The War of Data, And Why I Am Lukewarm About Global Warming

originally posted by: [post=19629067]mbkennelBecause scientists were studying radiative transfer of various planets with remote sensing.

And what specifically was discovered about the radiative transfer effects on Mars that helped with the AGW theory?

originally posted by: mbkennel
The lower amount of infrared seen *in these bands* mean that there has been an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases and they are increasingly blocking and re-radiating (partially, back down) the infrared which came from lower parts of the atmosphere and surface.

As an ex-global warming subscriber, I am quite familiar with this theory, thank you very much.

This is yet another example of a clever, but smug, layman who thinks he knows a large amount but really is barely a beginner compared to the experts and misinterprets known science and results.

Not really. Science is simple, it's just that political agencies love to make it seem complicated to understand.

Do you not realize that the decline in the re-radiation of this infrared band also points to the conclusion that the atmosphere is less energized (laymen's terms: less warm) in the first place? Less and less energy is accumulated in the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere's water vapor electrons to be less energized, leading to a reduction in electronic orbital transitions, and thus causing them to emit less and less electromagnetic radiations on infrared wavelength in the first place?

If you have still trouble grasping the concept, allow me to use an analogy.

Point an infrared detector at a hot coal placed inside an insulated shield. The sensor will indeed register a decline in escaping infrared as the shield gets more and more efficient.

But then, point that same IR detector at a cooled (and still cooling) charcoal. The sensor will ALSO register a decline in escaping infrared as the charcoal will get more and more cool.

That's NOT what the science says!

"The science" is theory-blind, mate.

Otherwise it's called a dogma.

originally posted by: swanne
Not really. Science is simple, it's just that political agencies love to make it seem complicated to understand.

I don't know what sciences YOU'VE studied, but every science that -I- am aware of are QUITE complicated. To the point where they each require upwards of 7 to 8 years (and maybe even more) of additional schooling to BEGIN to understand and work with the most complicated aspects of each one.

I've not met a single person who has become an expert in a science field by researching on the internet (yes, that includes me). So saying that "science is simple" has got to be the biggest flag I've ever seen declaring that you don't know what you are talking about.

oops... wrong person to reply to.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So saying that "science is simple" has got to be the biggest flag I've ever seen declaring that you don't know what you are talking about.

"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."

- Ernest Rutherford


What good is a scientific explanation if it cannot be understood (and thus verified to be valid) by the majority of the population?

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So saying that "science is simple" has got to be the biggest flag I've ever seen declaring that you don't know what you are talking about.

"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."

- Ernest Rutherford


What good is a scientific explanation if it cannot be understood (and thus verified to be valid) by the majority of the population?

Because things just aren't that simple. Sounds like a personal problem to me. You should just accept that the universe is VERY complicated and we haven't even BEGAN to scratch the surface. To believe that science could actually be simple is so naive that it is almost egotistical.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you agree with me - climate is way too complicated for AGW Theory to be the final truth. That just like it is the case with the Universe, "we haven't even BEGAN to scratch the surface" of the complexity of climate's every single factors.

Once again, thank you for providing support to my original post.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you agree with me - climate is way too complicated for AGW Theory to be the final truth. That just like it is the case with the Universe, "we haven't even BEGAN to scratch the surface" of the complexity of climate's every single factors.

Final truth? Where did I ever call AGW final anything?

Once again, thank you for providing support to my original post.

Thanks for pushing the tired fallacy that since science is incomplete that that can be used as evidence of it being incorrect.

a reply to: mbkennel

You seem to forget about something called "fundings", sweetie. Any scientist rely on external fundings, either corporation, industry, or governmental. And guess who gives the fundings, and who can stop giving fundings, to a scientist? Industry, corporations, and governments. Without it, a scientist can't get much going.

Now, guess how a funding work? Some industry/corporation/governmental person examine a scientist's work, and decide if it has potential (in drugs industry, if the research can create a new drug; in technology, to create a new tech). If it does, that particular person gives money to the scientist... at the condition that the scientist's researches follow the decision of the funder. If he doesn't, the funding stops.

Now lets say most of the top industries would profit enormously from saying there is a global warming (which they do), guess what is expected of scientists when those industries decide to fund them? The scientists, in order to continue being funded, must then say that there is a global warming, because that is the answer the industries are paying them for.

