Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I tend to believe the modern instruments used to measure temperatures of land, sea and atmosphere....No science required...I also believe those instruments that measure sea level rise, ocean acidity, ice melt and the increase of CO2....These are not opinions, they are facts. http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/368...mpdatasets.png
Okay, you are one of those who believe the data without question. Great!
Without respect to what the topic is, and just from a purely scientific viewpoint, here would be my thoughts: In the first part of your first sentence, you list three different methodologies to measure a variable (temperature) across three different test beds (land, sea and atmosphere). What do they have to do with each other?
Then you list four additional, disparate measurements of four additional variables that have nothing to do with each other - or temperature - in the second part of the sentence. What do they have to do with the first part of your sentence - or even with each other?
Assuming for the sake of argument that all of the data are actually accurate, there are only two ways to meld these seven disparate data collections. A food processor or a meta analysis. The first would make a mess of your data and the second would be meaningless - because the internal and external validity of seven diverse measurements of five different variables (temperature, sea level rise, ocean acidity, ice melt and CO2^) is pretty close to zero.
Then there is the issue of what the endpoints (start and stop dates) of the data are for each of the seven disparate collection systems. We've had thermometers on the back porch pretty much forever, but how long have satellites been doing temperature collection? If you are a quant (I am not) you can pretty much double your endpoint for each variable and each collection methodology without fear of criticism, but not much more. (A quantitative scientist is one who depends entirely on statistical analysis of the data.) If your subset represents 50% of the known universe, then you can extrapolate your findings across the universe. But while climates here on earth have existed for thousands of centuries, we only have data (of varying levels of quality) for - at best - a couple of centuries. Can't extrapolate those findings over that universe of time. Most quants will let you take your data from each methodology across that specific variable and double it, so you can extrapolate 50 years worth of satellite data to maybe 100 years. That's it - a mere three generations. How can any theory we generate over three generations offset, say, the ice age...? And then you have to do that same endpoint analysis across every collection methodology.
Finally, and no disrespect intended, that somebody with a website published some data hardly makes it a fact. For example, the Lancet is considered to be one of the world's finest medical journals. Usually considered to be better than JAMA. But the Lancet also knowingly published a completely fraudulent study of deaths in Iraq in October 2004 in an effort to prevent Bush from getting elected for a second term. (Don't take my word for it, they have since admitted it.)
So if you were taking my class on how to find fraud in research, I would encourage you to consider the type of study being conducted (a meta analysis, which is only good for general trend indications and virtually never sufficient to support a theory on its own); the diversity of the variables being collected (your sentence has five, none of which have anything to do with each other); the widely disparate collection methodologies (satellites, thermometers, ballons, yardsticks, litmus tests - and I don't know how they were analizing atmospheric CO2 levels - gas spectrometry?); endpoints; and source. My class would have rejected this material well before the first break.
This is not an attack on what you believe - a source presented you with some data that appears valid on its face. Great! My point is not what data got collected, or where they got collected, or even how they got collected. The point I encourage you to consider is what did the researcher try to do with the data after they got collected...? And my agency never accepted a meta analysis as a study upon which to base a theory.
Michael Crighton is a much better writer than am I. Go to Amazon, buy his book "State of Fear," and enjoy a well written novel about the politics of climate change. If the book looks too thick, go directly to the epilogue. In 26 succinct points, he describes the three years' of research he did in prepping to write the book and undermines virtually all of the data that supporters of the climate change debate use to forward their cause.
And then believe anything you want - It's a free country!
In regards Senior Member's comments and others who deny the reality of anthropomorphic global warming....
Using physics and math, one can calculate the CO2 climate sensitivity with no feedback (such a the water vapor feedback and the feedback from melting ice). One uses the HITRAN data base of infra-red absorption lines, plus Schwarzchild's equations, and combines the resulting physics and mathematics with experimentally known aspects of the atmosphere. Thus, the atmosphere averaged over the entire earth has a lapse rate of about 6.4 degrees Kelvin change per kilometer up to the tropopause, in which the temperature remains essentially constant up into the stratosphere. The volume molecular ratio of CO2 is at present about 0.0004, and the CO2 concentration remains constant well past the stratosphere. One can put all this into the Hulst - Curtis - Godson approximation for the evaluation of individual HITRAN lines, over the CO2 bending mode window between about 450 and 850 wave numbers, and then combine the lines using the Malkmus approximation. A doubling of CO2 assuming no feedback comes out to yield an increase of temperature of about 0.4 degrees Kelvin. This much I have reproduced in mathematical detail myself and I know the physics and math is correct.
From proxy measurements such as concentrations of carbon 14 CO2 in tree rings, Hans Suess showed years ago that the CO2 in the atmosphere had increased significantly since the industrial revolution. Other proxy measurements prove beyond doubt that the CO2 in the atmosphere right now exceeds greatly the CO2 concentration at anytime since the ice age cycles began about 80,000 years ago.
Bob Inglis was a perfectly good conservative congressman from South Carolina who would not state that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax and therefore lost the 2010 primary to a Tea Party approved candidate. From Wikipedia "Inglis said that conservatives should go with the facts, and the science, and accept the National Academy of Science's conclusion that climate change is caused by human activities and poses significant risks, which 97 percent of climate scientists agree with.[14] Studies conclude that coal power plants are responsible for 23,600 premature deaths in the U.S. per year, and conservatives should hold them accountable, he said, perhaps with a carbon tax on their emissions."
