Jump to content


Science question for smart people


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

Mudman24 #81 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 36582 battles
  • 12,162
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 29 2017 - 10:34, said:

I don't think something that represents 0.04% of our atmosphere is going to have a great effect on our climate.

I would be concerned with anything that alters the 0 sum energy transfer in the atmosphere myself, but I obviously don't have a grasp on the subject like you do. 



mattwong #82 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

It is as I said: 0.04% sounds like a small number, and in his uneducated ignorance, he assumes it can't make any difference.

 

But with 1367 watts/m² solar radiation intensity at Earth's orbit and a planetary radius of 6371km, the radiation poured onto Earth by the Sun is roughly equivalent to 240 million Hiroshima A-bombs every day.  But don't worry: Klaatu_Nicto assures us that a tiny <1% change in the balance between that massive radiation input and the amount that we emit back into space couldn't possibly have any noticeable effect.



Klaatu_Nicto #83 Posted May 29 2017 - 18:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,835
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on May 26 2017 - 05:23, said:

 

  The Northwest Passage is open. 

 

Good luck sailing through the Northwest Passage. 

 

 

The Northwest Passage was first navigated, at least in modern times, in 1906 by Roald Amundsen.

 

Here is some news from what Matt refers to as right-wing, global warming denying websites. 

 

Trapped in Twillingate: Iced-in crab fishermen need compensation
Polar Venture making slow progress through 'ocean of ice'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ice-compensation-fisherman-twillingate-1.4076069

 

Quebec ship gives up after 6-day battle with ice
The light icebreaker, CCGS Earl Grey, was the first to attempt to cut a path to the shore. When it failed, the medium-sized CCGS Henry Larsen was called in, which also couldn't get through. The coast guard then sent the strongest icebreaker it has, CCGS Terry Fox, but the ice proved too thick.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-ship-gives-up-after-6-day-battle-with-ice-passengers-fly-home-1.4077691

 

Sea ice off Newfoundland thickest ever yet
Ice conditions between Newfoundland and southern Labrador are the worst in living memory
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/04/22/sea-ice-off-newfoundland-thickest-ever-yet-another-polar-bear-comes-ashore/



mattwong #84 Posted May 29 2017 - 18:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
You see how he doesn't make the slightest effort to address any actual scientific question posed to him, about infrared radiation absorption or solar radiative energy balance?  He's literally reduced to saying "ha ha, winter still happens, so you're wrong".  He is so obliviously ignorant that he doesn't even know how laughably uninformed he looks.

Mudman24 #85 Posted May 29 2017 - 18:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 36582 battles
  • 12,162
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
Climate and weather may be different things, but I'm no scientist so who knows.

Klaatu_Nicto #86 Posted May 29 2017 - 18:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,835
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMudman24, on May 29 2017 - 08:44, said:

I would be concerned with anything that alters the 0 sum energy transfer in the atmosphere myself, but I obviously don't have a grasp on the subject like you do. 

 

It's not about having a grasp of the subject although that does help. It's about paying attention to real world events, paleoclimatology and astrophysics. Real world events are why you are going soon to be paying higher prices at the grocery store.

 

Real world events -

 

Wheat Soars Most On Record After Freak Snowstorm Blankets Midwest
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-01/wheat-soars-most-record-after-freak-snowstorm-blanket-midwest?page=1

 

Wheat Futures Surge After Snow Slams U.S. Crop
https://www.agweb.com/agday/article/wheat-futures-surge-after-snow-slams-us-crop-blmg/

 

More Rain to Pummel U.S. Plains After Crop-Damaging Storm
https://www.agweb.com/article/more-rain-to-pummel-us-plains-after-crop-damaging-storm-blmg/

 

We Lost the Western Kansas Wheat Crop
Blizzard conditions and heavy snow swept western Kansas, including 14 to 20 inches in Colby in the northwestern quadrant of the No. 1 winter wheat state in the nation.
http://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/we-lost-the-western-kansas-wheat-crop-this-weekend

 

Beef Prices Soar After Blizzard Clobbers Midwest
Snowstorm may have killed thousands of animals
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-02/cattle-futures-beef-price-soar-after-blizzard-clobbers-midwest

 

Frost Hits European Fruit And Vegetable Sector Hard
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/174665/Frost-hits-European-fruit-and-vegetable-sector-hard

 

Paleoclimatology and Astrophysics - 

 

Evidence for solar forcing of sea-surface temperature on the North Icelandic Shelf during the late Holocene

