On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.

Several of the models are publicly available for anyone who is
interested to play with. They do require a fair amount of knowledge to
set up and run but the code is out there if you want to look at it.

Nature even ran an ensemble DIY climate project using screensaver time
on home PCs in much the same way as SETI does. If you want to take part
take a look at:

http://www.climateprediction.net/projects/

The preliminary results of the original project are almost a decade ago

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03301.html
(abstract only article behind expensive paywall)

Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have done.

Any decent scientific training will do to understand the basics.

If you want to dig deeper into the computational physics simulations of
planetary atmospheres you will need a PhD in something highly numerate.

This can't be helped - the physics of climate *is* complicated.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 10/10/2013 17:56, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/10/2013 12:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/10/13 12:24, Fredxx wrote:
TNP doesn't understand radiation. He believes the most significant heat
transfer in a gas is through conduction.

That's because actually it is

Untrue. Dry air is a supremely good insulator if you prevent it from
moving about by enclosing it in a foam. The most impressive being
aerogel which is to a very good approximation immobilised air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ae...r_filtered.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

Double glazing and fridge insulation also relies trapped air or a higher
molecular weight blowing agent being an extremely good insulator.

Helium or hydrogen are comparatively good conductors of heat for a gas. eg

http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_tr...vity-gases.htm

In many cases.

Radiators dont heat your house through radiation, but about 80% by
convections which is assisted conduction.

That is a very unusual and perverse definition of conduction you have
there Humpty Dumpty. Bulk movement of the working fluid to transfer heat
energy is convection just like the granulation cells on the solar
photosphere or easily seen on the surface of hot oil in a frying pan.

gases dont radiate much at room temperatures. The energy is the fourth
power of temperature.

Diatomic ones barely at all. Polyatomics like CO2, H20, O3 and CH4 do
which is why they are opaque to some thermal IR and make a difference.

This is sufficiently dumbed down as to pssibly be withing your grasp

http://www.g9toengineering.com/resou...attransfer.htm

As I have said time and agan, heat loss from the earths SURFACE is not
except in dry desests primarily radiation. It is via convection and
advection of water vapour and thereby to clouds, and clouds do the final
radiation into space. No one disputes this, but cO2 fanatics ignore it
and hand wave it away. Because its impossibly hard to model.

No they don't you are creating straw men here.

And because clouds sit high up in the atmoshere, what the compositiion
of the atmoshere underneath is, is totally irrelevant to their activity
in radiating heat away.

In the thermal IR bands where the atmosphere is opaque thermal IR
photons have to complete a random walk to escape.

I wouldn't call the atmosphere opaque to IR, just less transmissive than
visible light in a cloudless atmosphere. Infrared radiation from
objects at Earth temperature peaks at around 10um, which happens to be
close to a CO2 absorption line.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=25132

I'm not sure what a photonic random walk is. If you mean radiation,
absorption and re-radiation, doesn't that look like conduction?

IPCC climate models are based on O level physics, at best. They simply
'paraemeterise' all the important detail and hand wave it away, just as
you do. But you cant do that and get an accurate preduction.

Which is why they never have.

In your dreams.

On 10/10/2013 21:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have
done.

Most reputable models are explained in peer reviewed journals. Models
are often reproduced and compared. If they were truly published would
you be any the wiser?



How would I know as they aren't.
That is the point, they are making what are unsubstantiated claims and
hiding anything they decide you shouldn't know.
I don't trust people that do that.

On 10/10/2013 21:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:

The Earth is a finely balanced thermal system with numerous competing
mechanisms. However until you understand the greenhouse effect and the
significance of CO2, you won't understand why some of us are concerned.

Its a balanced thermal system, but its hardly finely balanced.
Just look at some of the variations we have had in the past.

What you can also see is that its actually quite well buffered too as
changes normally take a few decades.


The variations in the past have been significant. That is the point you
seem to be missing is that they may not have been caused by anything
significant.

Well we know that some of the warm periods were not produced by more co2.
We also know there was more co2 during some of the cooler times.

So what insignificant thing were you thinking might be causing the
warming that may be happening now?