Google scientists researches conflicts with funding, and you'll see all the papers on the interests conflicts between funding and researches. Its the most known conflict in history: BIAS. And the most important bias: money. A scientist rely purely on funding for his researches. Of course a scientist won't publish a research contrary to what his fundings are intended for.

Guess what happens when those who funds them profit ENORMOUSLY from global warming.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Where did I ever call AGW final anything?

Page 2, of this thread:

Rarely are theories ever completely overturned in the world of science. Especially ones with as much data supporting it as man made climate change.

Are you backing out? At first you say that all evidences are in favour of AGW theory, and then you tell me that climate is too complex so AGW Theory may not be the final truth on the issue after all.

Perhaps we have reached a stalemate of arguments? I propose that we agree on one thing: There is not enough data to validate AGW theory, but then, there is not enough data to invalidate AGW theory neither.

What do you think?

originally posted by: swanne

Do you not realize that the decline in the re-radiation of this infrared band

It's an increase in re-radiation. You measure a net decline in IR in those particular bands from the space side since more is being absorbed by the atmosphere going from bottom to top.

Thermal IR -> greenhouse layer -> space

if greenhouse layer re-radiates more, that means that some of the Thermal IR going out to space will be absorbed
and re-radiated in all directions, half of which is going back down.

The net amount seen in space in these greenhouse absorption bands is less than it would be with a less potent greenhouse layer.

The result is a higher equilibrium temperature beneath the greenhouse layer, and that is also what is observed.

Roughly there is still nearly all energy in == all energy out (except heat going into secular increase of ocean heat) but equilibrium temperature below greenhouse layer goes up. So if temperature below is higher then you will get more overall (from higher temperature) which will be intercepted by a thicker greenhouse layer. So more broadband and less in the greenhouse band.

The people who do this for real, do the quantitative work to make this exact. It's not super simple to account for all the numbers correctly but people have been at this for decades now.

also points to the conclusion that the atmosphere is less energized (laymen's terms: less warm) in the first place? Less and less energy is accumulated in the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere's water vapor electrons to be less energized, leading to a reduction in electronic orbital transitions, and thus causing them to emit less and less electromagnetic radiations on infrared wavelength in the first place?

You're missing some of the physics.

originally posted by: swanne

Perhaps we have reached a stalemate of arguments? I propose that we agree on one thing: There is not enough data to validate AGW theory, but then, there is not enough data to invalidate AGW theory neither.

What do you think?

It's wrong. There is now enough data to validate AGW theory. There are many specific predictions which distinguish this from other mechanisms, and they have been observed.

originally posted by: swanne

If you have still trouble grasping the concept, allow me to use an analogy.

Point an infrared detector at a hot coal placed inside an insulated shield. The sensor will indeed register a decline in escaping infrared as the shield gets more and more efficient.

But then, point that same IR detector at a cooled (and still cooling) charcoal. The sensor will ALSO register a decline in escaping infrared as the charcoal will get more and more cool.

The two cases are distinguished by the frequency distribution of the radiation. The second case will show a thermal distribution corresponding to a lower temperature, the first will show a combination of a higher temperature further absorbed by the shield and its particular material properties & physics.

a reply to: mbkennel

The result is a higher equilibrium temperature beneath the greenhouse layer, and that is also what is observed.

You mean, measured with ground thermometers which I already covered in my OP - those same measurements which are adjusted by agencies and which we never see raw. Satellites cannot orbit underneath the greenhouse layer.

There is now enough data to validate AGW theory. There are many specific predictions which distinguish this from other mechanisms, and they have been observed.

You mean, such as diminution of global precipitations? /sarcasm

The IPCC has compiled a chart about precipitation trends.



www.ipcc.ch...

A rise in drought occurences (again, from IPCC):



It is a common misconception to assume that higher temp = more deserts. Downward temperature trends can lead to as severe desertification patterns. Check "Polar Deserts" if you believe me not:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Decrease in temp leads to a slow down of atmospheric humidity, which in turn results in less global precipitations, hence more droughts.

Hm, what you'd know? NASA's own humidity observations are inconsistent with AGW theory model:

Using the UARS data to actually quantify both specific humidity and relative humidity, the researchers found, while water vapor does increase with temperature in the upper troposphere, the feedback effect is not as strong as models have predicted.

www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Where did I ever call AGW final anything?

Page 2, of this thread:

Rarely are theories ever completely overturned in the world of science. Especially ones with as much data supporting it as man made climate change.

