arkie87

That is very true, and clearly at some point it makes no sense to continue to discuss it. It is also different since flat earth vs. round earth has no bearing on the lives of most people. Climate change is obviously different, since if manmade, it effects everyone on the planet. I agree and recognize this. Both sides can be equally biased, and both sides have conflicting interests. Thus, discounting "evidence" on account of this bias is a double edged sword and is pointless (as long as the evidence is professionally presented). We wouldnt have any evidence at all left! Accordingly, i dont think we should discount any sources, we should argue with the facts. For instance, the EPA displays this graph: which goes back 800,000 years. Where is there graph for 600 million years? Do they have a different graph? Or do they not show it because it seemingly negates their point. I understand your argument in theory, but this argument can be used to quell any scientific debate, as long as enough urgency is felt, and that is dangerous. Of course. That always confused me how people could take one measurement and claim it to be average for the whole planet. But this applies to data showing global warming as well (see EPA graph above). If one graph is questioned, so should the other one, no? Furthermore, in general, it has always confused me how ice core measurements can even exist during periods when the earth is warming. Theoretically, if the average temperature is warming, then old ice is destroyed and no new ice is created (on average and long term). Even if locally, somewhere, it is getting colder, how would the scientists know that this is new ice whereas the other ice is old ice? Moreover, doesnt CO2 dissolve in ice/water? What makes us so sure that CO2 hasnt been leaking out? I really dont see why the climate only matters from a few million years to now. Of course it is relevant. Climate models predict a "runaway" effect when CO2 levels raise above a critical point; however, CO2 levels in the distant past were 10X their current values and there was no runaway (granted the earth was 10C warmer, but still not as hot as Venus). Second, the graph shows a complete lack of correlation (let alone causation) between CO2 and temperatures, implying a fundamental lack of physical evidence of the existence and/or strength of the greenhouse effect for CO2. Your argument that only data from a few million years ago matters is saying that the physics of greenhouse gasses have changed in millions of years? - - - Updated - - - Please tell me what misinformation and misquoted evidence i have spread? So far people that have claimed that have been wrong (for instance: saying that i'm misquoting science when i say that CO2 is absorbed by the ocean by dissolving; they think it goes into the life and not the water; actually, they are wrong, and climate scientists even admit this, since ocean acidification is caused by CO2 absorption). Other times, I admit I have either fault logic or faulty assumptions of information, but I come here to hear counter arguments and facts, so I can be educated. However, that is the exception, and not the rule. Others here could be accused of the same; doesnt mean they are intentionally spreading misinformation. We come here to debate. So when any scientist raises doubts, they are automatically biased and trolling? Your tactic is called bullying, and it isnt as new or subtle as you think... Please stay focused on the facts and not the namecalling. I'm losing the desire to even respond to your posts... You have been sarcastic and condescending from the first page before the words "global warming" or "climate change" were even mentioned.

Can we stay away from politics please? Biases and politics exist in science as well. If you have ever submitted a paper for review in a journal or a proposal for funding, you might have experienced it. Have you heard of any of the recent scandals from reputable journals accepting clearly fake papers? Even pier review has weaknesses. I think you misunderstand my fundamental concern. These simulations are not physics-based; they are correlation based. Thus, they are only as good as the correlations that are put into it. There have been plenty of studies suggesting that the CO2 sensitivities in the models are too high. Lots of papers assume a given CO2 sensitivity and the predict effect on global temperatures, rather than simulate and predict the sensitivities themselves. Now, assuming a sensitivity and then observing effect on global temperature is a good study to see what would happen IF CO2 sensitivity is that value, but it is in no way a simulation of our future. Not sure what you are trying to say? To which paper are you referring? The ease of integrating renewable energy varies by country and location. You would never put wind turbines in arizona or solar panels in Seattle. Renewable energy is local; you have to utilize what you have. Just because Finland can do it, doesnt mean other countries can. Have you ever read "Sustainable Energy: without the hot air" by David MacKay? Highly recommended. It is FREE. - - - Updated - - - The concept that the earth is round has been accepted for hundreds of years. If someone came to me and claimed the earth was flat, I would roll my eyes, but still listen to their evidence and evaluate it, if they had any, and based on their evidence, i would make my decision. Such is not the case with global warming/climate change. Global warming/climate change is 40 years old (and before that, scientists were worried about global cooling and a new ice age). When scientists bring up concerns or questions, rather than have their evidence evaluated and discussed, they are dismissed outright, their qualifications questioned, and bullied. That is not science; that is politics. If anthropomorphic global warming is real, then what do scientists have to lose by defending their evidence and listening to counter-evidence? Have you seen this graph? Do you have any reason to discredit it (other than its inconvenient and therefore created by psuedo scientists with a reversed political agenda)? The difference between you and I is that you are only willing to listen to evidence on one side of the debate, whereas I will listen to both sides, and use my scientific training and reason to evaluate both of them.

