can be run to equilibrium with a dynamic ocean.”
But as I have repeatedly stated, Grant Foster has a method requiring just elementary statistics, directly from the data. Isn’t that clever?
That can only work under conditions not present in the real world – not particularly clever at all.
Regardless, one can hypothesize anything. The value of the hypothesis is established by conformance tot he real world.
In the real world high ECS values are not consistent with actual data.
It is not my job to examine what Tamino has done to find where and how he erred.
The fact that he is self evidently wrong is sufficient.
DB you are not ever going to get me to accept that CO2 is the primary driver of climate AND that ECS is high, because those can both be true given the real world relationship between CO2 and Temperature since 1958.
I am not arguing in detail – because I do not need to, your claims fail the Mark I eyeball test.
High ECS values are possible – but only if there are large negative forcing. CO2 as the primary driver is possible – but only at low ECS values.
The GCM’s are wrong because they do not forecast (now hindcast) reality. The error probably is either too high and ECS or they are missing large negative forcings.
“I don’t think that I need to go on”
But you will and continue to make a fool of yourself.
“given that his misunderstandings are so elementary.”
Look in the mirror.
“The exponential function, exp(x) = e^x is fundamental to mathematics and hence to physics.”
Your off on a tangent that no one is debating except you.
Eureaka, I think I see your problem.
“The exponential function” is not the same as “exponential”
ex·po·nen·tial (ĕk′spə-nĕn′shəl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to an exponent.
2. Mathematics
a. Containing, involving, or expressed as an exponent.
b. Expressed in terms of a designated power of e, the base of natural logarithms.
Please refer to 2a.
S-B is exponential, it is NOT expressed in terms of “e” – if you were desparate it could be, though I am not sure how useful that would be
Regardless, the error is yours.
I have provided S-B repeatedly and I have repeatedly said it is EXPONENTIAL
I would further note that Websters includes
:characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase
I was using exponential more mathematically sense – the FACT that S-B is exponential should have made what I was say CLEAR immediately
That is just your confusion. No mathematician or physicists would say other than Stefan’s Law is a 4th-power law.
” Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time j (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T”
Right from Wikipedia.
You are degenerating to badly arguing semantics.
And you are disconnected from reality.
Not only don’t you grasp the reality of global temperature changes and global CO2 changes.
But you do not grasp the relationship between power and energy,
Between power and exponents.
and on and on.
Whereever you found that definiton, it is wrong for mathematics.
2^n is the exponential (function) to the base 2. 2^2=4, 2^3=8, 2^4=16, …
e^n is the exponential (function) to the base of the natural logarithms, the base ordinarily used in mathematics and physics for good reason. e^2=e*e, e^3=e*e*e, …
The good reason is that e^x is it’s own derivative and also, therefore, antiderivative.
It is common just to say “exponential” to mean the exponential function to the base e.
I have provided my sources.
Once again you are off on a tangent.
No one is arguing with you about “The exponential function”
I have no doubt that S-B can be re-written referenceing e^x
I am not sure how actually common what you claim is common actually is – but it is irrelevant.
All that matters is that S-B as I copied it from Wikipedia is correct – if you wish to use the various rules of mathemtatics to transfrom S-B to reference e – be my guest. The entire point of the rules for mathematical transformation is that the result is the same tough more or less useful in the context.
John Say, you show that you understand neither mathematics nor physics.
Incorrect – and not an argument.
I claimed that Arrhenius, S-B and Plank – all related falsify CAGW – because CO2 and Temp Curves from 1979-present are both close to linear, that can anly be physically true if CO2 is not the primary driver of temperature.
That is in a nutshell one of the earliest arguments I made to you on this
You really have no shame at all.
YOU are the only on who used the term quadratic.
You also DENIED that S-B was applicable.
Now After I proved that Arrenhius is derived from S-B and S-B from Plank,
YOU are now claiming I am wrong by almost literally pretending that my positions are yours and yours were mine ?
Please go back and read your own posts.
You have scored an OWN GOAL.
Since after days of arguing the opposite you have suddenly flipped and accepted that S-B is correct and applies to Climate,
are you able to grasp that PROVES that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of temps in the past 40+ years ?
As YOU are now saying – there is a 4th power relationship between temperature and energy.
There is not a 4th power relationship between CO2 and temperature in the past 4 decades.
Given that S-B is not wrong – some factor other than CO2 must be the primary energy Source.
