Professor quits job at university over "craziness" in climate science

a reply to: TheRedneck

There are no plants in my living room right now. Am I respirating?

If you don't consume some organic matter, you won't be for long.

No, you were not. You said:

Thanks, I know what I said and its context.

Respiration is carbon neutral. The CO2 we exhale comes from the food we eat, which gets it out of the atmosphere. It produces no net change. Burning carbon which was sequestered many, many millions of years ago does produce a net change. It causes CO2 concentrations to increase.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But you cannot successfully argue that respiration is a carbon neutral process short of major research that shows life doesn't work the way we have known it works for hundreds of years.

We know how life works. Plants turn atmospheric CO2 into complex compounds. Animals eat those compounds and in the process of metabolizing them, return the CO2 to the atmosphere.

a reply to: rxh0272

Don't be silly. If you burn fossil fuels, my tree out front will convert that CO2 to oxygen.

Some of it, yes. If it converted all of it atmospheric CO2 levels would not be rising and there wouldn't be an issue.

For example, why do we never here about the lack of Oxygen on Earth?

As pointed out, there is evidence that O2 levels are declining.

a reply to: TheRedneck
I don't even understand what your argument is at this point.

rxh0272 was pointing at the sun as if it had changed and was responsible for changes in temperature.

I pointed out the changes were very slight.

You complained about my calculations, despite my link to NASA showing how they are done.

What is your point? Of course angle of incidence matters for a particular spot, just as the angle a bullet striking a sloped surface matters.

Why is that relevant to average W/m^2, when describing how minute the changes in TSI were?

a reply to: rxh0272

It's hard to live this close to Tennessee without being familiar with the infamous Gore family. I am also old enough to remember Al Gore Sr., one of the most corrupt politicians to ever grace Tennessee politics.

I also remember the first time I watched "An Inconvenient Truth." I had to pause it several times to catch my breath from laughing so hard.

Anyway, back to serious... I have heard the arguments for and against various maximum populations, but I really have no opinion except that we're not there yet. The resource issue seems to be a matter of efficiency rather than quantity. But my study of humanity in general leads me to believe the issue is in fact moot, because the human species tends to regulate itself through violent means very well.

our government is full of nincompoops.

I really have no comment on this; I just liked it so much I wanted to put it in my post too.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I also remember the first time I watched "An Inconvenient Truth." I had to pause it several times to catch my breath from laughing so hard.

That movie has made it's way into the public mis-education system, it's being taught as fact. It's very slick propaganda. Can't wait for the release of the next 'episode' in a few weeks.

Part Deux

Now more than ever, we must rededicate ourselves to solving the climate crisis. But we have reason to be hopeful; the solutions to the crisis are at hand. Al Gore

a reply to: Greven

My point is that you went through complex geometric calculations to 'prove' something that was already known.

Of course you can divide area by area, but is the result any more relevant than it was to start with? The total solar irradiance striking the normal plane of the earth (a disk) is the value under consideration. That is what we measure. That is what is known. That is what will deviate if the solar irradiance deviates. Anything more is useless gymnastics and confuscation.

The graph was obviously an integral function over time with a linear decay, which is expected if the sun heats the earth.

Look, I know you want to 'win' the argument... but you really need to understand the math before you start trying to speak it on complex issues. Try those links... back up if you need to. Math is easy... and fun! Once you understand it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rxh0272

The UN does not study the climate. Rather, it relies on data from dozens of science organizations that do. That's why the same organizations have similar conclusions. There's one list here:

climate.nasa.gov...

and a longer one here:

www.opr.ca.gov...

Take note that several of them are academy of sciences, including the one in the US, which even the Bush administration considered the "gold standard" in peer review.

Al Gore is not a scientist. What you should do is consult what scientists say. See the links above for sources.

The rest of your post is unscientific because it repeats various myths raised by deniers:

www.newscientist.com...

a reply to: Phage

If you don't consume some organic matter, you won't be for long.

Consumption of organic matter is not called respiration. Try to consume organic matter through respiration, and you'll stop respirating even faster. FYI, that is called "aspiration" and it can be a very bad thing.

I think what you want to say is that the sum total of fauna-based life processes is carbon neutral. That would be almost correct, except that not all accumulated organic matter is necessarily released back into the atmosphere after death.

But at least it's closer...

TheRedneck

a reply to: D8Tee

My God, man, please tell me you're kidding! Please, please, Please!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Try to consume organic matter through respiration, and you'll stop respirating even faster.

Try to respire without consuming organic matter for a while. You need those products of photosynthesis.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You don't know me very well, then. What I want is to be right, not 'win the argument.' That doesn't matter to me.

Perhaps it is unnecessary for you, as the proportion remains the same, but I was explaining in the context of the WUWT link in case a reader was unfamiliar with the calculation. The WUWT link uses a chart showing average W/m^2 spread over the Earth. Maybe you missed the context?

Why do you think the chart is 'obviously an integral function over time with a linear decay'?

a reply to: Phage

But is consumption a part of respiration?

noun
1. the act of respiring; inhalation and exhalation of air; breathing.
2. Biology.

the sum total of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which oxygen is conveyed to tissues and cells, and the oxidation products, carbon dioxide and water, are given off.

an analogous chemical process, as in muscle cells or in anaerobic bacteria, occurring in the absence of oxygen.

