RoR: Forum

Ed:

I was having a discussion with a AGWr recently; that tribe is painfully aware of the lack of mid-altitude signature required by their own uncalibrated models. So part of their tactic is to claim that the cause cannot be 'solar variability', and somust be AGW, and their evidence of this is to overplot solar activity with some measure of 'the' global temperature, and then say 'see? it doesn't track.'

But this is fundamental technical barbarism; it is totally ignorant of concepts such as thermal lag. You can see this readily by looking at IR imagery of the earth over 24 hours. Land masses respond almost instantly to changes in solar loading (day and night), while the governing oceans show no diurnal response at all; their temperatures remain constant over 24 hours. (the oceans might take hundreds of years to respond to the integrated average of solar loading fluctuations...)

Now, 99.9% of the earth's atmospheric mass is tied up in its oceans, and the atmosphere is fully buffered by the oceans, which dominate. The sun, by way of our oceans, dominates our thin wispy atmosphere.

So, nobody except a technical illiterate should -expect- long scale response of the thermal mass integrated 'the global temperature' to respond to the short scale fluctuations of solar loading. Said another way, the frequency response of 'the global temperature' is not nearly sufficiently high to respond to the higher frequency fluctuations of solar loading that the AGWers use to 'prove' that global warming is not fundamentally driven by solar variability.

This abuse of science is related to Al Gore's now famous 800 year blunder, the lag between CO2 response to changes in global temperature. (His own data demonstrated that CO2 was an effect, not a cause of global temperatures, and was not a primary driver of global temperature. If it was a primamry driver, then there would have been a positive feedback-- increase in temp causes increase in CO2 causes increase in temp. That hass nevee happened in the history of our climate.)

Another tactic of the AGWers, who are painfully aware of the lack of a mid altitude warming signature, is to claim that some fringe study has found evidence. One theory dreamed up a magical direct conversion of long wave radiation to kinetic energy without any intermediate thermal signature; the claim was, the effect shows up not as increase in temperature, but increased wind shear. (global blowing, not global warming.)

Another study claims to have found an increase in the height of the tropopause, and that is all the AGWers say. But when you examine the study, the claim is 'by 200 meters' in something that varies continuously and naturally from between 9500 and 17500 meters, and depending on how measured, with an uncertainty as high as 1500 meters...and so the significance of a claim of 200 meters is questionable.

How does one measure 'the' height of 'the' tropopause over decades to an accuracy necessary to claim that 200m is significant? Never mind, don't look behind the curtain.

Their desperation is palpable but not obvious.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/28, 8:30am)

Post 21

Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 1:31pm

Fred,

But this is fundamental technical barbarism; it is totally ignorant of concepts such as thermal lag. You can see this readily by looking at IR imagery of the earth over 24 hours. Land masses respond almost instantly to changes in solar loading (day and night), while the governing oceans show no diurnal response at all; their temperatures remain constant over 24 hours. (the oceans might take hundreds of years to respond to the integrated average of solar loading fluctuations...)

Great point. On the other side of that equation, while the volume-averaged temperature of the top 700-m of the ocean can change by as much as 0.1 degrees C over the course of 5 years (see Fig. 1 in the study available here), who is to say that that recorded change in top-layer ocean temperature wasn't itself caused by 5 years of repeated daily (cyclic) forcings of heat from the sun?

This abuse of science is related to Al Gore's now famous 800 year blunder, the lag between CO2 response to changes in global temperature. (His own data demonstrated that CO2 was an effect, not a cause of global temperatures, and was not a primary driver of global temperature.

Another great point.

One theory dreamed up a magical direct conversion of long wave radiation to kinetic energy without any intermediate thermal signature; the claim was, the effect shows up not as increase in temperature, but increased wind shear. (global blowing, not global warming.)

There was even a B-rated sci-fi movie made about this, called SlipStream.

:-)

But when you examine the study, the claim is 'by 200 meters' in something that varies continuously and naturally from between 9500 and 17500 meters, and depending on how measured, with an uncertainty as high as 1500 meters...and so the significance of a claim of 200 meters is questionable.

Funny. These 'fishermen of data' don't know what they have caught (or whether they caught anything at all). Let's look through The Looking Glass [picture this spinning for a visual: (<@>)] ...

Blind fisherman #1:
Hey! I think I've got something on the line! And it feels like a big fish! Wow. I can't wait to reel it in!

Blind fisherman #2:
Relax, it's just me messing with you once again -- by tugging on the fishing line.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/28, 1:37pm)

Post 22

Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 2:16pm

[re: Slipstream movie as generator of scientific hypothesis of 'Global Blowing']

... and who knows? Maybe AGW scientists will posit the distinct possibility that there is this extra-terrestrial cyborg who is looking for "Sarah Conner" and causing a lot of havoc, most notably an increase in CO2 production on planet Earth because of all of the energy he is expending.

