What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

This is why I`m a computer model sceptic

polarbear

I eat morons
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
408
Points
140
Location
Canada
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:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,972
Reaction score
4,496
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
The k00ks hear "computer model" and automatically assume 100% accuracy. Its hysterical.



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


map_tropprjpath07_ltst_5nhato_enus_600x405-5.jpg




at201202_ensmodel-1.gif







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:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
62,362
Reaction score
17,466
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
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...
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,972
Reaction score
4,496
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
20110519_0052_1-17.jpg





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

polarbear

I eat morons
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
408
Points
140
Location
Canada
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...

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.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,752
Reaction score
8,166
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
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]
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
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;

The Greenland Ice Sheet in a Changing Climate - YouTube


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.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
62,362
Reaction score
17,466
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
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.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
75,798
Reaction score
47,168
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
 
OP
polarbear

polarbear

I eat morons
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
408
Points
140
Location
Canada
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;

The Greenland Ice Sheet in a Changing Climate - YouTube



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:
lastscankb.jpg


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:
greenland.jpg



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"..:
airforcevalleyglacier.jpg


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:
refuelling.jpg







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 :
riverview2.jpg




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

icecavecreek.jpg



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..:
restinginlongcave.jpg



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

bentglacier.jpg



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:
OP
polarbear

polarbear

I eat morons
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
408
Points
140
Location
Canada
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;

The Greenland Ice Sheet in a Changing Climate - YouTube

Regarding "real time observations of physical phenomana" I can give you one I made today,...it came out almost exactly the same as when I did this experiment in the Yukon, using a 100 by 10 cm cardboard tube and at another time on Ellesmere Island with fancy thermal vision gear and automated sun tracking. I`m 100% certain that You like it and may even use against me in future debates. But that`s Okay, because I like to keep it honest and as accurate as is possible under the circumstances with what I have at hand..:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBCyTCNi900&feature=youtu.be

You may notice that I did not polish my data even though I could have easily done so without most people noticing. But in "hard science" most of us smell a rat if the data is too perfect. For example my calibration graph should have yielded a perfectly straight line but I carried out the experiment and show the raw data as if You had been there and been able to look over my shoulder.
So, yes when I pipe CO2 into this 6 inch reflector telescope the temperature does go up by 2.5 C,...but (!!!) I still argue that despite all best efforts nobody can simulate with a lab experiment what happens outside such confines where convection is not impeded, the wind blows and the sun light does not strike a perfect mirror or a perfect black body.
Also when IR is absorbed it does not necessarily translate into an elevated temperature. Heat "energy" can be expended by decompression (as air rises) or re-radiated in all spacial directions. It can`t do that inside a tube.
But I think it turned out better than the other crap on YouTube with CO2 in a corked beer bottle baking in the sun. Or some scientist in Mexico telling You his conclusions and because he has some sort of academic title thinks t that therefore his credibility can not be questioned and he can publish results without full disclosure of how he got these results. In "hard science" there is no way that would be accepted, and again anyone who publishes supposedly raw data that is too perfect is automatically considered a cheat.
The other thing worth pointing out is what I meant before when I was talking about "artificial precision" with digital instrumentation. My multimeter does indeed have a 0.01 Kilo Ohm precision, but hooked up to the thermistor with the unshielded wire, stray capacitance and ambient "voltage hum" there is no way You get a temperature reading with a 0.1 degree or better precision. Some EXTREMELY expensive digital thermometers that I have seen are designed to deal with these problems, but I wonder if climatologists opt for these,...seeing what kind of pitiful IR Spectrophotometer they use on Mauna Loa...it does not even have a reference beam to account for the IR light source drift, or a mono-chromator..it`s just a cheap single beam instrument that uses a band pass filter ...the cheapest crap there is... on the market.
You should think that with all the money at their disposal they would buy their Lab scientists who are on the front line a Perkin Elmer, a Beckman , Bausch & Lomb or a Siemens Spectrophotometer that has some real precision. I read what kind of trouble they had,...and how faulty their readings often are...and can sympathize,...it`s not the fault of the guy at the front line who has to work with this crap,...but higher up,...the "scientists" who are never in a lab, but at every press conference they can arrange.

I want to show You another experiment that You may find perplexing. But for that I need a clear sunny day. I`ll point this telescope straight into the sun with the eyepiece installed and burn a piece of paper. Then I`ll put a pair of (cheep plastic) sunglasses in front of the paper and as You can guess nothing will happen. So why don`t the plastic sunglasses melt if they absorbed all this heat energy that burns the paper with ease ?
I have a pencil soldering gun that can`t get hot enough to burn paper, but it can easily melt a hole into the same sunglasses...?
Photons are strange things indeed !!
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$166.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top