A small increase in volcanic activity can have a profound effect on
global temperatures and a small change of precipitation in the Atlantic
can have a significant effect on the Atlantic Conveyor causing a massive
change in the weather patterns in the Northern hemisphere.


Weather is not climate as any GW expert will tell you (after a cold spell).

On 10/10/13 21:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:

The Earth is a finely balanced thermal system with numerous competing
mechanisms. However until you understand the greenhouse effect and the
significance of CO2, you won't understand why some of us are concerned.

Its a balanced thermal system, but its hardly finely balanced.
Just look at some of the variations we have had in the past.

What you can also see is that its actually quite well buffered too as
changes normally take a few decades.


The variations in the past have been significant. That is the point you
seem to be missing is that they may not have been caused by anything
significant.

A small increase in volcanic activity can have a profound effect on
global temperatures and a small change of precipitation in the Atlantic
can have a significant effect on the Atlantic Conveyor causing a massive
change in the weather patterns in the Northern hemisphere.

there is no evidence for either of those statements.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/10/13 21:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have
done.

Most reputable models are explained in peer reviewed journals. Models
are often reproduced and compared. If they were truly published would
you be any the wiser?

yes.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/10/13 21:14, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.

Several of the models are publicly available for anyone who is
interested to play with. They do require a fair amount of knowledge to
set up and run but the code is out there if you want to look at it.

Nature even ran an ensemble DIY climate project using screensaver time
on home PCs in much the same way as SETI does. If you want to take part
take a look at:

http://www.climateprediction.net/projects/

The preliminary results of the original project are almost a decade ago

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03301.html
(abstract only article behind expensive paywall)

Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have
done.

Any decent scientific training will do to understand the basics.

If you want to dig deeper into the computational physics simulations of
planetary atmospheres you will need a PhD in something highly numerate.


er no, all you have to do is be a raliway engineer, or a third rate
natural scientist from a 4th rate university.

Or a politicain or a green activist.



This can't be helped - the physics of climate *is* complicated.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/10/2013 22:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 21:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:

The Earth is a finely balanced thermal system with numerous competing
mechanisms. However until you understand the greenhouse effect and the
significance of CO2, you won't understand why some of us are concerned.

Its a balanced thermal system, but its hardly finely balanced.
Just look at some of the variations we have had in the past.

What you can also see is that its actually quite well buffered too as
changes normally take a few decades.


The variations in the past have been significant. That is the point you
seem to be missing is that they may not have been caused by anything
significant.

Well we know that some of the warm periods were not produced by more co2.
We also know there was more co2 during some of the cooler times.

So what insignificant thing were you thinking might be causing the
warming that may be happening now?

I have already said that I sit on the fence regarding climate change.

I was just trying to undo some of TNP false assertions.


A small increase in volcanic activity can have a profound effect on
global temperatures and a small change of precipitation in the Atlantic
can have a significant effect on the Atlantic Conveyor causing a massive
change in the weather patterns in the Northern hemisphere.


Weather is not climate as any GW expert will tell you (after a cold
spell).

Agreed - but we're splitting hairs.

On 10/10/2013 23:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/10/13 21:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have
done.

Most reputable models are explained in peer reviewed journals. Models
are often reproduced and compared. If they were truly published would
you be any the wiser?

yes.

To someone who can't tell the difference between conduction and
convection? I very much doubt it.

On 10/10/2013 23:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/10/13 21:14, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.

Several of the models are publicly available for anyone who is
interested to play with. They do require a fair amount of knowledge to
set up and run but the code is out there if you want to look at it.

Nature even ran an ensemble DIY climate project using screensaver time
on home PCs in much the same way as SETI does. If you want to take part
take a look at:

http://www.climateprediction.net/projects/

The preliminary results of the original project are almost a decade ago

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03301.html
(abstract only article behind expensive paywall)

Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have
done.

Any decent scientific training will do to understand the basics.

If you want to dig deeper into the computational physics simulations of
planetary atmospheres you will need a PhD in something highly numerate.


er no, all you have to do is be a raliway engineer, or a third rate
natural scientist from a 4th rate university.

