This is why I`m a computer model sceptic

Discussion in 'Environment' started by polarbear, Oct 14, 2012.

  1. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +260
    O shit, I did a typo, "sceptic" instead of skeptic and if some want to use that to shoot down what I have to say so be it.
    However the rest of You may find this little experiment interesting
    For most the 40 years I worked I had access to IR Spectroscopy or just about any of the best analytical instrumentation (Government)-money could buy...as we all know they aren`t exactly as frugal as they claim to be.
    But I`m retired now and the best I can do is to use common household items to demonstrate why I am of the opinion that computer climate models are way off the mark. You can easily try this out Yourself and modify this black body back radiation experiment at will:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpFsUdYZdUE&feature=youtu.be


    As You can see even a black coffee cup "radiation cavity" coated with black soot is a better reflector than the earth`s surface reflectivity climate science computer models assign to most of our planet .
    The higher the reflectivity the less energy of the incoming solar radiation gets changed to the lower wavelength (IR) that CO2 can absorb and back-radiate....
    I thought this was a better way to demonstrate the back radiation objections many have, rather than arguing the statistical data that are being used trying to prove the validity of CO2 IR absorption and back radiation of black body frequency shifted incoming solar radiation.
    Maybe I`ll ask the U where I`m still an adjunct Professor to repeat this demonstration with "professional" lab equipment, but I think for now this should suffice.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,172
    Thanks Received:
    2,912
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,192
    The k00ks hear "computer model" and automatically assume 100% accuracy. Its hysterical.



    The non-hopelessly duped can actually read a graph!!!!!!!!


    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]






    Again.........every environmental radical in here NEVER, EVER confronts himself with having to andwer the question, "At what cost?". Their mantra is that we need to spend tens of trillions of dollars ( in green technology)now based upon a fucking computer model. And who is paying for that? The tax payers........its not their money.:D:D:D
    How convenient, huh!!!!!!!!


    But that is exactly why they are losing in spectacular fashion. Very few people wake up one morning and say, "Im goin' to Vegas this morning...........bringing 50K with me and shooting the works!!!". Because most people ( a huge majority in fact) do think on the margin and do ask themselves the critical question, "At what cost?"

    But not the k00ks....................:slap::fu:
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  3. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,034
    Thanks Received:
    4,659
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,351
    The logic and theory are sound Bear-man.. But if you find that up-dwelling IR (particularly in the bands for CO2 and Methane eg) is HOTTER for what we model as absorbers like asphalt -- that just enhances the lower troposphere capture of the heat. (according to AGW model) Same as saying the "climate sensitivity" number goes up.. That's the factor that converts W/m2 INCOMING to surface temp.

    It's the "black body" that captures EM energy and converts to thermal re-radiation thru IR and actual heat..

    And OUTGOING radiation is easily measured by satellite. So we kinda know what's gonna be retained in the atmos. Bigger problem is -- that wavelength conversion and "reflection" is time-varying (by season, by timeODay, clouds, ect) and spatially varying (desert, arctic, ocean, etc). And a single number for the entire globe is really quite a dumb goal to hang your theory on..

    Don't just tell me why the models suck (LOL) -- tell me why you think this observation whittles at AGW theory...
     
  4. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,172
    Thanks Received:
    2,912
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,192
    [​IMG]




    By the way..........great thread Polar.......as per usual!!!:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::D
     
  5. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +260
    And that is exactly the part I wanted to show with the black coffee cup full of soot. It did meet in a rudimentary way the definition of an almost ideal black body resonance cavity that the Planck equations are based on.
    But as You could see even that was not anywhere near the perfect black body that can perform as well as the climate model black body. It still reflected way too much of the original shorter wavelength IR from the 2 Jumbo LED`s and if it had been a true black body the Light Sensing Diode (LSD) on the remote decoder circuit board would have nowhere enough signal to process the light pulse train. The earth`s surface reflects way more of the original sun spectrum than my coffee cup full of black soot...and this is where I think the biggest errors are occurring. To that You can also add the angle of "incidence" and what`s called the "angle of total reflection" because even a blacktop road can reflect light almost as good as a mirror at shallow angles.
    Today I want to add another little experiment You can do with common household items, such as the busted up Danby AC I found in our dump on the "Rez". I picked it up because I wanted to show something in regard to Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment"...that he never bothered to check out for real,...and I heated a "hotter body" with a "colder body", but unlike Spencer in the real (engineering) world You do have to invest a little bit of input energy to push this process...I just finished uploading this video...:

    Heating With Cold Air.wmv - YouTube

    I hope it doesn`t start an ideological brawl with name calling etc...because the pro- AGL guys in this forum can use this video how to fix most of the AC`s that are "broken" and discarded,...+ how to save on their heating bill with a little ingenuity and a few extra modifications.
    I had to break off the experiment early because my 3 little boys came home and kept popping the "Lab" door open ruining my Temperature measurements.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,411
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,307
    We use models every day in our lives. From the simplest, ax+b, to the very complex, and often with wide error parameters. However, for me, the proof of the warming has never been involved with the models, rather, with real time observations of physical phenomana. Such as this;

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fjPflRsW9U&feature=related]The Greenland Ice Sheet in a Changing Climate - YouTube[/ame]
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441

    I didnt watch the video. does it explain the CO2 component, or does it just say ice melts when it gets warmer? what is the tipping point for you? does it matter to you if CO2 is responsible for 0.5%, 5% or 50% of the warming since 1880? any increase is doomsday right? your side seems a little thin on evidence between the points {increase in CO2} ---->{end of the world} but you cluck like chicken little anyways.
     