What is wrong is that you misapply Stefan’s Law. Which, I repeat, is a law between temperature and power, i.e., energy flux. NOT ENERGY. (I can hardly believe you actually studied physics. Jeez.)
For a correct application, see derivation one in
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/eqn%20derivation.pdf
Alternatively, start from Planck’s Law:
http://nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2018/08/26/Why-CO2-Forcing-Is-Logarithmic
Hence what I stated is correct.
From Wikipedia
“Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time j (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T”
Here is how power and energy related from Kahn Academy
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/work-and-energy/work-and-energy-tutorial/a/what-is-power
Do you really wish to start another stupid debate over Power vs. Energy ?
Again, you are wrong, and it is irrelevant.
You are arguing semantics – badly.
Many things you have said are correct. Everything is not.
Unlike you I have not argued pointlessly about fundimental physics.
CO2 forcing is logarithmic, it is also exponential – depending on whether you are looking at how energy relates to temperature or how temperature relates to energy.
They are inverses. This is basic math.
If you wish to assume linear increases in energy – you get logarithmic – i.e. ever decreasing rates of increase in temperature
If you assume linear increases in temperature – you get exponential increases in required energy.
S-B and Arrhenius all derive from Plank. All are applicable to CO2 and temperature.
“Now more heat-trapping gases such as CO2 lead to more surface warming. At this point all one can do is measure the relevant constant, called the climate sensitivity, because there are too many sources and sinks of energy. ”
It is precisely because climate is too complex and there are too many sources of energy (and sinks) that you CAN NOT measure ECS directly.
If you have massive amounts of data on ALL sinks and sources, and the data was good enough that you could regress out the coeficients for EACH sink and source – you could isolate ECS – the coefficient for CO2.
But we do not have nearly sufficient accurate data over anywhere near a sufficient time frame to regress out ECS.
BUT we can know from the data from 1979-the present that the 4th power S-B requires is NOT present and therefore CO2 can not be the primary driver – and that ECS must be low.
Whether you like it or not ECS is caclulated from the GCM’s – which would actually be plausible if these did not have to be over simplified and if they accurately forecast – which they do not.
Below I gave a detailed exposition. Here I just point out that you are totally wrong. Go study
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
— if you are capable of it.
When you link to the blog comments section of a blog that you are posting in – there is no reason for me to read farther.
Make your argument here.
John B Say, take off your blinders and go there to study, hard.
But i suppose that is too difficult for you.
Not an argument.
On every topic that you choose to address, I have either demonstrated more knowledge than you or better ability to go out and find real knowledge than you.
You can not even get basic math and physics correct.
You can not even keep your own arguments consistent.
You have waffled over S-B atleast 3 times so far.
“Everything follows known physical principles but we use the derived logarithm approximation for climate sensitivity to avoid the overly great complexities of exact atmospheric physics. Only the large computer programs, so-called GCMs, do that. I have avoided all aspects for what goes into a modern GCM, since the simplification is good enough to determine the climate sensitivity.”
This is just about as perfectly false as you can get.
It is precisely because there are so many factors that you can not “we use the derived logarithm approximation for climate sensitivity”
Doing so is both impossible and substantial scientific fraud.
Applying S-B to climate ROUGHLY and over simplified
The 4th root of T must equal aE1 + bE2 + cE3 …..
Where each term is the energy from one of the many climate drivers. and a, b, c are the ECS’s for their respective drivers.
You can not derive the ECS for CO2 from that without a gargantuan about of data over a very long period of time – where each driver had at some time in the data substantially deviated from the rest so that by regression you could isolate it.
You are now up to your ass in the Romer problem I mentioned before – except you really can not get there – because the temp and CO2 curves are too flat to get a high coefficient for ANYTHING much less CO2.
John B Say remains egregiously wrong. My long comment below, dated May 25 @ 12:38 pm, explains the details of avoiding GCMs. Which by the way, doa good job although John B Say doesn’t understand how or why. Nonetheless, let us stick to cleverly worked out approximations which do as well. Briefly, study
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
David you must like circles everywhere including the process of reasoning. When will you stop quoting yourself?
Still citing your own comments from another blog I see.
You have done poorly here.
There is no reason to assume you know more posting on a different blog.
Make actual arguments RIGHT HERE, in your own posts on JT.
Citing yourself harms your credibility.
If you had bothered to look, that BNC link simply collects the relevant links that those seeking knowledge will follow to read the papers.
I am not going to help you ma$turbate your self.
I have actually provided more links to primary sources – even warmists, even your favorite warmest on climate science than you have.
