Climate Change

[xilman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Your "we have no way of knowing where the electron actually is" is also part of your misunderstanding of what HUP actually says. Actually, we can determine where the electron is to high precision, but not simultaneously determine to high precision its speed and direction of motion

While I applaud your attempt to explain the HUP, and you've made a very good job of it, please be very, very careful with your explanations.

The HUP concerns itself with simultaneous measurements of conjugate quantities and you have to be very precise as to the nature of those quantities. For instance, in Cartesian coordinates, the momentum in the x direction, p_x, is conjugate to the position in the x direction. It is possible to measure the momentum of a particle as precisely as one likes in the y and z directions without putting any constraint on p_x. In principle, one can constrain the direction of motion of the particle to be precisely along the x-axis (thereby requiring its y and z coordinates to be completely undetermined) even though the speed and the position of the particle along the x-axis are governed by the HUP. A subtle point, perhaps, but an important one.

When one brings in other pairs of conjugate quantities, such as energy and time, other possibilities for confusion occur.

Paul

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Larry

[...]uncertainty[...]

Originally Posted by Moe

[...]HUP[...]

Originally Posted by Curly

[...]HUP[...]

.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by xilman

The HUP concerns itself with simultaneous < snip >

Thank you for the rigor!

[davieddy]

Anyone else get the feeling that the conference has
benefitted from this elucidating thread?

[__HRB__]

Top ten reasons how Hopenhagen has benefited from this thread:

10. The hot air produced in this thread by total idiots is the cause of AGW and Hopenhagen can produce more of this so they can produce less of this and then say that they were for it before they were against it, unless they were against it before they were for it. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

but when asked to produce evidence to show that human-produced CO₂ is responsible for that amount of warming, you refer me to the models

Max, you seem to have amnesia.

Evans

Remember him? Remember that I've mentioned him more than once recently?

Remember his (and others') study that showed that the spectral signature of the downward flux increase matches the spectral signatures of human-produced GHGs?

Apparently, you do have trouble remembering that name and his study. Perhaps it's because you don't understand the significance of the Evans study -- is that it?

Are you having trouble understanding what the Evans study means? That the manmade GHGs have resulted in an increase in the amount of heat reaching the ground? And that this increase is about the same as would cause the observed rise in global average temperature?

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Top ten reasons how Hopenhagen has benefited from this thread:

9. The promise of free sex beats any scientific argument.

[cheesehead]

"Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/...te_blue_carbon

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Top ten reasons how Hopenhagen has benefited from this thread:

8. The more you talk (write), the more right (left) you are?

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Apparently, you do have trouble remembering that name and his study. Perhaps it's because you don't understand the significance of the Evans study -- is that it?

That must be my problem, too. It seems me to that Max keeps asking "how would we know if "x amount" of additional energy reaching the surface would cause "y amount" of global heating, and you keep answering "Evans proves the additional energy reaching the surface is from human activity." It continues to sound like the only way to link x and y is through the computational models, and Ernst sounds convincing in claiming the error ranges inherent in such calculations are larger than the claimed effects, and the error ranges are grossly under-reported in a move that raises suspicions of intentionally misleading reports - like the hybrid tree ring and actual data (i.e. hockey stick graph) was intentionally misleading.

So is it true that I've misunderstand, and Evans gives a way to relate x and y that do not depend on the computational models? Or is it true that you are answering different questions than Matt is asking? Or perhaps most likely, maybe it's true that understanding what either of you is saying would take more time than I am willing spend on the subject.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by wblipp

It seems me to that Max keeps asking "how would we know if "x amount" of additional energy reaching the surface would cause "y amount" of global heating,

... which requires a multi-stage answer ...

and you keep answering "Evans proves the additional energy reaching the surface is from human activity."

... which is one stage of the answer.

Until Max understands/acknowledges what the Evans paper means, there's no use in going on to another stage because he'll just keep raising the same missing-the-point objections and I'll just have to keep coming back to the Evans paper.

It may be that Max needs to study something (e.g., what spectra tell us) before he understands the implication of the Evans paper.

It continues to sound like the only way to link x and y is through the computational models,

That's not the whole story.

and Ernst sounds convincing in claiming the error ranges inherent in such calculations are larger than the claimed effects,

"such calculations"? Which calculations, exactly? Ernst seems to be in agreement with one criticism of global climate models (GCMs), [but note that the Skeptic article uses "GCM" to mean General Circulation Models -- perhaps not _exactly_ the same thing, although that author seems to use the term the same way] but GCMs are not the only models being referenced around here. Evans, for instance, uses some smaller special-purpose models for particular subsets of the calculations relevant to the global climate models (e.g., the distribution of GHGs in relation to altitude -- which is only one small part of the big picture, but is specifically important to the Evans study), which were not called into question by the Skeptic article. The Skeptic article concerned only GCMs.

suspicions of intentionally misleading reports - like the hybrid tree ring and actual data (i.e. hockey stick graph) was intentionally misleading.

(A) Isn't it a wee bit too early to base a scientific discussion on hostile interpretations of a selective release of informal memos? I've proposed waiting for the formal investigation -- is there some really good scientific reason for not waiting for that result before judging the soundness of the data?

Max has accused the AGW side of using rhetoric instead of data, but ... ask yourself:

Which side is it that's using the rhetoric of straw man accusations right now but is strangely silent on real evidence that actually contradicts the AGW hypothesis?

(B) You, like many of the anti-AGW folks, seem ready to declare that all AGW-supporting data is the responsibility of a single group that has been tried and convicted of being deceptive. It's not. There is a variety of AGW-supporting evidence accumulated by independent groups over quite a few years. Please don't succumb to the propaganda that simplistically characterizes it _all_ as being tarred by the selective out-of-context memo quotes.

Does it _really_ seem realistically possible that large numbers of climatologists all over the world have been engaged in some massive hoax for decades? Please do a reality check, and read http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ed-emails.html.

So is it true that I've misunderstand, and Evans gives a way to relate x and y that do not depend on the computational models?

See above. Perhaps science may be simplistically taught as a series of grand smooth ideas (evident after-the-fact), but it never actually proceeds that way in reality. The Evans paper is one important point, which, as is perfectly normal in all fields of science, needs to be linked to other evidence to support a hypothesis.

Or is it true that you are answering different questions than Matt is asking?

It's quite easy to come up with a simple question or statement that requires only seconds to utter, but hours to answer or refute. As I indicated earlier, I can't possibly keep up with someone who dodges my counterquestions, can't recall that I've already answered a certain question, won't acknowledge that he doesn't understand something or else thinks he understands when he really doesn't, and can easily compose a dozen ill-informed sentences in one paragraph. So there's always going to be available a cheap shot aimed at me: that I haven't yet explained/answered something or other.

This can't be an all-purpose science education course.

- - -

I've realized in the round-and-rounds I've been through with Max and Ernst that the only way I'm going to convince them is to establish a clear chain of inference. I can't do that by responding to every shift in the winds Max and Ernst want to blow.

So I'm starting a stand with the Evans paper, because it has one of the simplest unambiguous important data points. Those who cannot understand, or at least accept, it may well not have enough science understanding to follow the rest of the AGW argument.

Spectra are well-understood, detailed data that reveal a lot. Each element and compound has its own unique spectrum, dictated by the energy levels corresponding to the rules of quantum physics. Astronomy has used spectra for many decades to determine properties of things we can't ever hope to touch. The spectra used in the Evans study have fewer complications than many astronomical spectra -- no extreme Doppler shifts due to appreciably relativistic velocities, for instance, and no Zeeman splitting from intense magnetic fields.