  8. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,034
    Thanks Received:
    4,659
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,351
    You keep creating interactive models there in the North country and pretty soon you can sell tickets to all the "cult denier retards" that will flock to your museum.. HaHaHa.. Get your "I'm not a Goron" tee shirts ready for the Gift Shop...

    I understand why you're interested in the "reflected" IR component now. It's the heat conversation at the surface that matters to AGW theory. And the re-radiation of up-going longwave IR. Less absorption by the body -- less stuff likely to fall in the absorption bands of CO2/H2O etc.

    Those pesky kids are just part of the model.. Adds the "thermal valve" in the thermosphere that isn't completely understood.
     
  9. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Models are crap because:

    1) They're only as perfect as the imperfect people creating their matrices and inputting their information.

    2) Ergo, they cannot adjust themselves for all possible contingencies and variables.
     
  10. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +260


    Yes but not very many people who think this melt is man caused take the effort to check up with real time observations like You are trying to do.
    At this time You only have access to what is being published and if You were to have direct access to the entire Greenland area Yourself like I did I`m almost certain You would draw maybe,.... the same conclusions as I did, concerning how slanted many of these publications are.
    I hope You`ll get the chance in 2 Years to use Your "rain check" when You visit me and when You do it would be great if You could plan in about 6 months or so. If You can I`ll make it worth Your while....like this:
    [​IMG]

    Andrew Platt is not just in charge of the Greenhouse Gas Lab next to CFS Alert, but also all the other Met-Stations in our Arctic. It can be arranged that You do a 6 months "tour of duty" for Environment Canada up there and in the process get paid about $ 45 000 (Canadian). When You are there our (military) guys will take You for helicopter and twin turbo Otter rides all over Ellesmere Island & Northern Greenland.
    I watched the video You found and posted and took a few snapshots what I mean by "slanted" reporting. It`s not as bad as many others but it does have a definite spin:
    [​IMG]


    You realized that the top 2 animations are just that, because there are no satellite pictures from 1880,... but a lot of other people would not and take these pictures for face value. No matter because both, the 1880 and the 2004 picture are exactly the same and all they did is pencil a few more cracks into the ice for 2004 as they had in the 1880 ice.
    The rest of this video was shot at the southern tip of Greenland where the slopes are the steepest and glaciers rumble down these mountains also during the winter...when it is definitely not melting. The glaciers on northern Greenland do the same but not at the same pace because the mountain slopes are not that steep...the speed at which glaciers move downhill is strictly a function how steep the slope and temperature has not much to do with it. Here is a glacier on Northern Greenland, we call that location "Air Force Valley"..:
    [​IMG]

    This picture was taken at the height of summer and as You can see, no melt water run off..
    And it was`nt like that just that year, we know because we go to this spot every year very often, because we have a "fuel dump" there:
    [​IMG]






    Now about these "melt rivers" that bore caves into the ice...as in the video at time frame 13:14. If I were You and see a video like that I`ld be a little bit alarmed as well. But again this has always been so, especially at the southern most part of Greenland.
    However on some of the steeper slopes and along the Nares Strait way farther North these "river caves" also exist an they have been there for ages,...because this river which feeds this Lake (one of our fishing spots)

    always has been there :
    [​IMG]



    And it comes out of this "melt water cave" which is only God knows how many thousand years old...:

    [​IMG]


    That this was during summer goes without saying and if You look at the rocks and the river bank then it becomes quite clear that this river did not just pop into existence just a few decades ago.
    Some of these caves go on and on and on....I never managed to get all the way to the top end on this one,...but hey I`m not so Young any more either..:
    [​IMG]


    Here is another glacier during summer, matter of fact that was 2008 during the "all time record melt season"...no melt water run-off...:

    [​IMG]


    Back to the video You found...
    This is the kind off spin-doctoring I object to...@ 3:07 this lady quotes the 2007 melt season and uses it at 3:47 to substantiate the predictions for the melt to continue at this rate, then goes on to say that Greenland will rise 1 kilometer and therefore the sea levels will rise more than was predicted before. You know, it`s quite alright by me if people have a theory, but to present it in such a way as if it was an established fact and publish it is not alright...!!!
    If politicians do it with their paid TV ads before an election, I can understand that although it is despicable. But since when is that done in science ? I do appreciate it when people like You have a sincere concern about the environment which is in fact taking a beating from urban sprawl, Chinese and 3.rd world industrialization and reckless resource development. But when these "scientists" who for the most part would not have a job unless a Government sets aside huge sums of money for "Global warming research" start spin doctoring and misleading the part of the public which cares for nature as much as I do, then they do harm to the credibility of the entire environment branch,...because the general public has got fed up with these outlandish doomsday prophecies for quite some years now.
    I can observe how the public opinion in Germany (of all places) has swung because of these alarmist messages into the exact opposite direction as these spin doctors intended....any Presidential P.R. Campaign manager could have told them that exaggerations backfire sooner than later.
    By the way I wanted to shoot a video today of an experiment I did many years ago...which determines if CO2 really heats up because it absorbs IR "heat energy",...but we have heavy overcast today and I do need the sun for this.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012

Share This Page