Just thought I'd throw that one out there. Alternative suggestions (for movies that can serve as hypothesis-generators for AGW scientists) are welcome.

:-)

Ed

Post 23

Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 5:11pm

Ed:

I'd never heard of 'SlipStream.'

OMG... I wonder if that is where the idea for the theory came from?????

Amazing...

regards,
Fred

Post 24

Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 7:56am

Fred,

Another theory is that there is this remote island about 120 miles off the coast of Costa Rica where a wealthy entrepreneur has acquired either fully-intact prehistoric DNA (as from the flash-frozen mammoths found several years ago in Siberia) or has crossed partial samples of prehistoric DNA with the DNA of frogs. Able to clone dinosaurs, he is amassing an army of them to populate the island in the hopes of turning it into a theme park. Their presence on earth -- because dinosaurs produce so much CO2 and methane -- would explain our recent global warming.

To my knowledge, no one has ever even checked for the existence of such a remote island, 120 miles from the coast of Costa Rica ...

Ed

Further reading:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/synopsis

Post 25

Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 9:10am

Ed:

re: Great point. On the other side of that equation, while the volume-averaged temperature of the top 700-m of the ocean can change by as much as 0.1 degrees C over the course of 5 years (see Fig. 1 in the study available here), who is to say that that recorded change in top-layer ocean temperature wasn't itself caused by 5 years of repeated daily (cyclic) forcings of heat from the sun?

That paper raises the questions very directly, good link.

MIT prof Carl Wunsch, the chastised heretic who once stepped in it with the AGW crowd simply for suggesting 'maybe not,' also explains the cyclic solar loading issue and thermal lag quite clearly in layman's terms here.

regards,
Fred

Post 26

Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 10:10am

Fred,

That Wunsch essay was really good, except for the ending:

It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

There are problems with these 2 sentences. The first sentence champions social metaphysics: If most scientists happen to believe something, then it is either true or important. And the second sentence is such a partial truth that it is dangerous. Public policy is something that has to be made on the basis of some probabilities in the same way that all human action has to be made on the basis of some probabilities (what are the odds that staying in bed all day will be productive? what are the odds that going to work today will be good?, etc) -- but public policy is special. Besides having to be made on the basis of some probabilities, public policy should not violate individual rights. One way to violate rights is to cause economic harm.

And public policy should not ever cause economic harm.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/29, 11:32am)

Post 27

Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 11:03am

Ed:

What that is evidence of is the chilling nature of the religious thugs out policing the heretics; Wunsch was paying tribute to the enforcers. He was scared not only to death but to legal action.

He was quoted in a well known British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." (I'm sure you've long followed Marcus' thread in this and have seen it.) The footage that was used was just of him stating simple geophysical facts, not any judgement on AGW. (Basically, much of what he states in the Royal SOciety piece.) And yet, because the documentary in total shredded the religion, he took so much heat from the religious enforcers for appearing in the documentary at all that he weaseled and disavowed the simple statements of geophysical facts he clearly stated. So much so, that legal action was taken to inhibit the documentary(it was that effective.) It was a cowardly act of academic weaseldom.

Another of his associates at MIT is far less fearful than Wunsch of the enforcers, and clearly speaks his reservations without equivocation or deference to the prevailing religious thought police. (Prof Richard Lindzen) He appears in the same documentary.

He more honestly says 'we don't know and here is why' and is more consistently a scientist and less a religious acolyte.

Wunsch still speaks the geophysical facts... but he wraps it in sloppy bunting to appease the enforcers, whereas Lindzen just speaks the facts. But you can clearly distibnguish when he is speaking purely as a scientist and when he is speaking as a scared to death scientist.

regards,
Fred

Post 28

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 8:28am

Ed:

The latest round of this is the parading around of the 'converted skeptic' who says he reviewed solar data going back to the mid 1700s and found 'no correlation.'

Again.. this is yet another scientist unfamiliar with Nyquist.

Sampling limits not only the highest frequency that can be measured, but the lowest as well. If ocean thermal lag/memory is of order a thousand years(and even ten thousand years, as claimed by Wunsch) then solar loading data over 250 years is insufficient to reach any conclusion about the cyclic heating/cooling of the oceans (not to be confused with heating of 'the' ocean.)