Finally, we have the government of North Carolina attempting to declare by law that anthropogenic climate change is fallacious and cannot therefore be used in planning for sea level rise near shorelines.
Conservatives in the U.S. are attempting to install the worlds first "stupidocracy" , a society that denies scientific evidence.
Last edited by curiousdddd; 12-02-2016 at 06:13 PM..
The biggest hoax ever fostered on the American people.
Absolutely. It's a Malthusian hoax at that.
Someone needs to keep Ivanka busy on petty women's lib issues. I hear she has been brainwashed and is sympathetic to human-caused climate change. Last thing I want to see is her blowing in her father's ear, trying to change his mind.
You wrote "So what is the temperature in Degrees Kelvin or Degrees Fahrenheit at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns for CO2?"
There is an entire band of absorption lines in the vicinity of 15 microns. The most common units to describe the frequency of these lines is - perhaps unfortunately - the wave number, expressed in reciprocal centimeters. It means the number of waves contained in a centimeter. Thus, the peak absorption of the bending mode vibration - rotation band is at about 670 wave numbers meaning that there are 670 electromagnetic waves in one centimeter. Therefore this is (1/670) cm or (1/67000 )meters = 1.5 x 10 to the -5 meters or 1.5 x 10 to the minus 6 meters or 15 microns. Only the bending mode band between 450 and 850 wave numbers is close enough to the peak in the black body spectrum from the earth to make a significant difference to the temperature.
Also, one should specify an entire range of lines to characterize a band. I don't quite know what you mean by the temperature "at" a particular wave length. But any bands near 2.7 or 4.3 microns are too far away from the earth's black body peak to have an effect on the temperature of the earth. There is an "asymmetric stretch mode" band around 4.3 microns. It is even more strongly absorbing of IR than is the "bending mode" band, which is equivalent to the statement that the tabulated line strengths in HITRAN are even greater for the 4.3 micron band than for the bending mode. But the asymmetric stretch band is not important to the temperature of the earth.
I would look at it this way...The Australian Inland Taipan has the most toxic of all land snake venoms, but kills no one because people don't live there. The Russell's Viper in Sri Lanka is less toxic but kills people because they live there. The asymmetric stretch mode is strongest but there is negligible radiation from the earth for that mode to absorb. The bending mode near 15 microns is strong and right where the thermal radiation band from the earth peaks.
In regards Senior Member's comments and others who deny the reality of anthropomorphic global warming....
Using physics and math, one can calculate the CO2 climate sensitivity with no feedback (such a the water vapor feedback and the feedback from melting ice). One uses the HITRAN data base of infra-red absorption lines, plus Schwarzchild's equations, and combines the resulting physics and mathematics with experimentally known aspects of the atmosphere. Thus, the atmosphere averaged over the entire earth has a lapse rate of about 6.4 degrees Kelvin change per kilometer up to the tropopause, in which the temperature remains essentially constant up into the stratosphere. The volume molecular ratio of CO2 is at present about 0.0004, and the CO2 concentration remains constant well past the stratosphere. One can put all this into the Hulst - Curtis - Godson approximation for the evaluation of individual HITRAN lines, over the CO2 bending mode window between about 450 and 850 wave numbers, and then combine the lines using the Malkmus approximation. A doubling of CO2 assuming no feedback comes out to yield an increase of temperature of about 0.4 degrees Kelvin. This much I have reproduced in mathematical detail myself and I know the physics and math is correct.
From proxy measurements such as concentrations of carbon 14 CO2 in tree rings, Hans Suess showed years ago that the CO2 in the atmosphere had increased significantly since the industrial revolution. Other proxy measurements prove beyond doubt that the CO2 in the atmosphere right now exceeds greatly the CO2 concentration at anytime since the ice age cycles began about 80,000 years ago.
Bob Inglis was a perfectly good conservative congressman from South Carolina who would not state that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax and therefore lost the 2010 primary to a Tea Party approved candidate. From Wikipedia "Inglis said that conservatives should go with the facts, and the science, and accept the National Academy of Science's conclusion that climate change is caused by human activities and poses significant risks, which 97 percent of climate scientists agree with.[14] Studies conclude that coal power plants are responsible for 23,600 premature deaths in the U.S. per year, and conservatives should hold them accountable, he said, perhaps with a carbon tax on their emissions."
Finally, we have the government of North Carolina attempting to declare by law that anthropogenic climate change is fallacious and cannot therefore be used in planning for sea level rise near shorelines.
Conservatives in the U.S. are attempting to install the worlds first "stupidocracy" , a society that denies scientific evidence.
Can you now give the scientific explanation as to how taxes eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere?
Amazing results on the survey, almost as many don't believe it exists as those that believe it is important.
I would say if you live on the East or Gulf coasts you would believe it is very important, why do people not trust science.
We trust science.
We just DON'T trust scientist who have been found "doctoring" the data.
We DON'T trust scientist who have financial incentive to skew the data.
(Follow the money)
We don't trust ALL of the data when measuring instruments have been placed next big high temperature units on roofs.
We DON'T trust ALL of the data when many of the measuring instruments DON'T work.
We DON'T trust scientist and their followers who for YEARS screamed about "global warming" then when THAT phrase lost it's luster because it was found to be a farce changed their mantra to "climate change" and nothing else changed.
Same arguments, same scientists, same.data, etc.
I don't think ANY ONE believes that climat changes.
The difference is some think they are powerful enough to cause that change.
Climate has been changing since the beginning of the earth and will continue to do so. WITH or WITHOUT what man does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