My use of 97% was meant to reflect the "97%" now that believes in anthropomorphic climate change. It was not exact, but rather, intended to illustrate that global opinion of climate change has undergone drastic changes over the past decade or two. Very good point. Thank you. If you look at the raw data, it does. That's why it has to be explained. And its not only a few data points, its been 17 years. I maintain my concern that is hard enough to do IR measurements in a lab (controlled environment) to accuracies within 1C. In space, they cannot control or block reflected, transmitted, and absorbed components. They are also dealing with a much thicker layer of atmosphere, which interacts with a much larger component of the total radiative flux. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and without knowing the humidity content, this effect cannot be accounted for. I have seen reports of such satellites reporting clearly inaccurate temperatures due to mis-performing equipment; those temperatures have been removed from the record, without looking into what caused the problem.

Thanks for the help! Will review later (I read it quickly and it seems to make sense now). I would give you rep, but apparently, i've given it to you recently already...

It is still unclear to me why I need two entangled particles, and cannot model the behavior statistically in Matlab... can you elaborate? Yes, i am aware of that but both probabilities are pretty close to expected value (i.e. 2/3)... - - - Updated - - - Thank you for your detailed response! I have a few questions: (1) I assume by "classical" computation you mean ignoring QM and assuming Einstein et. al. are correct. For this case, in step 4, what are we computing exactly. It seems like Corr = sum(X(i)*Y(i))/N for i=1:N, which should just give you one value, not a value for each i value, i.e. Corr =/= Corr(i)? (2) I'm confused why the algorithm for QM is fundamentally different than for classical. In step two, where is the list of phi's generated? Why is Y=X if r > cos(phi/2)^2? It seems maybe the book over-simplified (not surprisingly). The book says we measure randomly in 1 of 3 axes, but you are saying we measure a random, continuous (not discrete) shift from the other angle, which changes the logic in my code. I will try to make sense of this and work it out in Matlab. Thanks again!

I think it was clear that i wasnt quoting statistics, but rather trying to issue a point. Global attitude towards global warming has drastically changed in the last 10 years, starting around when "an Inconvenient Truth" came out, and those survey results bolster that opinion (though it was never 97%). Is that the only thing you wish to respond to?

So I am reading "Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene (highly recommend btw), and he is discussing the debate between Einstein et. al. and Bell regarding whether or not elementary particles have properties before we observe them or not. He then describes an experiment Bell proposed to determine who is correct. The idea is to take two entangled particles, and have one group measure it's spin with respect to a random axis and another group measure the spin of the other in a random axis. Einstein believed that both particles had predetermined spins in each of the primary coordinate axes. Due to probability, Bell posited that if Einstein was right, the probability that the two groups observed the same spin direction would be larger than 50%. Bell, on the other hand, believed that the spin that the particle has in a particular axis is not decided until you measure it, and due to some logic not expressly described in the book, the probability that the two groups would observe the same spin should be 50% (or less, presumably). This didnt make sense to me (it didnt seem like the probability would be any different), so I wrote a matlab program to test it, and I am right. This leads me to believe that I am misunderstanding something. Anyone familiar with this and want to venture a guess where I am going wrong? Below is my Matlab code: function QuantumMechanics clc clear all close all for i=1:100000 bell(i)=BellSim; end Bell=mean(bell(not(isnan(bell)))) for i=1:100000 epr(i)=EPRSim; end EPR=mean(epr(not(isnan(epr)))) end function p=EPRSim x=[BinaryRand,BinaryRand,BinaryRand]; a=TrinaryRand; b=TrinaryRand; a=x(a); b=x(; if a==b p=1; else p=0; end end function p=BellSim a=TrinaryRand; b=TrinaryRand; if a==b p=1; else a=BinaryRand; b=BinaryRand; if a==b p=1; else p=0; end end end function n=TrinaryRand n=3*rand(1);n=ceil(n); end function r=BinaryRand r=rand(1)-0.5; r=sign(r); end