A  positive  and  significant  correlation  between  our  SST record from the North Icelandic Shelf and inferred insolation, together with modeling experiments, supports the hypothesis that solar forcing is an important constituent of natural climate variability in the northern North Atlantic region.
http://www.geo.uni-bremen.de/geomod/staff/mschulz/reprint/Jiang_etal_Geology05.pdf

 

Reinforcing the double dynamo model with solar-terrestrial activity in the past three millennia

In this paper we reproduce the summary curve of solar activity for the last 3000 years that shows a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity reported in the past millennia.  These include the most significant grand minima:  Maunder Minimum (1645-1715),  Wolf minimum (1280-1350 AD), Oort minimum (1040-1080 AD), Homer minimum (800-900 BC), also pointing to the grand maxima:  the medieval warm period (900-1200), the Roman warm period (400-10 BC) and so on. We also verify the extrapolated summary curve,  as the solar activity curve, by available pre-telescope observations of large sunspots in 14 century, by increase of the terrestrial temperature and by the intense terrestrial auroras seen in 14-16 centuries and by the batterfly diagrams simulated and observed for Maunder Minimum. We predict the upcoming Modern grand minimum in 2020-2055, which will have the solar activity slightly higher and its duration twice shorter than in Maunder minimum of the 17 century.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04482.pdf

 

btw Matt/Mike, I was laughing at you earlier because it was obvious you did not click the youtube link I posted to Mudman.

 



Klaatu_Nicto #87 Posted May 29 2017 - 18:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,835
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMudman24, on May 29 2017 - 09:17, said:

Climate and weather may be different things, but I'm no scientist so who knows.

 

In case you have not noticed whenever it's a warm record the AGW crowd cries climate but when it's cold records they cry weather.

Klaatu_Nicto #88 Posted May 29 2017 - 18:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,835
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on May 29 2017 - 09:10, said:

You see how he doesn't make the slightest effort to address any actual scientific question posed to him, about infrared radiation absorption or solar radiative energy balance?  He's literally reduced to saying "ha ha, winter still happens, so you're wrong".  He is so obliviously ignorant that he doesn't even know how laughably uninformed he looks.

 

My education in thermodynamics was about 40 years ago so ya, I'm a bit rusty on that but that dose not negate what I have been posting from people and organizations that are not rusty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



mattwong #89 Posted May 29 2017 - 18:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

(sigh) more link spam.  As I predicted, he is incapable of answering even the most simple question about the concept in his own words: even one which could be answered in a single short sentence.  All he can do is spam links.

 

Block Quote

 My education in thermodynamics was about 40 years ago

 

Stop lying.  You NEVER had an education in thermodynamics.  You had a general physics course, one time, which you preposterously claimed is just as good as specialized education in thermodynamics.  And that does not excuse you from being completely incapable of answering even the most simple question about the theory.



Klaatu_Nicto #90 Posted May 29 2017 - 20:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,835
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on May 29 2017 - 09:45, said:

(sigh) more link spam.  As I predicted, he is incapable of answering even the most simple question about the concept in his own words: even one which could be answered in a single short sentence.  All he can do is spam links.

 

 

Stop lying.  You NEVER had an education in thermodynamics.  You had a general physics course, one time, which you preposterously claimed is just as good as specialized education in thermodynamics.  And that does not excuse you from being completely incapable of answering even the most simple question about the theory.

 

Thermodynamics is part of high school and college physics courses.

mattwong #91 Posted May 29 2017 - 20:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

If thermodynamics is so simple that you learned it in a general science course in high school, then answer the question I posed on the previous page.  Let me repeat it again, since you are obviously trying to pretend you didn't see it:

 

Quote

A popular global warming denial argument is that upper-atmospheric CO2 levels are irrelevant because there is already so much greenhouse gas at lower altitude (from clouds, methane, etc) that 100% absorption of infrared emission takes place.  Do you understand what this means, and do you know what the obvious scientific rebuttal to this argument would be, regardless of whether 100% absorption actually occurs?

 

Please answer in your own words, not by posting links.  Note: the answer is extremely simple: it can be answered in one sentence.

 

It is quite clear that you are lying: you don't know anything about the CO2 greenhouse warming theory, and all you can do is post links showing that there is still cold in the world, which demonstrates how woefully unprepared you are for this discussion.  The only real advantage you have over me is that you obviously intend to just keep posting until the more qualified and educated people get tired of it and walk away.