Though I link to their data, or their open definitions of terms of descriptions of methods.
You link to propaganda.
John, I think David was a professor of computer engineering coming from an electrical engineering background. I don’t know if you will understand what I am alluding to in a very poor fashion. His interest at present is global warming. Global warming is heavily invested in modeling. Modeling depends on computers.
His age tells us he entered the field of computer engineering, at the least, 15 years too late and exited intense study too early to gain maximum understanding of a computer’s potential. From different things you have said my guess is you were born near the perfect time of computer development.
S. Meyer, wrong again. I started with computers in 1956.
You spoke too soon, Benson. I wasn’t referring to the date computers were in existence. I was referring to your age and the fact that there was a revolution in computers that started with those that had access to computers when they were very young. I refer you to the computer giants that today are around 66 years old.
Good for you.
So far I have note read a single post from you that demonstrates sufficient critical, logical or mathematical thinking to be entrusted with a mechanical calculator.
I do not think I have ever met a mathematical grammar nazi of your scale – and Worse still one who was so totally completely wrong.
“Exponential
In algebra, the term “exponential” usually refers to an exponential function. It may also be used to refer to a function that exhibits exponential growth or exponential decay, among other things.”
My first computer was a COSMAC Elf, I built it myself from articles in Popular Electronics.
I am thoroughly unimpressed by Mr. Benson.
Initially I thought he might have some intelligence.
But he has really badly harmed himself and does not have the wits to extricate himself.
I may leave him alone soon – as this is starting to feel like bring cruel to him.
Further it is not my responsibility to debunk every stupid thing you have ever written anywhere in the world regarding climate.
If you know what you are talking about – you can make that argument here.
So far you have failed.
You bogged yourself down in stupid and false claims regarding exponentials
Nor do I have any interest in debating Tamino by proxy through you.
Plenty of others have pointed out the poor credentials, errors and biases of Tamino.
Wrong again and again. II have explained well enough and pointed out where to go for more. Grant Foster knows vastly more than you about science and statistics, being a professional statistician. Anybody criticizing his work is mistaken and likely to be a fool.
GF has been repeatedly criticized by far more capable statisticians.
He is not a climate scientist – his qualifications in climate are no better than yours or mine.
Frankly his qualifications in math are likely significantly inferior to mine.
GF spent a great deal of effort trying to defend the infamous hockey stick as well as the related “hide the decline”
Both of these were statistical frauds.
Sorry, you burn your own credibility when you commit fraud.
SM Mr. Benson did not even “refer” to experts, he just lobbed them like throwing grenades blindfolded.
… “somewhere in some tome by someone who rarely is an actual climate scientist by my own idiotic defintion of climate scientist, there must be something that refutes you – so go read this”
He does not even know the material he is citing.
In many instances I am Citing his own sources to refute him.
Mr. Benson – I can not recall anyone ever being so obviously wrong, being caught in the sunlight and CONTINUING to spray the same nonsense.
You have wasted dozens of posts on an error you think I made that exists only in your head, in a context where even if I had made an error it would be irrelevant – the FLAW in Warmist theory is present for EVERY mathematically curve where the slope increases with each interval.
Quadratic, exponential – it does not matter – the Warmist error is still present.
But not only are you wrong in that your attack is irrelevant.
You are also quite literally wrong in your idiotic rant about exponential.
Myriads of sources that have been provided to you confirm that e^x is not the only valid form of exponentiation, nor frankly the traditional or more common form.
Further the Wikipedia article on S-B does not use your prefered form, I would venture that in nearly all scientific papers that contain an exponential – it is NOT expressed in your prefered form.
Last you are back to pretending I do not understand S-B – yet YOU are the one who claimed S-B irrelevant to climate – despite the fact that Arrhenius’s formula is derived from S-B. I noted from the start that Plank, S-B and Arrhenius were all related.
I have subsequently proven it.
And yet you still rant away.
The ONLY time I have used the word “quadratic” in my posts is in posts saying that I have not used Quadratic.
Nor have I specifically used logarithmic – except in response to your use of it.
Please stop pretending you can read my mind or that I have said things that I obviously did not.
I have made compelling arguments falsifying CAGW – and you respond with false claims about math and physics errors.
Worse still – not only are your claims false – but they are also irrelevant.
If you were actually right about my supposed math or physics errors – what you deem to be a correction -would STILL falsify CAGW.
You keep ranting “logarithms, logarithms, logarithms”. The relationship between CO2 and temperature – for linear or near linear CO2 is some form of declining curve – such as your logarithm – and that falsifies Warmist GCM’s and CAGW.