I am well aware of this. If the error from thermocouples/temperature measurements is only random, then the error from so many measurements will be zero! No? (But it is not zero in the graphs)... Error from noise cannot be quantified, unless you know ALL the sources of the noise. Do we know all the sources of the noise? Do we fully understand how the climate works? See above regarding accuracy and noise and below regarding modeling It's not cheating. They have full disclosure on what assumptions and simplifications they make in their models (they have to make assumptions and simplifications or else they wouldnt even be able to start), but how to model this complicated a phenomena is not easy. When making a complicated model such as this, you often take past experimental data and "calibrate" your unknowns in the model to match (i say this as someone who has done expensive modeling work on the PhD level). It's not always possible to obtain values for these "fudge factors" from theory or direct measurement (especially on the scale of the globe), so they have to use average values which need to be calibrated. They do not receive any "real data" for this modeling work; after all, one requirement of all models is that it needs to be independent from experiment (except in the case of initial conditions). As someone who conducts extensive modeling, I know full well it's limitations and drawbacks. I don't believe modeling results all the time, especially when the modeling task is so complicated that their is no way it could have been done completely correctly. I have seen, in my field, people not really being so careful and rigorous with the values they use for models. I have seen people use incorrect values (knowingly) because the values for their condition werent available in the literature; and then future people use those values not realizing they are not physically accurate (which then requires the use of "fudge factors". People assume modeling work is straight from heaven, and if the computer predicts it, the computer knows everything, and it must be true. But the computer is only as accurate as the equations that are programmed into it, and the equations programmed into it are too complicated to be completely physical, so it relies extensively on correlations, assumptions, and simplifications.... Read my answer above regarding the accuracy of modeling... Predicting climate trends is not easy. They are numerous feedback loops (some positive, some negative), many capacitances, convective terms (which themselves are affected by changing climate/temperature) etc... Predicting short periods is even more difficult... This just goes to show my point that the climate scientists and modelers dont yet completely understand everything. Their could easily be additional negative feedback loops that resist climate change or large capacitances that havent yet been tapped (like the pacific ocean). Furthermore, how on earth could people claim the surface temperature is warming, without measuring the surface temperature of the whole globe? They are basically saying that yes, the surface temperature has been warming, but it stops every 30 years, because it has to pause to warm the pacific. Wait, werent they measuring the pacific ocean temperature already when they said the surface temperatures were warming? I'm confused... I am all for sustainability. It will eventually be a requirement with or without global warming/climate change. Eventually, we wont have any more non-renewable resources left and we will have to recycle everything (or mine asteroids). Ideally, if the amount of money we had to spend to stop climate change and the effort on the part of every citizen was minimal, i would say, yes, we should put in the money and the effort. But clearly, the amount of change required is huge (all the green efforts most countries have taken have been pitiful and dont actually reduce anything). To make a difference, the industrialized world would have to reduce emissions by 10x, which is just not going to happen. Coupled with that, china and india are in the process of industrializing. If everyone in China and India used as much energy as we do in the US, the whole globe is F'd. - - - Updated - - - Please dont be condescending. I try to take one day a week off my computer. My biggest problem with global warming is the dogma; there is always room for a rational, respectful debate (that is what science is), but what happens with global warming debates is closer to condescending dismissals, insults, bullying, and name calling which is reminiscent of politics. Keep in mind, 10 years ago, 97% of scientists thought global warming was a pseudoscience. Now, it's the opposite. In 20 years, who knows...

Now you have confused me... I agree though that its possible that greenhouse effect could runaway, though i think the uncertainties in the models regarding where that runaway point is, is quite high. Millions of measurements only removed random error. It does not remove systematic error if you are all using the same system, or systems with the same biases. If you are right, why are there uncertainty bars not (approaching) zero? Yes, measuring the average temperature is not easy at all, as you mentioned... There are lots of other sources for warming, which introduce noise, and we arent doing a good job of measuring the average temperature of the surface either (large areas of ocean go unmeasured). This, in turn, introduces a lot of noise into our measurements. Thus, (1) how can we be sure the earth really is warming on average if we dont have a good average temperature measurement (the areas of ocean we dont measure might be cooling due to changing ocean currents) and (2) if other factors introduce so much noise (such as solar activity and whatnot), what makes us so sure that even if the earth is warming, that it isnt being caused by these non manmade sources? The fact that it is rising in concert with our current CO2 levels is almost certainly no accident i.e. the modelers adjusted their values to make it so. There is a lot of guesswork in these huge climate models, since, as you can imagine, the global climate is very complex. Thus, modelers have to make assumptions and often fit their models to observed results in order to "calibrate" the model. Thus, these models might be great at predicting present performance, but using these models to extrapolate can introduce serious uncertainties and errors. If you look ten years ago at the predictions of what surface temperatures should have risen to by now based on CO2 levels, we have fallen short of those, which, despite recent article's claims, indicates that 15 years ago, we didnt fully understand the earth's climate. Granted now, we should have a better understanding, but it is by no means complete. Interesting you say that, given the so-called "global warming hiatus", which scientists have tried to explain (even though their models didnt predict it ten years ago). IMHO, it is not intellectually honest to make predictions that support your hypothesis, and when those predictions arent met, explain away why they werent met, but still assert the hypothesis. TL;DR: (1) global climate is very complex, and i would be amazed if anyone could accurately model it, given the number of unknowns, feedback loops, new physics, and scales involved; thus, models should be taken with a grain of salt (especially since by adjusting "fudge factors" like emissivity of CO2 and adding/removing physical models and relationships, different results can be obtained) (2) CO2 levels are no doubt rising (at least where we are measuring it) and the rate we release CO2 is unsustainable (3) global temperature measurements are susceptible to lots of noise, which could indicate that either additional sources have a large control over our climate and/or we arent measuring global temperature accurately enough (since, for example, we arent measuring large swathes of the pacific) - - - Updated - - - that's what i've read. Can i assume that they have radar measurements of the arctic that show that the reverse isnt happening there (i.e. the caps or sea ice isnt getting deeper)?

