Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Quit slobbering idiots.
yawn
Those are my own words from my own examination and interpretation. I kept my focus tight, on one item. Prove from a reading of the paper I am wrong
Sorry, but I have already tried to answer your own words. I have a really hard time sometimes to actually understand what you mean. You seems to use words like data in a very strange way.
-you can't.
You seems to be certain about your own knowledge as usual. It is kind of tiring though. The person that don't even know what an differential equation are calling other people idiots and suggest over and over again that he is one of the few that actually understand the subject.
Norton, I want an apology. I have lots of work today so ill check back this evening.
I doubt that anyone actually understand what you think that you have shown.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I am curious and I doubt that I am going to get any answer from Professor Sumner.
Do anyone understand what the professor is trying to get to in regard to that paper?
Are errors in data equal to the models and scientists understanding are not 100% certain and that everyone don't agree with everyone?
What does he actually believe about the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
That the extra 100ppm is due to human activity, like the paper seems to imply, or do he think that most of the extra CO2 concentration is coming from the seas like I thought he thought?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Im sorry Ed, I didn't miss a damn thing. Carbon, the cyle of life. Start at the foundation and work upwards. Norton wanted a substantiation of error in data, the discepancy between model run and observations of atmos carbon prominent in this paper will do just fine. I do see many other interconnections with other mechanisms in which accurate quantificaton and sourcing is in doubt, but those cards will be saved for another time. Long day, the morning bird south departs early.Norton, wheres my apology?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
We should get Rob Ford for President of United States.
I can't get any worst then it already is ....... :-)
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I hope everyone is having a wonderful Sunday morning.
Seriously!
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
Climbers as foreign policy and climate experts...a really bad idea.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
Rick S, continued props from this direction for keeping on reading the actual scientific papers and thanks for posting links to those (though the blog links are not that useful). I think Ed H is mostly right about the CO2 one, though I found it difficult to fully understand exactly what they did and the results. I definitely did not think it exposed any big new issue; I agree with Ed that it's just the continued plodding progress of science to find discrepancies between data and models and try to elucidate why.
Norton wanted a substantiation of error in data, the discepancy between model run and observations of atmos carbon prominent in this paper will do just fine.
No, actually not. "Error in data" in this case would be some solid rational basis to believe that the actual CO2 numbers of about 400 ppm are not correct. The idea you broached before, that maybe the numbers from Mauna Loa are not correctly compared to those from ice cores would also not be an error in data; it would be a reason to use caution in analysis. Exactly as for daily temperature data recorded at different times of the day. Each daily datum is a good number; but if you want to use the data set for other analysis, you need to adjust it so that all the numbers from that station over time are as analogous as possible. It may pain some people that this particular adjustment results in an interpretation that the warming trend is stronger, but that's factually correct. And most importantly, the method is explained in the source of the data set and you can repeat it yourself. We had this conversation about the temperature data sets many pages ago, and you had no specific criticism of the adjustment methods; just a lingering unease that the numbers always seem to go up from the adjustments. Well, some people get quesy from flying in little vomit comets like the ones that run out of Reno, but they get over it. The adjusted data set is good.
As for the tropical/arctic issue, I rummaged around because although I didn't think this was right, I didn't have a solid basis for that belief. Actual data came to the rescue again. The following graph is self-explanatory, CO2 at 82.5 deg North in 2001:You can get this item at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001a/ndp001a.pdf
You can see that this station had CO2 between 375 and 380 ppm in the winter (goes down in summer because the vegetation in the N hemisphere leafs out and absorbs a lot).
Now look at the curve from Mauna Loa:
You can see that this one also shows CO2 at around 370 or 375 ppm for 2001 (peak value for the year - same as the one for NWT, Canada.
If anything, the numbers for the far north are higher than Mauna Loa, not lower. Maybe the surrounding ocean is absorbing rather than outgassing it... or some other interesting bit of science. But these data show that the idea that it's misleading to compare the ice cores to Mauna Loa data is not correct; maximum annual concentrations are comparable in these widely separated geographic locations.
It's an interesting idea, and I learned something in pursuing it, but just not a justifiable reason not to analyze the tropical and arctic data together.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
TLP, are you trying to cheat me of my well deserved apology from Norton? You started out reasonable but are now trending towards the slobbering idiot contingent. At least Ed had the good sense to only give an ambiguous one liner in response in his last comminique. There was no such specificity in the showing of a error in data per Norton's request. The ME/ice core comparison is another issue i brought up before relating to my point one. Face it Froelicher et al is a dead issue for you guys, it was well considered, their methodology was correcct, nobody objected to the issues arising from it, so its conclusion that natural variability should recieve more attention in respect to the variables of the atmos. carbon flux in times of significant volcanic activity is justified. The disparity between model runs and observations revealed an error (not on their part), either in model input or observational data. The authors suggest looking for error in observations-in keeping with the industry standard of adjusting observational evidence to fit models.
