Climate science arrogance

Nope, you see the observed doesn't reflect what the models show and yet there is no effort to address the 99% of the models that show the observed is wrong.

 

You need to learn more about how the greenhouse effect works. Solar radiation reaches Earth primarily as visible light and most reaches the surface, even on cloudy days. Haven't you ever gotten sunburn on a cloudy day? Heat isn't produced until the light reflects off a surface, at which point about half is retained by the surface while most of the other half is retained by the atmosphere. Only a small portion makes it back out into space.

 

Well sir I do know how it works, and the heat isn't there like there is when there are no clouds. Conclusion, not all of the rays make it through the clouds and skip instead off of the clouds back into space.

 

Sorry, but the alarmism is based solely on climate models. Since you wish to blindly trust a computer model that cannot model some of the basic climate functions, is missing what is not known, and suffers basic human bias as opposed to well understood physics, then I suggest you trust anything someone tells you.

 

you need to learn some heat theory obviously. Energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only change states. Water molecules absorb heat to change from a liquid to a gas or by absorbing energy which causes them to move faster and the energy that was converted from thermal to kinetic energy which causes them to separate then they rise to form clouds. To condense back to a liquid state the molecules release the exact same amount of energy it absorbs. No energy is generated by either the evaporation phase of the cycle or the condensation process it was simply moved from once place to another

 

100% of all scientific models are by definition "wrong", that's because they are models and can only represent a fraction of the system involved. Climate models are measured by their accuracy, and they are more accurate when they account for increasing atmospheric CO2.

 

you are wrong on many levels

first there are many 100% accurate scientific models just none of the climate change models. It is only when you base your model on a flawed understanding or assumption of what you are attempting to model that cause the model to be innacurate.

secondly wrong is wrong, a miss is a miss and garbage in = garbage out. Since it is garbage coming out of climate models even an idiot should be able to see that it is garbage going in.

 

My understanding of thermodynamics is just fine. I said clouds generate heat, not energy. Evaporation converts thermal energy into kinetic energy while condensation does the reverse, creating heat.

 

if you don't know that heat is just one of the forms of energy I would say you don't have a clue about thermodynamics.

first law of thermo dynamics - the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed

 

Name just one scientific model that is 100% accurate. Gravitational models based on Newtonian physics may be accurate enough to put a satellite in orbit around a planet billions of miles away, but it cannot accurately represent the perihelion precession of Mercury. Relativistic mechanics improves on this for large systems but is unreliable at nanoscopic scales.

 

If you don't know that converting kinetic energy to thermal energy "creates" heat, then I would say you don't have a clue about English.

 

Does the phrase independent verification and validation of an industrial simulation model. Apparently not since it seems that climate models are the only models you are aware of and none of those have underwent scrutiny in a V&V certification. Good thing missile guidance simulations were not written by climatologists other wise a missile aimed at Moscow would wipe out New Orleans

- - - Updated - - -

better go over to physorg and let them know you have found the perpetual motion machine that can create heat. You should really quit while you are behind on this one.

 

I don't, but I suspect the lead scientist at NASA's IV&V facility does. After all, their models were good enough to put a man on the moon even with less computing power than my phone.

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/201...need-independent-verification-and-validation/

You really need to learn the difference between thermal energy and energy in general. Give me a box of matches and I can create heat all night long.

 

do you even know the difference between latent heat and sensible heat and are you saying that a kilo of water would release more energy than it absorbed when it went from a liquid to a vapor ? It's becoming increasingly obvious you have no understanding of physics whatsoever
first thing you need to grasp is that heat is just one form of energy and converting it to a different form neither creates nor destroys any energy

 

I know that sensible heat and latent heat are not special forms of energy, but rather the exchange of heat between objects when kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but heat can.

 

physics 101 -

sensible heat

When an object is heated, its temperature rises as heat is added. The increase in heat is called sensible heat. Similarly, when heat is removed from an object and its temperature falls, the heat removed is also called sensible heat. Heat that causes a change in temperature in an object is called sensible heat.
Latent heat

All pure substances in nature are able to change their state. Solids can become liquids (ice to water) and liquids can become gases (water to vapor) but changes such as these require the addition or removal of heat. The heat that causes these changes is called latent heat.

http://www.spaceair.co.uk/faqs/what-is-the-difference-between-sensible-and-latent-heat

1st law of thermodynamics - The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

actually the only thing you need to be concerned with in this argument is the laws of thermo dynamics

if X joules of heat energy is absorbed by a water molecule and converted to X joules of kinetic energy to become a vapor when it condenses back to a liquid it will release the same amount of energy as heat energy. No more , no less.