Have you heard that the antarctic polar caps are growing? How do you discount that?

Its a 5 character limit. It's a good thing you included that period!

Thanks for the info. I'm looking into it. Seems expensive

Sure, heat flux from sun on day side and earth on night side will be very accurate, so it can assess net heating or cooling accurately. Good to know... But you seemed to indicate it can measure surface temperatures too...? Also, it would be interesting to send one of these satellites to orbit the Mun, i mean, Moon, and see if the net flux is zero... given that it has no atmosphere and is much smaller, so it cooled down much faster and might already be in thermal equilibrium...

Oh, i see what you meant now, after your edit. Now i get the irony. Hehehe. - - - Updated - - - How do satellites compensate for emitted vs. reflected radiation, especially since emissivity and reflectivity vary based on what you are looking at (clouds, snow, land, water, desert, even the atmosphere itself... each have their own values)-- how does the satellite compensate for this? It's hard enough to make accurate IR measurements in the lab with infrared paint and a calibrated 100,000$ IR camera...

Of course not. They measure in the ocean too. But they do not cover the entire pacific or atlantic for obvious reasons, so they have to extrapolate large swaths of ocean temperature. They also use satellites, but IR temperature measurements are 100x more difficult than land based measurements (since IR measurements measure heat flux, and not temperature directly, one has to compensate for emissivity of the target) Am i missing anything? I'm not sure why it makes you bad? Perhaps you are a naughty boy?

The thermocouples i am using have been selected to be accurate to within 0.1°C. The error is from the DAQ itself, not from the thermocouple i am using. I have verified the offset with more than one thermocouple. All report 0.6°C instead of 0°C. The data I have seen does not cherry pick anything, but uses the raw data to show that global average temperatures have decreases since 1998. Here is a figure from the NOAA: If such a hiatus doesnt exist, then why have i seen article after article trying to explain why it actually doesnt exist (despite the obvious change in slope of the data)? Also, why are the uncertainty bars so large if thousands of thermocouples are being used? If we are accurately measuring average temperature, the trend should also be less noisy, no?

Many independent measurements or repeated measurements can fix random error. Systematic error, which is the kind of error i find when trying to measure ice-water, is not eliminated by repetitions. Making accurate absolute temperature measurements is NOT an easy task, especially when cold-junction temperature varies wildly. Plus, i'm sure you have heard about the global warming hiatus since ~2000, which scientists recently explained by systematically shifting temperatures one way, due to assumed systematic errors in their measurements... I do not think i need to explain why that is bad science...

You seem to be misinterpreting everything i am saying... I wasnt claiming more CO2 is absorbed than is released. That would be crazy talk. I was referring to this statement YOU made: I am confused by your calculations. You said now 800Gton CO2 but 200 years ago it was 550Gt, which is (800-550)/200 0.75 Gt/yr, right? You said the ocean now captures 2Gt/yr more, which is 3x the average rate we have been adding it, correct? The reason it seems we are absorbing CO2 into the oceans 3x faster than we have been releasing it on average since 200 years ago is because we have not been releasing it at a steady rate, but rather, exponentially. Capeesh? no idea what you are trying to say here.