Or a politicain or a green activist.

You are talking utter nonsense.

This can't be helped - the physics of climate *is* complicated.

On 10/10/2013 23:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Fredxx wrote:

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=25132

I'm not sure what a photonic random walk is. If you mean radiation,
absorption and re-radiation, doesn't that look like conduction?

It'll be a random walk taken by a photon. Not sure it applies in this
case, as the medium (air) is not dense enough for there to be that many
collisions, I wouldn't have thought, for a photon that leaves the
earth's surface, before it escapes from the atmos. The issue in the
atmos is one of a photon having a certain chance of being absorbed
before escaping, and then a bit later the molecule that captured it
re-radiating it in (most likely) another direction (whether this counts
as the "same" photon" I'll leave to others). 90% do get absorbed, so the
chance that a photon does this N times will be 0.9**N (to first order).
Less than 5% chance that a given photon does 30 of these. That will take
microseconds to complete.

Contrast this with a photon generated deep inside the sun by fusion,
which takes between 10,000 and 170,000 years to escape from the sun.

That's not strictly true. It is not the same photon, but where one is
quickly absorbed and another re-radiated. It's really a measure how
long fusion energy takes to "conduct"[1] its way to the sun's surface.

[1] It may not be conduction but photons would appear to have the
similar characteristics as phonons that are conventionally associated
with conduction.

On 11/10/13 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 23:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/10/13 21:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of
physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have
done.

Most reputable models are explained in peer reviewed journals. Models
are often reproduced and compared. If they were truly published would
you be any the wiser?

yes.

To someone who can't tell the difference between conduction and
convection? I very much doubt it.

I explicitly made te difference plain.

You are lyng and straw manning. I gess that shows how green you are.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 11/10/2013 01:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/10/13 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 23:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/10/13 21:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of
physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have
done.

Most reputable models are explained in peer reviewed journals. Models
are often reproduced and compared. If they were truly published would
you be any the wiser?

yes.

To someone who can't tell the difference between conduction and
convection? I very much doubt it.

I explicitly made te difference plain.

By saying convection was assisted conduction? You made the difference
as explicit as mud.

You are lyng and straw manning. I gess that shows how green you are.

You haven't read my posts or have any idea of my interests and
credentials. Why is anyone who pokes holes in your arguments called
"green"?

On 11/10/13 01:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2013 01:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/10/13 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 23:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/10/13 21:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of
physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have
selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they
have
done.

Most reputable models are explained in peer reviewed journals.
Models
are often reproduced and compared. If they were truly published
would
you be any the wiser?

yes.

To someone who can't tell the difference between conduction and
convection? I very much doubt it.

I explicitly made te difference plain.

By saying convection was assisted conduction? You made the difference
as explicit as mud.

You are lyng and straw manning. I gess that shows how green you are.

You haven't read my posts or have any idea of my interests and
credentials. Why is anyone who pokes holes in your arguments called
"green"?

you havent poked holes, thats why.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 11/10/13 08:49, Huge wrote:
On 2013-10-10, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have done.

Most reputable models are explained in peer reviewed journals. Models
are often reproduced and compared. If they were truly published would
you be any the wiser?

I've seen the code from the Hadley models. Any programmer who worked
for me who produced code like that would get the sack. Add that to the
fact that the models patently don't work and they are essentially
worthless.

+1.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/10/2013 21:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:56, Martin Brown wrote:

And because clouds sit high up in the atmoshere, what the compositiion
of the atmoshere underneath is, is totally irrelevant to their activity
in radiating heat away.

In the thermal IR bands where the atmosphere is opaque thermal IR
photons have to complete a random walk to escape.

I wouldn't call the atmosphere opaque to IR, just less transmissive than
visible light in a cloudless atmosphere. Infrared radiation from

The optical depth in the CO2 15um line is ~1000 (above 1 from 14um-16um
and the narrower feature at 4.3um is about 10000. This only affects the
wavebands where the CO2 absorption features are optically dense.

http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/opt_co2.html

Put another way from space in the thermal band you see the Earth as
having characteristic temperature of the surface of last scattering.

objects at Earth temperature peaks at around 10um, which happens to be
close to a CO2 absorption line.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=25132

I'm not sure what a photonic random walk is. If you mean radiation,
absorption and re-radiation, doesn't that look like conduction?