Again, Al Gore's own Vostok ice core data demonstrated an 800 year lag between temperature rise and subsequent CO2 increase, so that tells us that reviewing 250 years worth of solar data is hardly sufficient.

regards,
Fred

Post 29

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 6:33pm

Fred,

There's something I need to tell you about myself: I'm actually not a human being, but just a bundle of well-written software equipped with algorithms that allow me to dupe humans into thinking I'm human.

Er, no, that's not what I wanted to say. ... What did I ... ? ... oh, yeah, there's something I need to tell you: I like simplifying things down into neat rules that allow me to mentally juggle complex ideas with ease.

Okay, the cat is out of the bag now -- so now I can say what is on my mind. You said this:

Again, Al Gore's own Vostok ice core data demonstrated an 800 year lag between temperature rise and subsequent CO2 increase, so that tells us that reviewing 250 years worth of solar data is hardly sufficient.

Okay, this is good. So, are you saying that I can form a mental rule -- i.e., that only 800+ year long time sequences matter or are "acceptable" when attempting to understand data on global warming? If you say "yes" -- if you tell me that anything under 800 years long is artifactual-by-nature (because it's not long enough to witness the kind of causality appropriate or relevant in this domain) -- then I will be able to do away with large chunks of useless data and factoids, and I will be able to focus only on what it is that really and truly matters.

Please tell me I can forget all trends that were only captured for less than 800 years in a row. Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top!

:-)

Ed

Post 30

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 9:06pm

Ed:

I don't have a simple answer for that question that covers every possible parameter someone might examine. But we are talking about solar loading and response of something we know is massive and has thermal lag/memory.

If the characteristic step response time of the system you are measuring is of order 1000 years, and you are trying to correlate coherent response to inputs which vary over 1 day, 1 year, 11 years, and periods much shorter(frequencies much higher)that the half cycle per 1000 years time lagged response of 'the' global temperature, then there is no reason to ever expect to see any such direct correlation until you look at inputs at frequencies compatible with the frequency response of the system you are monitoring.

Said another way, the system you are driving with those inputs does not have the required frequency response, and can at most respond to an integrated(filtered)average of those high frequency inputs over a long enough integration time period such that the integrated average has a sufficiently low frequency signal to respond to-- the integrated output of those high frequency inputs.

250 years aint it for something with a 1000 year half cycle time. (Think of a step input and a half cycle response, 0 to step, over some characteristic response time.)

I don't know if that helped. It sounds like you wanted a yes or no answer. if the parameters are 'solar output' and ''the' global temperature response by way of integrating oceans' then no, 250 years is not enough duration data to look at to find a correlation.

regards,
Fred

Post 31

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 9:18pm

Ed:

And beyond that, what you should look at, if you are seriously trying to find a correlation, is the integrated output... you would look for a coherent response in the system with the low frequency response to the integrated output of the high frequency inputs.

You would run this analysis over various integration times(different levels of filtering)and look for a coherent response to the sliding window integrated output, see if the slow system tracks at all with a lag or phase shift.

So here is a signal -- it is the integrated output of solar loading over the last 1000 years, for example. Do we see any correlation between that signal and global temperatures at the end of that integration period. We'd slide the integration window(1000 yrs wide) and generate a signal.

We'd try that for various width integration windows, and at some value of window width, find the most coherent response(if such a relationship exists.)

(What he did is run that analysis with a window width of '0 yrs'-- no integration, just direct comparison-- over 250 years worth of data and then declared 'no correlation.'

But if we simply line up 250years of high frequency solar loading data with 250 years of global temperature data, claim 'it doesn't correlate' then we've demonstrated only that, at most, global temperature doesn't have sufficient frequency response to respond to our high frequency inputs directly(without phase shift of any kind.)

Did any of that make sense?

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/30, 9:21pm)

Post 32

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 8:12pm

Fred,

That's makes good sense to me. Besides simple rules, I like analogies -- so here's an analogy: You are trying to move a boat with an outboard motor and a sail. When you use the motor, you get a big response in a short time (one flick of the throttle lurches you ahead). Alternatively, when you open sail -- Steve, is that the right sailing "terminology"? -- when you open sail your sail catches many, little gusts of wind -- but these gusts of wind don't stop coming and they exert force on the sail over a longer period of time than any motor could (because of limited fuel supply). If you have both an open sail and an open throttle on the boat and you fall asleep, waking up 1000 miles away from where you started (and the motor had shut-off long ago due to the fuel tank running empty), then you can ask:

How much did the motor contribute to me being this far away?
How much did the wind contribute to me being this far away?

When you look at the motor, you only "care about" a short time-frame that is measured in mere hours (just long enough to run out of gas). After that, if your boat moves, it's all wind. When you look at the wind, it acts over a longer period of time, so you have to lengthen your calculations in order for them to correspond to reality. If you look at one short half-second gust of wind, that won't be long enough to estimate the proportional contribution of wind in taking you 1000 miles away from where you started.