Now what do you guys think of the other paper i linked-Solomon et al? Do you likewise defend its study topic, methodology, conclusions?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Norton wanted a substantiation of error in data, the discepancy between model run and observations of atmos carbon prominent in this paper will do just fine.
No, actually not.
"Error in data" in this case would be some solid rational basis to believe that the actual CO2 numbers of about 400 ppm are not correct. The idea you broached before, that maybe the numbers from Mauna Loa are not correctly compared to those from ice cores would also not be an error in data; it would be a reason to use caution in analysis. Exactly as for daily temperature data recorded at different times of the day. Each daily datum is a good number; but if you want to use the data set for other analysis, you need to adjust it so that all the numbers from that station over time are as analogous as possible. It may pain some people that this particular adjustment results in an interpretation that the warming trend is stronger, but that's factually correct. And most importantly, the method is explained in the source of the data set and you can repeat it yourself. We had this conversation about the temperature data sets many pages ago, and you had no specific criticism of the adjustment methods; just a lingering unease that the numbers always seem to go up from the adjustments. Well, some people get quesy from flying in little vomit comets like the ones that run out of Reno, but they get over it. The adjusted data set is good.
apologize for lying by saying there are "errors" in the "data", Rick Sumner
do it NOW, or go to confession, shame on you
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
No, not trying to cheat you out of any apology that may be deserved (though I'm not sure either way whether one is in order - not focusing on that bit myself). And actually, I kind of agree with you that one point of the paper you linked is to refine the model inputs and/or algorithms, and that maybe that's correct. Importantly, they do NOT dispute the fundamental issue (humans contributing to global warming), all they say is, maybe the magnitudes are different and here's why (maybe). Exactly what I was saying: discrepancies are useful because they make you look for additional facts, do better QC/QC of data, look at all of the equations in the model, or whatever. Bear in mind that you are excoriating the modelers sometimes, then applauding them when they come up with a finding that fits your desires - using precisely the same computer programs. You can't have it both ways unless you are kind of admitting that there is some level of validity to the modeling in the first place. For my part, the particular fence I sit upon is that nothing has come along that invalidates the basic principles of current climate science, including that human-caused emissions are causing warming; but I imagine that the magnitudes may well be greater or less than the modeled rates, and that this will become clearer and clearer as we do better science on the volcanic and oceanic interactions. This Froehlicher paper doesn't change that. It's very old hat that volcanoes belch out CO2 along with aerosols that are reflective. Apparently the latter have greater temperature effects until they settle out.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Ed, I, for one, appreciate your steadfast perseverance in providing known knowns
and unknown gnawings.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Look at that pause up in there!
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
That is incredible^^^^^
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
.. it leads the researchers to investigate the cause for the disagreement. This could be with the model, the data or both... the work in progress is to find out which, but we know that there is such a discrepancy because both the data and the models are evolving to higher and higher accuracies.
Precisely! and perfectly written. Cool graphic, mono. Shows exactly why the terminology "climate change" expresses better the various s#it that's likely to hit the fan than mere "warming." The overall average temperature change is not very big at that moment, but the shifts from way warmer to way colder than recent average are drastic, and have pretty big impacts on our day-to-day lives.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
Noah tells me today that the Great Lakes are 90.5 % frozen over.
You can walk from Cleveland to Canada-- 57 miles.
Does this mean I need to drive my car more to warm the plant up?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Face it Froelicher et al is a dead issue for you guys, it was well considered, their methodology was correcct, nobody objected to the issues arising from it, so its conclusion that natural variability should recieve more attention in respect to the variables of the atmos. carbon flux in times of significant volcanic activity is justified.
I still have no idea what you think is good or special about that paper. You could probably found hundreds of other papers that say that natural variability should receive more attention.
The disparity between model runs and observations revealed an error (not on their part), either in model input or observational data.The authors suggest looking for error in observations-in keeping with the industry standard of adjusting observational evidence to fit models.
You really don't seem to understand what a model is.
Now what do you guys think of the other paper i linked-Solomon et al? Do you likewise defend its study topic, methodology, conclusions?
Why does it matter? You already know that you interpretation of everything are 100% true. What we say don't matter at all. You are just going to ignore everything we say.
The problem is that my understanding of what the paper says would be completely different to your understanding of the paper.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
if Gary Hart were elected, maybe we could get something done,
keep it in your pants, Gary,
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!