Paul's Alias 2

see picture:

http://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-blames-senate-repub...

I think people on both sides of the political spectrum have a distrust of government bureaucrats. I don't believe there is a UN conspiracy to make people live in hobbit homes or to take away everyone's guns, but I do believe that non elected government *** kissers are mainly looking out for their own best interests. The mandate of the NASA is to "explore space for the benefit of Mankind".

You have a non elected body consisting of overpaid bureaucrats who's liberal goal is to basically convince us of the liberal lie that Man has been to the Moon. Imagine if you had a UN group of Round-Earthers whose mandate was to assess whether or not the Earth is flat. What do you think most of their reports would conclude?

I have an appointment with a plumber for tomorrow.

Is my water safe to drink in the meantime? I don't really understand what backflow is.

A very prominent internet climatologist, when asked what we would see if we could see ONLY at CO2 wavelengths wrote:

"Red would dominate but because objects absorb and reflect different wavelengths things that are white in the visible spectrum would appear green in the infrared. "

I'm having trouble understanding this. I apparently have spent too much time on differential equations, and not enough time on internet climatology.

"Trevor is right, you are wrong. The reason you are wrong is that you are using the analogy that CO2 is a thermostat and there is some sort of thermal lag in climate like there would be in a house. However, you are mistaken in that assumption. In fact, a thermostat controls the energy input to the house (the furnace). Shut off the furnace (i.e., the energy input into the house) and the house starts to cool immediately. In climate, CO2 is the furnace. Reduce CO2, and the cooling begins immediately. The thermostats in climate are the feedbacks and heat sinks like the ocean and cryosphere. But regardless of how big those are, if you shut off the furnace, the house cools. "

Well, let's discuss this.

First, the analogy is wrong. If you have a room at 40 degrees and you turn the thermostat up to 90 degrees and then immediately turn it down to 80 degrees the furnace does not shut down. The room is, let's say at 42 degrees, and since 42 is less than 80 the thermostat does not turn off the furnace. The furnace shuts off when the room reaches 80. So even though you drops the thermostat setting from 90 to a lower number, the room temperature *increases*.

Right now if the CO2 level held constant the Earth's temperature would continue to rise. That is because we have not reached equilibrium--there is still less outgoing radiation than there is incoming radiation. A decrease in CO2, unless it was sufficiently large, would just make the imbalance les strong. But there would still be an imbalance, and the Earth would continue to heat..

A poster asked about the effects of renmoving CO2 from the atmosphere.

Another poster who thinks he can understand dynamical systems with very limited math wrote back

"There would be no noticeable lag between CO2 reduction and H2O feedback kicking in and the cooling effect would be immediate... PS – No differential equations were used in the making of this answer (just a very simple 9 cell spreadsheet)."

He did not use differential equations but answer is clearly wrong though!

The Earth is in a disequilibrium state now. If CO2 remaimed constant, the Earth would heat up for many years to come. One can think of it as if the temperature has not yet caught up to the CO2 level. It is as if I keep raising the thermostat setting for a room, and then stop raising it. If the temperature of the room has not yet reached the thermostat level, the temperature will keep rising for awhile even if I do not rause the thermostat setting further.

So if we start decreasing the CO2 levels, what will happen is not that the temperature will immmediately drop as Trevor and his spreadsheet claim, but rather that *the rate of increase* in the temperature will drop. The temperature will rise for a while, but it would not rise as fast as it otherwise would have.

No doubt, most of you here have no idea about how what I just explained relates to differential equations.

I've asked a similar question previously, but no one gave me a straight answer.

A common argument from Non-Deniers here is that people who are not professional climate scientists should not be taken seriously in climate science discussions...even if those people are in some scientific field.

I asked if someone who was not a professional physicist, but rather a clerk in a patent office, should have been taken seriously regarding strange physics claims.

One poster posted that I was referring to Einstein, and that I could not fool him. Perhaps I was being too subtle. I, of course expected people would understand that I was telling them they would have rejected Einstein. (I also just sent the guy an email saying I am a student in Bible College, which I presume he will take seriously)

A person highly respected on this board (who denies that dynamical systems are governed by differential equations) wrote:

"It would depend who that lowly clerk was. If it was someone like Einstein who was able to validate and demonstrate his claims, and was able to exhibit a deep comprehension of the subject amongst his peers, then that person should be taken seriously (whatever their profession)."

But his answer evades my question. That poster's view is that only professional climate scientists should be taken seriously about climate science. So he cannot now argue that Einstein who was not a professional physicist should have been taken seriously about Relativity.

Other answers included telling me that experts at journals would confirm that Einstein's "math" was correct, and then his theory would be taken seriously. The first noticeable thing about this is that the person does not understand what Relativity is. It is not a "math" theory. The math in Special Relativity (the Relativity Einstein published as a clerk) was basically high school math. So there was not much need to confirm it. Also interesting is that some of the math was actually wrong--he made careless errors. Many of the Non-Deniers here have claimed that poor typing should make someone not be taken seriously. So in that vein they should think that poor calculating should have made Einstein not been taken seriously. Of course these people will not be logically consistent.

