RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DomKen -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/26/2013 1:44:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Hey Hill

1. I think your quibble is a bit symantecs. If the theory hinges (critically) on one value derived from one paper - thats a terrible weakness. Should be easy to disprove his allegation. Show where that value has been verified by others. I have a completely open mind on this . If not admit that Monkton is right.

Grotesque lack of knowledge of how science works. Of course the constant is based on a single paper. How else could it be? Do you think dozens of researchers independently performed the same research and published simultaneously? Of course. One paper got published and a bunch of others verify the data and use that constant in their own work and it works which is enough confirmation for all but lying asshole Lords getting rich by selling snake oil to rubes.


quote:

3. Regarding CO2. Its wrong to say that global warming depends solely on the physical properties of CO2. Nasa latest research which i pointed to earlier, says that the net effect of carbon depends on its altitude and concentration. Other studies have confirmed that troposhperic co2 is migrating to the exosphere. Nasa's research said (paraphrasing) the net greenhouse effect of CO2 is much less than expected.

A tiny amount of CO2 rises into and above the stratosphere. The rest stays low in the atmosphere. Since CO2 holds heat and then reradiates some of it the huge amount lower in the atmosphere completely trumps the tiny quantity at the top of the atmosphere.

And no research by NASA says that the net greenhouse effect is less than expected. Present a link to NASA or it is simply a lie.



Three times I have asked that anyone provide a fact that ANYONE has verified (and published) a paper on that constant. To shut me up all you need do is present that paper and I will happily conclude that monk is wrong. (in his claim that it rests on the work of a single paper).

Bloviation is all that ensues. So I presume monk's criticism valid.


Wrong and buh bye.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=co2+forcing+coefficient&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14




Phydeaux -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/26/2013 2:14:52 PM)

For nonhomogeneous path lengths, one-parameter scaling is utilized in conjunction with the k distribution method......

The method indicates that in many models there is a significant rapid tropospheric adjustment to CO2 leading to changes in cloud, and reducing the effective radiative forcing, in a way analogous to the indirect and semidirect effects of aerosol.

The simulation of sea ice....

LOL.. so far.. not a damn thing. I'm afraid you're going to have to do some actual reading. I read three papers as a courtesy. None of them confirm K, nor the value used in the IPCC models.

You know .. in real science this thing is generally easy to do. You go to the footnotes or bibliography and read the quoted sources....




DomKen -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/26/2013 2:17:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

For nonhomogeneous path lengths, one-parameter scaling is utilized in conjunction with the k distribution method......

The method indicates that in many models there is a significant rapid tropospheric adjustment to CO2 leading to changes in cloud, and reducing the effective radiative forcing, in a way analogous to the indirect and semidirect effects of aerosol.

The simulation of sea ice....

LOL.. so far.. not a damn thing. I'm afraid you're going to have to do some actual reading. I read three papers as a courtesy. None of them confirm K, nor the value used in the IPCC models.

You know .. in real science this thing is generally easy to do. You go to the footnotes or bibliography and read the quoted sources....

All those studies that use the CO forcing coefficient confirm it when their theoretical results match reality. That is how science works. If a bunch of researchers used it and they got bad results then people would be publishing on the subject of what is wrong with the coefficient. Since all those studies don't that means the coefficient works.

Now as you promised you must shut up on the subject of climate change.




Marc2b -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/27/2013 7:34:18 AM)

Just follow him around with a little shovel, eventually you'll get it back.




leonine -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/27/2013 8:49:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Interesting article. What do you think?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

And the whole theory of gravitation is based on a book by some dumb Englishman three hundred years ago, so we can forget about that, too.

This is one of the many fundamental things about science that people don't get when they approach it as a branch of politics.

Theories don't happen because a bunch of eggheads get together and agree to tell the world that X is true, and shout down anyone who argues. They happen because one guy writes a paper saying he thinks X is true, and another (usually) writes one saying it isn't, and a lot of people read the papers and make up their own minds, and a lot of them do research that either re-tests the original experiments or observations or extends them, and they write papers which say, in essence, "we checked, and it turns out that yes, X is true." And this goes on for ten or twenty or thirty years, and then X is in the textbooks as a fact.

It's a process which, among other things, has produced the machines you are reading these words on, which tends to indicate that it is a workable way at arriving at the truth. But it is completely incomprehensible to corporate folks, for whom facts are whatever brings in the money, and to politicians, for whom facts are whatever the policy requires; and these people cannot understand why the scientists don't rewrite their textbooks on demand like sensible folk.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625