On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:20:41 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:12:50 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
And I question whether you really know what evidence is being
tampered
with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about
anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too
complex,
and
too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel.
Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather
basic
and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to
learn.
Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you
certainly know.
We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases
first because it is so much easier to understand there than in
liquids
or solids.
Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate.
Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult
intensively,
at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry.
The
original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers
investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars.
One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure
the
properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at
the
low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer
operating
and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became
pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical
interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra.
The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from
places
we
don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere
over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest.
The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The
models are based on probability-density functions.
"You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about
which
way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of
measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole
puzzle fits together."
Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and
interpret the data.
Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate
propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating
transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar.
You've only shown how little your own opinions
mean.
I have no opinions about the science, except that the real
scientists
are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than
anyone
here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet.
--
Ed Huntress
--jsw
Okay, I get that you are annoyed by attacks on your sacred cow that
you lack the scientific education to directly respond to.
You never know, Jim. Despite the fact that isolating and compoudning
deterministic phenomena for explaining climate was abandoned in the
1950s, you may yet, through application of high-altitude quantum
mechanics and data-gathering, be the first one to solve the problem
with deterministic physics that you learned during your internships.
--
Ed Huntress
Where did you find your crazy antiquated misconceptions about science?
Physics and chemistry abandoned determinism when quantum mechanics
explained experimental results that "classical" theory couldn't, in
the early 1900's.
Ah, Jim, that was tongue-in-cheek. I said that the system is chaotic
and that the models are based on probability-density functions.
Meantime, you're telling us about emissions at specific altitudes and
transfer mechanisms, and about the need for specific data, so I'm
making a joke that maybe you're trying to solve the climatology
problem by adding up all of these deterministic bits and pieces.
We pretend that things are simpler when we can, but this is the
statistical way we model them when necessary:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...kintem.html#c3
"Statistical methods become a more precise way to study nature when
the number of particles is large."
Right.
Scroll down to Maxwell Speed Distribution of individual molecules in a
gas sample. Speed correlates to energy and temperature.
Thanks, I'm well aware of it.
Even a field so seemingly deterministic as electronic communications
theory includes entropy in its calculations.
http://www.mp3-tech.org/programmer/d...e335_id073.pdf
"entropy" is in the first sentence, "random process with a laplacian
probability density function" in the second.
Yup.
Chemists learn to make -one- measurement correctly, using statistical
methods only to find and eliminate the source of random or systemic
errors. You only get one piece of the Shroud of Turin or one tooth
from the Denisova Cave (or one urine sample from the winning horse) to
analyze, and may have to defend the accuracy of your methods in
court..
But we aren't doing chemistry. We're doing climatology. Or, more
accurately, we're demonstrating why you and I can't do it. And neither
can anyone here on this NG, although a few pretend to themselves that
they can.
You see, they read a book...
--
Ed Huntress
--jsw