Yes, co2 release has not been linear, but rather exponential, which is definitely the reason why the current rate of CO2 capture appears to exceed the rate we have been releasing it. That said, i'm not sure why you bothered to even mention those statistics, because, as stated, they appear to eliminate your argument, rather than bolster it. the 30-40% is quoted everywhere, even on wikipedia's carbon-dioxide webpage. I have quoted the relevant text:

Net warming has amounted to something like 0.5-0.6°C. Standard accuracy of thermocouples is 0.5°C. If i take my 3000$ DAQ system and measure Ice water temperature, it reads 0.6°C, and not 0°C.... and these measurements are performed indoors at room temperature. Outdoor measurements are much more complicated and require careful cold junction compensation to get accurate measurements with such a small deltaT. Anyway, i dont want to discuss global warming here; i wanted to focus on CO2, since that is the topic of this thread...

Models rely on assumptions and simplifications. Models can be made to show whatever result you want. Without knowing the assumptions and equations the model uses, it is impossible to know how detailed it is... It doesnt matter THAT models show this to be true, what matters is WHY models show this to be true... any comment on that? I say this as someone who has spent the first three years of my PhD doing modeling work and simulations. There is the age-old adage that goes: No one trusts modeling work except for the person who made it; everyone trusts experimental work except for the person who did it.

Question, if the smoke blocks the sunlight, and CO2 blocks the earth's heat from being released via infrared radiation, how are scientists sure if the earth should get colder or warmer?

I think the way rocket engines work is much more complicated than assuming efficiency increases with temperature from Carnot cycle. Rocket engines and their nozzles are designed for a given flowrate, pressure and expansion ratio etc... so increasing temperature will likely reduce ISP is flow is overexpanded, no? Also, you question about rocket engines exhausting into a vacuum at supersonic/hypersonic speeds i think is a good one. For detached shocks, the Mach number is actually below 1 on the craft side of the shockwave, so the flow could feasibly get around to the rear. For oblique shock waves, i think you have to look at tables, since flow can be sub sonic or supersonic on the craft side of the shockwave. Theoretically, pressure should be significantly reduced behind a blunt object. However, you need a velocity of ~411 m/s to pull a vacuum at sea level assuming Cp = -1. In reality though, i am sure the flow field is more complicated if you are exhausting hot gas, since you have a mass source on the rear of your craft which can prevent detached flow from occurring, which should further reduce pressure drag.... Thus, it seems like drag itself should be reduced when thrust is applied (since pressure on the rear of the craft is not negative); though i suppose, this might be two ways of looking at the same thing...

I am confused by your calculations. You said now 800Gton CO2 but 200 years ago it was 550Gt, which is (800-550)/200 0.75 Gt/yr, right? You said the ocean now captures 2Gt/yr more, which is 3x the average rate we have been adding it, correct? That is very true. Natural climate change appears to be slow (hundreds, thousands or millions of years). However, the fact that 30-40% of human CO2 emissions are presently absorbed by the oceans indicate that the time constant/response time of the oceans are much faster than those of natural climate change, no? Otherwise, all of the CO2 we release would stay in the atmosphere until the earth could react. This clearly isnt the case since sources say 30-40% of the CO2 is absorbed by the ocean alone and contributes to ocean acidification. The fact that it takes much longer for natural climate change to occur might indicate it is driven by slow periodic processes, and not that the earth takes soo long to react. These are interesting graphs, though the numbers vary wildly for some values, but the general gist is the same, and support my point that the ocean is absorbing CO2. - - - Updated - - - I agree 100%, natural processes cannot keep up with the rate we are releasing CO2, just going with the numbers we have now (even ignoring ice core measurements). But according to the physics, if we stopped burning all fossil fuels and releasing all CO2, the ocean would absorb excess CO2 rather quickly, since it naturally exchanges orders of magnitude more CO2 per year than we currently release.

What technical terms have i used that is misleading? If CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, then it is out of the atmosphere and cannot contribute to greenhouse effect, no? Whether it causes problems via ocean acidification is another issue... It is "removed" from the atmosphere, so it cannot contribute to greenhouse effect. That is what i meant by removed. Whether it causes oceanic problems is another matter altogether. How many times must you say the same thing?? Yes, it is definitely a buffer and has a huge potential storage capacity given the huge volume. CO2 does leave soda, but there is always some dissolved (just no bubbles). This is at room temperature and pressure... However, at high pressures, CO2 readily dissolves in water, and given the ocean is miles deep, the pressure further down is easily larger than that of a soda bottle (10 m is 1 atm...), and can stably store CO2, even at higher temperatures... I dont understand how you can argue this. These numbers are not made up.... It is pretty ubiquitous that 30-40% of the CO2 humans release from burning fossil fuels is absorbed (via the process of absorption) by the ocean. The rest contributes to rising CO2 ppm in the atmosphere.