Eraden #92 Posted May 29 2017 - 20:24

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26011 battles
  • 219
  • Member since:
    11-21-2011

View PostExplodedChicken, on May 25 2017 - 19:52, said:

 

you are close.  I'm a chemist who has worked with biologists and has had a med lab tech as an ex.  I believe that the trick is to sample the surface, and then do a culture counting 'colony forming units' on a plate.  the agar plate acts as a magnifier of sorts, so if you know how fast the bacteria will grow in ideal conditions, (Such as replicating every 20 minutes), So, if you know the original surface had a density of 1,000,000 bacteria per mm2 (microscope or similar method), then treat the surface, then swab the surface and count colony forming units) then you can get this number.  If you swab the surface, and get 10 colony forming units, then the 'left alive' rate is 0.001%,and the kill rate is 99.999%.

 

If there's any practicing microbiologist browsing around, I'm sure they can take it the rest of the way to a perfect explanation.

 

Ok, folks, I AM a practicing microbiologist. 5 years of post graduate studies and 30 years of on the job experience. The easiest way to analyze the effects of a treatment on bacteria is to take a bacterial culture, split it, and then subject one to treatment and leave the other as a control (make sure the treatment time is less than the generation time of the bacteria in question or else you will have to account for additional growth). You then do serial dilutions on both cultures and plate each dilution on an agar plate containing medium that is appropriate for the type of bacteria that you are looking for. It's as simple as that. Trying to do bacterial counts under a microscope is somewhat problematic due to the very small size of most bacteria, so it's usually easier to get numbers by growing out surviving bacteria into macroscopic colonies that are easy to observe. Additionally, different colony morphologies can assist you in analyzing what is present in the population.

Edited by Eraden, May 29 2017 - 20:25.


Klaatu_Nicto #93 Posted May 29 2017 - 21:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,835
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

 

 

Human caused global warming theory predicts continued warming with no end in sight unless we curtail the use of fossil fuels. Solid science, not theory, such as paleoclimatology and astrophysics shows the recent warming trend to be a natural event and is predicting a cooling over the next few decades.

 

 

 

 

 

What does the most recent data from NASA's atmospheric monitoring system show?

 

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21

 

Comparing global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means) between 2016 and 2017 by month.

Jan 2017: -0.24
Feb 2017: -0.48
Mar 2017: -0.54
Apr 2017: -0.44

 

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

 

In other words, the most recent data is favoring paleoclimatology and astrophyiscs. Whether that continues we will have to wait and see.

 

What does the much maligned but award winning U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, have to day on the issue of global warming?

 

Santer et al. can get press saying, in effect, “See? Those silly global warming skeptics are wrong.” Of course, the authors know full well that the reason the pause/hiatus/leveling-off ended was due to a NATURAL event (El Nino).

 

You can’t build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming! (But, they did anyway.)

 

So, they fault Pruitt on a technicality, straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.

 

This then distracts attention from the real issue: that the climate models on average produce about twice as much warming as has been observed over the last few decades.

 

The Santer paper also makes quite a bit out of the fact that warming exists in the satellite datasets at all, and that climate models do not produce that level of warming from their internal variability, suggesting an anthropogenic cause. Of course, they fail to mention that models are lousy at producing realistic multi-decadal time scale natural variability anyway, so this is hardly proof of an anthropogenic source of recent warming.

 

Nevertheless, as a “lukewarmer” I tend to believe about half of recent warming is indeed human-caused. There’s no way to prove it because there is no fingerprint of anthropogenic warming (warming from, say, a slight decrease in ocean mixing and overturning would look the same as human-caused warming, with greater warming over land than ocean, and over the Northern than Southern Hemisphere).

 

So, I consider the “no warmers” to be on shaky ground, both theoretically and observationally. But that doesn’t mean they are wrong…we just don’t know yet.

 

The Santer et al. paper is a good example of what often happens in political debate. Your opponent takes one ambiguous thing you said, interprets in a specific way, dissects it, destroys it, and in the process leaves the impression that you are an idiot who should not be listened to.

 

At the same time, it performs a very important function: distracting attention away from other, more important issues and lines of evidence — like the fact that observed warming has only been occurring at about half the rate climate models say should be occurring. And those model predictions are the basis for energy policy changes.

 

It’s sad to see how far peer-reviewed climate science has fallen.

 

- Dr. Roy Spencer

 

How far will the the proponents of the human caused global warming theory go in order to silence their opposition?