1 joule of kinetic = 1 joule of heat = 1 joule of static = 1 joule of chemical. That is as simple as I can make it.

 

So contrails you figured out yet that the heat energy you claimed is created when the water vapor condenses is just the same latent heat that was absorbed during the evaporation and the water molecule is simply a transport mechanism carrying the heat from the surface of the earth to the atmosphere ? If you are still having issues grasping this pour a little rubbing alcohol on your arm and notice the cooling effect. That is exactly what evaporation of water does for the Earth, no heat energy is being created or destroyed it is simply absorbed as latent heat of vaporization and later the same heat energy will be released as latent heat of condensation

 

Evaporation converts heat (thermal energy) into kinetic energy while condensation converts the same kinetic energy back into heat (thermal energy). While total energy is being conserved, heat (in the form of thermal energy) is being created and destroyed in the process. That's how heaters and air conditioners work. They use the energy from electricity (which doesn't have any heat) to add (create) or remove (destroy) thermal energy (heat) from a system. I'm tired of arguing semantics so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

I am not paid to teach high school physics so believe what you want :::shrug::: But lets see iff you can answer a simple question - at atmospheric pressure I heat one pound of water until it reaches 212F. At that point is it water or vapor, on a similar note I cool that same pound of water to 32F is it a solid or a liquid at that point? I don't think you have a clue as to the difference between sensible and latent heat

the bottom line is that when moisture evaporates and rises to the troposphere it is cooling the Earth the same way your body cools itself by perspiring. Evaporative cooling is the process by the Earth is cooled by the energy used in the evaporation process, energy that would have otherwise heated the area's surface. Some believe that one of the many reasons climate models are so spectacularly inaccurate is they underestimate the albedo effect of cloud cover

 

Have any of them published their work? Because there is a lot of research (Dessler 2010, Lauer et. al. 2010, Clement et. al. 2009) showing that the climate models that best simulate cloud changes are the ones that find it to be a positive feedback. Clouds are still a major focus of climate research, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them being spectacularly wrong.

 

I am sure you hate Dr. Roy Spencer but here is a graph of 95 climate models and their prediction vs observational. 1998 was the last time the climate model mean aligned with observational data. Since the we have had a observational warming of appx .1 or so while the climate models mean predicted .3 to .4. I call being off by over by 200% - 300% spectacularly inaccurate

btw have you figured out the difference between latent and sensible heat yet

 

While Dr. Spencer has made some important contributions to climate science, his track record on estimating global temperature trends hasn't been that reliable. Back in the 1990's he and John Christy published several papers underestimating actual warming trends and even one suggesting that Earth was cooling. Turns out they were applying incorrect adjustments to the satellite data.

As for his latest attempt at discrediting climate models, I have a couple of questions maybe you can answer.

What were the initial conditions for the climate models he selected and how many times did he run each of them? Climate models, like the systems they represent, are chaotic and no single model will perfectly predict actual conditions. That is why climate scientists create ensembles by running the same model under multiple initial conditions to identify trend probabilities. Why doesn't Dr. Spencer show the probability range for these climate models like Ed Hawkins does?

How does Dr. Spencer account for volcanic activity during the time period shown? Because volcanos are unpredictable, they have to be specified the initial conditions. If Dr. Spencer didn't include these, it could account for much of the overestimates.

 

what does that have to do with the chart? It's not about Spencers predictions it's about the phony climate models predictions you said were accurate. All Spencer did there was take the outputs from the models, plot them, runa an average on the models predictions. Then plotted the instrument readings from HadCRUT 4 data and the UAH satellite data

 

I went and looked at the Hawkins graphs and they mirror what you posted. Not sure I understand the posters concern. He, hawkins, even summarized it that the last decade didn't follow the models and waiting on the AR5 report.

 

jc you probably know as well as I do that the AGW movement has nothing to do with science and everything to with further monetary enrichment of the corporate elite and more governmental control for the politicians who are raking in millions off the movement themselves. Tom Steyer and Harry Reid have both been linked this month to green greed