I will note – I am increasingly using the broadest and most generic mathematical and scientific language with you – to avoid your stupid tangents over your unusual definitions.
(1) Stefan’s Law is an 4th-power law in the absolute temperature, not an exponential. It can be derived from Planck’s Law, which includes a term in the denominator of e^(v/T), which is an exponential in the argument (v/T).
(2) The natural logarithm of argument x is often written ln(x). The natural exponential function e^y is the antilogarithm, i.e., inverse of the natural logarithm, so that ln(e^z)=z for all positive numbers z. You should have learned this in pre-calculus class.
(3) Therefore, as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 grows exponentially, proportional to e^t for time t, and as the temperature forcing of atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic in the concentration, we have that the global temperature grows proportional to time,
t = ln(e^t)
which is about right, i.e., the hockeystick of Mann et al.
(4) In more detail,, one measures the surface temperature. There are 4 global surface temperature products for temperatures from 1880 CE. Arbitrarily, choose the one from NASA. There are atmospheric CO2 measurements for this period by combining the trace gas measurements from air trapped in the Law Dome ice core with the later Keeling curve. Then using standard statistical measurements one determines from this data to climate sensitivity S in the temperature forcing function
F = S*ln(c/280) where c is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in ppm, this equation being a function of time.
Grant Foster using logarithms to the base 2, there being a standard conversion which you should have learned in precalculus. No matter, we obtain the climate sensitivity. There is no use of big computer models of the climate, so-called GCMs.
All of this point 4 is to be found by reading the links listed in
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
wherein one also finds three different ways to derive the temperature forcing function.
From an online elementary text on mathematics.
“What are Exponents?
Exponents are used to show repeated multiplication of a number by itself. For example, 7 × 7 × 7 can be represented as 7^3. Here, the exponent is ‘3’ which stands for the number of times the number 7 is multiplied. 7 is the base here which is the actual number that is getting multiplied. So basically exponents or powers denotes the number of times a number can be multiplied. If the power is 2, that means the base number is multiplied two times with itself. ”
So much for your first point.
Wow! e is present in Plank! – So what ? That actually undermines your claim.
To be clear I have never made a single claim about “The exponential Function”.
I have not said that Plank is not in the form e^x or that S-B could not be rewritten in an e^x form.
You now fighting over whether exponents and powers are synonymous.
They are but that is not relevant.
S-B tells us that the energy of a black body is the proportionate to the 4th power of its temperature.
That requires that each increase in temperature requires even greater energy than the last.
Fundamentally my only claim is that energy and Temperature do not relate linearly.
Something You STILL refuse to acknowlege. Regardless, that successively increasing energy requirement FALSIFIES CAGW.
You are expecting close to linear increases in CO2 to caputure successively non-linear amounts of energy.
It would be easier to say exponential increases in energy – but it is self evident that you do not know what exponential means.
2) inverse and anti are not the same.
E = sT^4
conversely T can be expressed as a log of E.
My argument can be framed correctly as
Linear increases in T require exponential increases in E.
OR
Linear increases in E only yield logarithmic increases in T.
“(3) Therefore, as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 grows exponentially”
The change in CO2 since 1958 has been very close to linear.
We are not debating an alternate reality.
https://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/co2_data_mlo.jpg
There are statistically tests to compare that data with (1) a linear function (2) an exponential function. Use those to see which is the better fit to the data.
Tamino has already done this, over and over, SeeOpenMind blog as I doubt that you have either the knowledge or the tools to do the tests yourself.
There are tools you do not even need statistics, they are more fundimental math than statitistics.
But there is something much more fundimental than that.
The Mark I eyeball.
It is obvious from inspection that If the existing real world data for temp and CO2 relate to each other primarily through CO2 And the relationship conforms to S-B which it must – the coeficient for the exponent – i.e. ECS much be very small.
If that is insufficient for you – the GCM’s which use higher values for ECS – are OBVIOUSLY overshooting by about a factor of 4.
Regardless, I am not looking to take over the world and impose policies by force – you are.
The burden of proof is on you ALWAYS.
4).
So GF using a massive over simplification of climate and discounting all other forcing besides CO2 using mixtures of proxy and direct measurements. as well as measures of earths temperature going into the past that are opaque, require significant adjustments – that have also been done opaquely, have large and increasing error bars as we go back in time, and do not actually measure global surface temperatures – they do not even reliably measure land surface temperatures especially as we go further in the past
Why didn;t the IPCC think of that ?