It would appear not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Have you been consuming corn, in liquid, distilled form?

a reply to: Greven

An integral is a summation. If you will notice, the graph temperature rises soon after the solar input rises, and continues to rise during high solar input. At the end if the graph, the temperature appears to stabilize as the solar input returns to a lower level.

This is indicative of a summing function with a linear decay. Think of it as filling a bucket with water with a hole in the bottom. If the input equals the output, the water level stays steady. If the input exceeds the output, the water level rises, and vice versa if the output exceeds the input.

This is an integral function, a summing over time, instead of a linear function. A linear function would rise as the input rose and fall the input fell. Few things in nature are actually linear; most are integrals or derivative (the inverse of integral).

If one wished, one could analyze that graph to determine the needed solar irradiance needed for steady-state operation. Any irradiation level above that could then be inferred to increase temperatures and any irradiated level below that could be inferred to lower the temperature. This is a common analysis in control systems to determine steady state and predict responsiveness to non-optimal inputs.

The climate is not completely linear, however, and we therefore would not expect linear changes based on input variations. Instead, inputs would provide non-linear results. These non-linear results can typically approach linearity within certain ranges, and that may well be the case with climate. But outside of that range of assumed linearity, the mathematical assumptions become invalid and we must include the non-linear functions directly.

That is a major task mathematically and is why computer models are used. Computer models can only respond to the equations programmed into them and the inputs fed them, however... Garbage In, Garbage Out. The trick now is to discover the actual equations needed, and we can only do that by educated trial-and-error. That's why I keep stating that climate models are not yet accurate. The reports are analyzing accuracy and attempting to better adjust the various functions, all in the face of somewhat uncertain data.

We'll get there. When we do, we'll know with some certainty what to expect from the climate. Until then, though, we're guessing. We might get some things right once in a while, but we'll also miss on many things. The closer to understanding, the better our predictions will be, and the more I will take them seriously.

To better understand what I have written here, seriously, go to those Khan Academy links. University tutors rely on Khan Academy, and more than one professor has suggested their lessons to my classes. Those were not an insult, nor a joke.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's frickin' calculus dude.
I thought all we needed to know was algebra.

a reply to: Phage

Not recently, although right about now it looks tempting.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Actually, it's differential equations and vector calculus. And I really just hit the basics.

Algebra is not enough. Not even close.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, it's differential equations and vector calculus. And I really just hit the basics.

Differentiation is a branch of calculus (thanks, Issac) just like respiration is part of the carbon cycle.

a reply to: Phage

Differential Equations is an advanced method of solving equations not solvable under classical calculus.

Vector Calculus is a branch of Linear Algebra, used to solve MIMO (Multiple Input, Multiple Output) systems of differential equations.

Math does not end with classical calculus, Phage. It starts getting interesting from there.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

An integral is a summation. If you will notice, the graph temperature rises soon after the solar input rises, and continues to rise during high solar input. At the end if the graph, the temperature appears to stabilize as the solar input returns to a lower level.

This is indicative of a summing function with a linear decay. Think of it as filling a bucket with water with a hole in the bottom. If the input equals the output, the water level stays steady. If the input exceeds the output, the water level rises, and vice versa if the output exceeds the input.

This is an integral function, a summing over time, instead of a linear function. A linear function would rise as the input rose and fall the input fell. Few things in nature are actually linear; most are integrals or derivative (the inverse of integral).

If one wished, one could analyze that graph to determine the needed solar irradiance needed for steady-state operation. Any irradiation level above that could then be inferred to increase temperatures and any irradiated level below that could be inferred to lower the temperature. This is a common analysis in control systems to determine steady state and predict responsiveness to non-optimal inputs.

The climate is not completely linear, however, and we therefore would not expect linear changes based on input variations. Instead, inputs would provide non-linear results. These non-linear results can typically approach linearity within certain ranges, and that may well be the case with climate. But outside of that range of assumed linearity, the mathematical assumptions become invalid and we must include the non-linear functions directly.

That is a major task mathematically and is why computer models are used. Computer models can only respond to the equations programmed into them and the inputs fed them, however... Garbage In, Garbage Out. The trick now is to discover the actual equations needed, and we can only do that by educated trial-and-error. That's why I keep stating that climate models are not yet accurate. The reports are analyzing accuracy and attempting to better adjust the various functions, all in the face of somewhat uncertain data.

We'll get there. When we do, we'll know with some certainty what to expect from the climate. Until then, though, we're guessing. We might get some things right once in a while, but we'll also miss on many things. The closer to understanding, the better our predictions will be, and the more I will take them seriously.

To better understand what I have written here, seriously, go to those Khan Academy links. University tutors rely on Khan Academy, and more than one professor has suggested their lessons to my classes. Those were not an insult, nor a joke.

A correlation is not a causation, you know. Calculus is not something I do every day, but it is an interesting subject. I had a great professor for the first course. The second was a bit more difficult, though I did not end up taking the third course. One thing I vaguely recollect discovering is that:
∫(x^y * ln(x)^z) = ∑(x^(y+1)*ln(x)^(z-i)*(z!/(z-i)!)*(-1)^i)/(y+i)^(i+1)
I think that was it... where i=0 and and there are z terms. It has been a while; I never did see if this was written in some book somewhere.

I suppose it wasn't on that GISTEMP graph, since that's surface temperatures... why do you suppose the lower stratosphere is cooling?