Eh, it's not my best analogy.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/31, 8:15pm)

Post 33

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 8:44pm

Ed,

Sails are usually unfurled, raised, or hoisted. Sometimes we 'make' sail. But 'open' works.

I'd say the cause of being a 1,000 miles away was due more to falling asleep, since the boat could have just drifted if there were neither wind nor motor fuel. (See "Adrift" by Steven Callahan who drifted for 76 days and made far more than a 1,000 miles - in a life raft - good book by a fellow I got to know later).

But I don't know what you and Fred are talking about, so I doubt that my contributions to any wording in your analogy is helpful.

(Note: my past sailboats would have taken about 7 days to get that far, so it was one hell of a deep sleep :-)

Post 34

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 9:24pm

Steve,

Sails are usually unfurled, raised, or hoisted. Sometimes we 'make' sail. But 'open' works.

Thank you. That's what I was looking for.

I'd say the cause of being a 1,000 miles away was due more to falling asleep ...

That one made me laugh (and do one of those palm-strikes to my forehead).

... since the boat could have just drifted if there were neither wind nor motor fuel.

Oh, so that's what you mean. Gosh, I wish you would have told me that before I struck my forehead! Or perhaps I should learn to develop the skill of reading full sentences before reacting. Well, it's one of those 2 alternatives: either you place all of your predicates before your subjects (like Yoda does), or I learn some patience.

:-)

Also, that "Adrift" book looks cool (and it's really cool that you got to know Steve Callahan). Steve, do you remember when it was that I was talking about having or getting patience (it was just a few seconds ago, in the line just above)? Well ... there's something I want to ask you and its sort of a spoiler regarding the book. You may chose not to answer me, understanding that I may never develop patience in the first place, if given information "on demand" such as this but:

Did he drink his pee?

But I don't know what you and Fred are talking about, ...

[Laughing uncontrollably] ... Well ... what the ... [more laughing] ... Steve? ... what the heck are you doing reading stuff when you don't even know what is being said? Is that what I have to look forward to (when I develop patience)? Reading things laboriously, even when I don't know what's being said?? Maybe I'll just stick with this whole "un-delayed gratification" thing that I've got going on. I mean, heck, it's gotten me this far, hasn't it?

:-)

Note: my past sailboats would have taken about 7 days to get that far, so it was one hell of a deep sleep :-)

Yeah, I just kind of threw that 1000 miles number out there. It sounded good at the time. How was I to know that sailboats go about 1000 miles a week? Thanks. That's good information.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/31, 9:25pm)

Post 35

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 11:11pm

Did he drink his pee?

No, he didn't. And it's not a good idea. Urine has a greater concentration of dissolved salts than most body fluids, so drinking it would actually increase dehydration. If it is really hot, you could pee on a shirt or pair of underpants and wear them on your head or even just the back of your neck - that would help to cool you down, thus reducing water loss via sweating (but don't get any urine in the eyes since that might sting). If you have a mechanism to capture pure water via evaporation or osmotic distillation it might be used on urine - but I'd rather use sea water :-)

...what the heck are you doing reading stuff when you don't even know what is being said?

You asked me about sails: "Steve, is that the right sailing 'terminology'?" I answered :-)

Post 36

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 4:35am

You asked me about sails: "Steve, is that the right sailing 'terminology'?" I answered :-)

Okay, but my point was this: In order to know that I asked you about the terminology inside of this thread, then you would have had to have been reading the thread in the first place! So, when you said you didn't know what we were talking about, I assumed that that's because you've been reading -- without understanding -- what we were talking about. Your quick answer to my in-thread question merely confirmed this bias in my mind.

:-)

Regarding hydration, humans cannot go as long as even 1 month without water. So, when this guy talks about being at sea for more than 2 months it brings up a question: Where did he get enough water to survive for that long? I'm guessing from your last post that he captured rainwater. Lucky for him that it rained often enough, and that he had acquired a receptacle to catch the rain.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/01, 4:40am)

Post 37

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 5:50am

Ed,

Are you sure you want to accuse me of not understanding your posts, despite reading them? How do you imagine anyone might defend against a charge like that? :-)
---------------------

You asked,

Where did he get enough water to survive for that long?

He had several small emergency water makers that are made to be stored in a 'ditch kit' or life-raft. They use the Sun, and gore-text - kind of solar stills. At one point he had to tear one apart to find out how it worked, to modify the others, because even as a group, they were no longer making enough to survive on. If I remember right, he only weighed about 80 pounds at the end. It's a good read.

Post 38

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 7:15am