Why 1880 ? Why not 1800 or 1750 or 1600 ? If your going to join proxies to direct measures – whey not go back 2000 years ?
The law dome data goes that far.
What could possibly go wrong ?
Why is it beyond your ability to ask questions such as these ?
John Say, because, if you knew the first aspects of climatology, the instrumental globasl surface temperature readings only are sufficiently extensive from 1880 CE to the present.
Go learn the climatology. I’m not going to further spoon-feed you.
And yet you claim that you have proxies for CO2 and proxies for Temperature that can accurately take you back thousands of years.
You tell me the MWP and the RWP were local north atlantic phenomena.
Without the records you claim we do not have – how is it you know that ?
Do you actually think about the things you post before you do so ?
BTW there is nothing magical about 1880.
You have claimed that Arrhenius established the impact of CO2 on global temperatures – right about that time – what data did he use ?
There are lots of problems that I have pointed out with the thermometer records,.
But there is not actually some single point discontinuity in them.
The quality declines slowly as we go back in time.
There is not some point such as 1880 when they are acceptable when a year earlier they were not.
Mr. Benson making stupid stupid medical or psychological claims about the perseon you are debating is among the more repugnant forms of ad hominem. It is not argument.
Do you have any actual arguments to make ?
John B Say, your inability to recognize the exponential function, so central to mathematics, physics, economics, finance, etc., suggests a mental handicap. Peope who have had a stroke that I knew did not recognize that they had lost part of their brain. They both caused automobile accidents after their strokes, fortunately not too serious.
I only suggest that you go ask a medical doctor.
Mr. Benson – you are free to keep making a fool of yourself if you wish.
You are The only one confusing AN exponential function -S-B as an example – with THE Exponential function.
Nor is this a rational error. I introduced S-B “an exponential function”. You pulled “the exponential function out of thin air.
John Say, stop being an idiot! Stefan-Boltzman is a power law, not an exponential function. By definition.
To see the difference, T^4 is a power law; 4^T is an exponential function.
Jeez.
I have addressed this over and over.
S-B is not a FUNCTION
it is an equation.
T to the 4th POWER is an EXPONENTIAL term.
This is all really 6th grade math and yet you insist on proving – your not smarter than a 5th grader.
SM,
If you find errors, PLEASE point them out.
I try hard to follow my own advice and not post assertions of fact that can not be backed up.
But on very rare occasions I make errors.
I expect to be taken to task for that – when it actually happens.
But that does not mean that I take claims I have made an error – that in nearly all causes do not even identify what assertion I have made is erroneous, much less demonstrating that any assertion I have made is wrong.
Benson seems to confuse insulting people and arguments with actually arguing.
“If you find errors, PLEASE point them out.”
John, based on our prior discussions ,you already recognize that I don’t have any problem pointing out where we disagree. That generally occurs where different perspectives are involved. On the subject of climate change I did not note any significant error that you made. Your arguments were excellent. If Benson’s ineptitude, and your replies were put into a pamphlet, the pamphlet would be very helpful to their understanding.
The debate with Benson has become bogged down – because he insists on debating meaningless points of mathematical grammar and he can not even get those right.
The argument that has grown to hundreds of posts, is really simple.
S-B’s Law specifies that it requires exponentially more energy to reach each incremental increase in temperature.
This should not be a controversial statement.
It is not specific to CO2, it is not specific to Climate.
It is a law of physics. And it is referenced in works on climate science – such as IPCC AR4.
Benson has been fighting this law of physics in every possible way he can.
His claims are so bat$hit that it often has taken me some time to figure out each fo the many ways he is wrong.
Significant portions of many of his posts are correct – but not applicable.
S-B is not “The exponential Function” – it is a law, and it is an equation – not a function.
My use of “exponential” – was to describe the rate of increase of one term in relation to incremental changes in another.
That is dictionary and mathematically correct.
I even looked up synonyms for exponential to see if there was a way arround Benson’s nonsense that could be acheived by using another word. The top 10 synonyms for exponential – are sufficiently different in meaning to not be usable.
Exponential is the only accurate work to describe the change in energy required for incremental increases in temperature.
Too hot in South Asia:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/28/1051511/climate-change-india-heat-waves/
Incidentally, the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that the Greenland ice sheet is loosing mass; more summer melt than winter snow just now.
Am I banned?
A link to Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
What is wrong with N*S*I*D*C?
National Snow and Ice Data Center
has information on the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets
Are gas prices high? You are a clown.