 

Bullets Shatter Windows Next To A Prominent Global Warming Skeptic’s Office

While police say the shooting looks to be random, Christy’s colleague, Dr. Roy Spencer, said it’s “more than coincidence” that shots were fired around Earth Day. “When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way,” Spencer wrote in his blog. “It doesn’t matter that we don’t ‘deny global warming;’ the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvement in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/bullets-shatter-windows-next-to-a-prominent-global-warming-skeptics-office/

 

UAH Shooting Investigation Update

For the last 25 years our science has been viewed as standing in the way of efforts to institute a carbon tax or otherwise reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of money involved in such changes in energy policy easily run into the hundreds of billions of dollars… more likely trillions. When I was at NASA, my boss was personally told by Al Gore that Gore blamed our satellite temperature dataset for the failure of carbon tax legislation to pass. So why am I not surprised that our building was shot up? Because people have been killed for much less reason than hundreds of billions of dollars.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/

 


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 29 2017 - 21:09.


mattwong #94 Posted May 29 2017 - 21:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
This guy is like a bad joke.  Every time I accuse him of being a clueless dilettante who just link-spams because he's incapable of answering the most simple question about the theory in his own words, he goes ahead and demonstrates my point by posting more link spam and copy-paste walls of text.  I'm starting to wonder if he's autistic or something.

mattwong #95 Posted May 29 2017 - 21:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
Every time this happens, he just tirelessly link-spams and copy-pastes until he "wins" because the other side gets tired of answering him.  I imagine this time will be no different.

Markd73 #96 Posted May 29 2017 - 21:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,468
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Postmattwong, on May 29 2017 - 17:10, said:

You see how he doesn't make the slightest effort to address any actual scientific question posed to him, about infrared radiation absorption or solar radiative energy balance?  He's literally reduced to saying "ha ha, winter still happens, so you're wrong".  He is so obliviously ignorant that he doesn't even know how laughably uninformed he looks.

 

Sure he does, he just doesn't care.

Klaatu_Nicto #97 Posted May 29 2017 - 22:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,835
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on May 29 2017 - 12:10, said:

This guy is like a bad joke.  Every time I accuse him of being a clueless dilettante who just link-spams because he's incapable of answering the most simple question about the theory in his own words, he goes ahead and demonstrates my point by posting more link spam and copy-paste walls of text.  I'm starting to wonder if he's autistic or something.

 

Your problem is you only think in one dimension. You need to work on your spatial skills.

 

I don't bother answering your questions anymore for several reasons.

 

1. I have already, often multiple times, answered your questions in previous topics over the past few years.  

 

2. If I give you an answer you will say I goggled it.

 

3. You ignore my response. The last time you asked me a similar question which I gave you an accurate, off the top of my head answer to you ignored it and continued on with your attack on me. I think I said back then something about the outer valence electrons of the CO2 molecule.

 

4. Today I'm only here while waiting for battles to end at WOWS or taking a short break from battle.

 

5. Since you want to make it personal, I find you distasteful to be around. You are dishonest, mean spirited and insulting, and not just with me. Your only purpose for coming on this forum seems to be to criticize, belittle and insult people in a variety of topics and subjects while proclaiming your intellectual superiority.   

 

Like I've said before, if one has solid evidence to back up their claims then they don't need to engage in the kind of tactics and logical fallacies that Matt and his kind use in their arguments.

 

Speaking of logical fallacies........

 

 

 

 



Klaatu_Nicto #98 Posted May 29 2017 - 23:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,835
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on May 29 2017 - 12:34, said:

 

Sure he does, he just doesn't care.

 

I don't care what you, Matt or anyone else thinks of me. It's the data and information I post that is important. 

 

Since in a previous note you wrongly claimed I was committing a logical fallacy, let me ask you a question.  What logical fallacy is Matt committing and why have you not pointed that out?


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 29 2017 - 23:11.


Eraden #99 Posted May 30 2017 - 02:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26011 battles
  • 219
  • Member since:
    11-21-2011
Klaatu, Matt, it would appear that the two of you will simply not be able to agree on things. Perhaps you should both relax a bit and not worry too much about each other. This appears to be a battle that can't be won. I enjoy posts from both of you and I hope that you fellas don't try to bury the hatchet into each other.

mattwong #100 Posted May 30 2017 - 05:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostEraden, on May 29 2017 - 20:33, said:

Klaatu, Matt, it would appear that the two of you will simply not be able to agree on things. Perhaps you should both relax a bit and not worry too much about each other. This appears to be a battle that can't be won. I enjoy posts from both of you and I hope that you fellas don't try to bury the hatchet into each other.

 

It's not a "battle"; it is an educated man trying to correct an uneducated man, and the uneducated man is being obstinate and unreasonable about it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users