Not really it is more like diffusion of the photons in a random walk.
They pass from absorber to absorber until either they get thermalised or
escape to infinity form the surface of last scattering.

Here is someone you might believe explaining the same thing with graphics

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/2...heric-windows/

Many US and NASA sites are all AWOL at the moment.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 11/10/2013 08:50, Huge wrote:
On 2013-10-10, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 23:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


If you want to dig deeper into the computational physics simulations of
planetary atmospheres you will need a PhD in something highly numerate.


er no, all you have to do is be a raliway engineer, or a third rate
natural scientist from a 4th rate university.

Or a politicain or a green activist.

You are talking utter nonsense.

You are aware that the chairman of the IPCC is a railway engineer, aren't
you?

Yes, I'm still not sure how relevant any railway engineer is, whether
the chairman of IPCC or otherwise, has to do with computer modelling of
climate change. I would agree with Martin that the originator of any
climate model would have a PhD or at least be on the route to obtaining one.

On 11/10/2013 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/10/2013 21:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:56, Martin Brown wrote:

And because clouds sit high up in the atmoshere, what the compositiion
of the atmoshere underneath is, is totally irrelevant to their activity
in radiating heat away.

In the thermal IR bands where the atmosphere is opaque thermal IR
photons have to complete a random walk to escape.

I wouldn't call the atmosphere opaque to IR, just less transmissive than
visible light in a cloudless atmosphere. Infrared radiation from

The optical depth in the CO2 15um line is ~1000 (above 1 from 14um-16um
and the narrower feature at 4.3um is about 10000. This only affects the
wavebands where the CO2 absorption features are optically dense.

http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/opt_co2.html

Put another way from space in the thermal band you see the Earth as
having characteristic temperature of the surface of last scattering.

objects at Earth temperature peaks at around 10um, which happens to be
close to a CO2 absorption line.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=25132

I'm not sure what a photonic random walk is. If you mean radiation,
absorption and re-radiation, doesn't that look like conduction?

Not really it is more like diffusion of the photons in a random walk.
They pass from absorber to absorber until either they get thermalised or
escape to infinity form the surface of last scattering.

In practice high energy (gamma) photon are absorbed and lower energy
energy photons are re-emitted. Until photon emitted from the Sun's
surface are of the energy associated with visible light. I have no idea
how many times this might occur but given the time taken from heat in
the Sun's core to find its way to the surface there must be trillions or
more absorption and re-radiation events in the sun from the production
of high energy gamma photons to a photon escaping the surface of the Sun.

While I'm sure there may be some scattering, but the photon leaving the
Sun bears little resemblance to one created, so saying that a "photon"
takes 10,000's years+ to escape is misleading.

Here is someone you might believe explaining the same thing with graphics

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/2...heric-windows/


Many US and NASA sites are all AWOL at the moment.

On 11/10/13 16:14, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/10/2013 08:50, Huge wrote:
On 2013-10-10, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/10/2013 23:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


If you want to dig deeper into the computational physics
simulations of
planetary atmospheres you will need a PhD in something highly
numerate.


er no, all you have to do is be a raliway engineer, or a third rate
natural scientist from a 4th rate university.

Or a politicain or a green activist.

You are talking utter nonsense.

You are aware that the chairman of the IPCC is a railway engineer, aren't
you?

Yes, I'm still not sure how relevant any railway engineer is, whether
the chairman of IPCC or otherwise, has to do with computer modelling of
climate change. I would agree with Martin that the originator of any
climate model would have a PhD or at least be on the route to obtaining
one.

its not hard to get a Phd in Climate science: you simply lay your hand
on a tree and repeat "I believe in cataatrophic man made global warming,
the logical inviolability of the precautionary princple, and hereby
denounce all opposition as holocaust deniers"



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.