Are you backing out? At first you say that all evidences are in favour of AGW theory, and then you tell me that climate is too complex so AGW Theory may not be the final truth on the issue after all.

You know, I don't see a single instance of the word "final" in that quote you mined from me. I see the word "rarely", but "rarely" isn't the same as "final". You DO know that the word "rarely" means that SOMETIMES these things do happen right? Final means that it would never happen. Apparently you need a dictionary.

Perhaps we have reached a stalemate of arguments? I propose that we agree on one thing: There is not enough data to validate AGW theory, but then, there is not enough data to invalidate AGW theory neither.

What do you think?

I'm not going to agree to that absurd premise. There IS enough to validate it, because THAT is why it's a theory. That's the very definition of a scientific theory. The theory isn't finalized and has much more to go before it is, but we are definitely on the right track and I will NOT walk back my stance on science so you can feel like you got a minor victory out of it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whatever, mate. You keep contradicting yourself about AGW being both "non final" AND "valid" at once.

Attempting to find common grounds with you is a beautiful exercise in futility.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whatever, mate. You keep contradicting yourself about AGW being both "non final" AND "valid" at once.

No, I'm not. No more so than any other theory in science at least. All theories in science aren't final and are valid. Where's your complaints about Cell Theory being a lie? After all that theory isn't final and is valid as well. Do you say the same things about Evolution? What about the theory of gravity? I'm sure the theory of electricity is a lie too then huh?

Attempting to find common grounds with you is a beautiful exercise in futility.

That's because you either don't know or ignore the scientific method.

a reply to: mbkennel

You measure a net decline in IR in those particular bands from the space side since more is being absorbed by the atmosphere going from bottom to top.

Thermal IR -> greenhouse layer -> space

if greenhouse layer re-radiates more, that means that some of the Thermal IR going out to space will be absorbed
and re-radiated in all directions, half of which is going back down.

Yes, yes, we all know how the theory goes. But my point is, such reduction in space can also be caused by an even simpler mechanism.

Allow me to use your own graphical way of description:

)Earth Thermal IR ▶ greenhouse layer ▶ space

The AGW theory states that as Greenhouse layer thickens, less thermal IR will escape to space. So,

)Earth Thermal IR ▶ Thickening Greenhouse layer ▶ space

...becomes, according to AGW...

)Earth Thermal IR ◀ Thick greenhouse layer ▪ space

But the satellite in space will also register less escaping IR if it is the Earth that is cooling:

)Earth Thermal IR ▶ greenhouse layer ▶ space

becomes...

)Earth cooler ▪ greenhouse layer ▪ space

In both instances the satellite will register less heat escaping to space. In both instances, the thermal IR nevertheless crosses the greenhouse layer. But in one case the decline in space is caused by a thickening of the layer, and in the other case it is caused by a diminution of terran thermal IR itself (right before it reaches the bulk of the layer).

Additionally, I fear you might have failed to realize a very important property of the greenhouse layer: once energized, it re-emits infrared on both directions - back to Earth but also towards space. Thus if the surface really was warming, the greenhouse layer itself would re-emit half of such warming towards the satellite (and the other half back to earth, inducing a greenhouse effect), as such:

)Earth Thermal IR ▶ Thickening Greenhouse layer ▶ space

...would actually become...

)Earth Thermal IR ◀ Thick greenhouse layer ▶ space

The layer is not a mirror. The layer is emitting IR in every directions. One of the directions is space, where the satellite is located. Any energizing of the layer will show up as an increase of IR on satellite records, NOT a decline.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That's because you either don't know or ignore the scientific method.

Look yourself in the mirror, mate. You're the one who shot down my thread and claimed the superiority of AGW theory.

In my OP I simply explained why AGW was not final, and you had as kneejerk reaction, which you then disguised under the name of "scientific method".

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That's because you either don't know or ignore the scientific method.

Look yourself in the mirror, mate. You're the one who shot down my thread and claimed the superiority of AGW theory.

Don't be dishonest! I shot down your thread AFTER reviewing each of the pieces of evidence that you posted, and you know DAMN well that I did that.

In my OP I simply explained why AGW was not final, and you had as kneejerk reaction, which you then disguised under the name of "scientific method".

No, that isn't what you did at all. What you did was try to show that there was some sort of discrepancy in the way that temperatures are reported so that says that AGW is wrong. What you are saying NOW is a COMPLETELY different conclusion than what you were proposing originally.