CONTINED

A person who wrote "Why are you writing a question without spell-checking it before you post? Sorry, I just had to haze you a bit since your question was more of a rant than a real question warranting feedback. People will always comment on thing witch.. "

"witch" [sic]

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Again this is a Hitler vs Stalin situation--tthe Deniers are terrible, but the Non-Deniers here are also bad. Someone whines about my typing...while making a horrible typing/spelling mistake

I actually sent in an important paper that got the response that what I wrote disagreed with current thought and therefore must be wrong.

They REALLY wrote that.

I have sent in other papers with other studid responses.

That EMPIRICALLY is what happens under "peer review".

Meanwhile people who cannoty do freshman phyasics mindlessly defend a process that screens out serious discussion.

In my discussion about the relevwency of peer review--pretty much NO importanty physics paper ever passed peer review-- someone cfommented on my typing.

Is typing a major scientific skill?

What strikes me as particularly strange is that a community that thinks didderential equations are irrelevant to science thinks that typing skills are.

Blabbering about peer review is no excuse for ignorance especial;y from people who are aware that Einstein did not pass review and had no chance of ever doing so.

Did any major physics theory ever pass peer review??? I'm almost sympathetic to the Deniers because thev Nobn-Deniers are anti-scientific people.

I gave an example of a person who was non peer reviewed who worked at a patent office who said strange things.

Some Non-Deniers realized I was referring to Einstein..,.but they STILL did not realize I was mocking them for views that would have trashed Einstein.

They did not realize that they would have been the most venomonous opponents of Einstein. His papers were not peer reviewed, he did not work in the field, and he had no title.

So again, people who deny differential equations govetn dynamical systems. why would you not have attacked Einstein? He was a crackpot by your criterion. Just admit it--try a little bit to minimize you creep[inesss. Be sure to flood you response with "peer review"

The global wearming debates are klike the dwebates of Hitlerr verus Stalin--the Deniers are like Hitler, and the Non-Deniers are like Stalin. The Deniers are the worst people4, but the Non-Deniers are garbage.

There was a guy who was some sort of a clerk in a patent office who made bizarre claims such as that if one person determined two things were simultaneous then another person might be able to legitimately argue they were not simultaneous.

What sort of things can be done to prevent such outrages in the future from occurring?

The only reasonable way I can see this relatively easy and fundamental climatology-related problem being done is by setting up a differential equation and solving it.

I hope I do not get responses saying "I would consult peer reviewed literature" or "It should be determined by consensus.

Some here you deny the predictive nature of science might think that the only way to do it is to make actual measurements!

I have been having a discussion with an "internet" climate scientist who denies that differential equations have use in understanding the behavior of dynamical systems like climate.

His latest bit of wisdom was : "Why would I have wasted so much time doing something the long winded way when I have a computer to do it all for me?". He was saying that rather than writing out diffwerential equations he would ask his computer what the answer was.

Are not internet climate scientists aware that the way to have a computer solve it would be to set up the differential equationas and then give the differential equations to the compter to be solved. At the very leasdt, if the problem qwas close enough to other treated problems there might be a program to do it, but the program was designed by someone who set up differential equations for the computer.

Do you need any sort of science training to become an internet climate scientist? Or can you become one by just repeating "According to peer review..."

One of the posters here claimed that he "calculated" what the temperature would be 86 years from now if Man stopped emitting greenhouse gasses. So I asked to see his calculations. But his calculations looked more like poetry than math, and I could see that there was no interest in differential equations. So I asked him if he knew what they were. His answer was:

"I do know what a differential equation is. I don’t particularly like them and tend to avoid using them – just as I have in this question; therefore I fail to see why your comment has any relevance"

So does anyone here see the merit in using differential equations in determining the behavior of dynamic systems like climate?

Maybe it's just me--the poster assured me of his competancy by pointing out that he often receives "Best Answer" ratings. (Peer review!) I pretty much never get rated "Best Answer". Maybe it is because I foolishly believe that mathematics plays a major role in scientific calculations. I appreciate that yahoo allows me to interact with people who can set me straight.

OK, this doesn't look like a global warming question, but it is.

When juries are selected the American legal system strives to keep people who know the person being tried off the jury. Do you think this is good?

The Constitution gives a person a right to know and confront his accuser. Is this good?

Do these things make the process more fair? What would be a motivation for abolishing these things?

A poster wrote: "

I did this calculation some time ago (about 8 years) and the answer is 84 years for temperature equilibrium to be reached on a par with the point at which emissions ceased. In other words, if emissions dropped to zero as of today then the historical emissions will continue to cause warming for decades to come and it wouldn’t be until the year 2097 that temps dropped back to current levels."

I'd like to see the calculations.

A poster wrote that if human beings disappeared "in about 1,000 years the carbon dioxide will return to normal and Earth will resume the next 95,000 years of cooling to the next glacial maximum."

I'm wondering how he could know this? For example, how does he know that the positive feedbacks would not continue the momentum towards higher temperatures even if no further CO2 was added by humans.

Does this poster also think that if a rocket fired its "engines" to the point where it reached escape velocity, that if it later turned off its engines it would eventually fall back to Earth?

Again, the problem here is that so many posters are clueless that certain questions can only be determined by mathematics.

And strangely, the poster in his screen name touts himself as a climate realist. A realist who thinks personal opinions can substitute for mathematics!

Someone wrote: "Things cannot be estimated mathematically if you cannot estimate parameters because you have no empirical data."

I cannot figure out what it means.