How would that help me establish which appliances you claim to be converting at Eel Towers? Why, it's almost as though there is no such project!
They're the same in Eelian mathematics. What you fail to grasp is whether your assumption that the relationship is logarithmic all the way down to zero is true, or not.. And if it is true, how your physics are expected to work.
You really are desperate. I've already pointed out that all you have to accept, for all your arguments from personal incredulity (your various daft "analogies") to be false, is that the relationship be logarithmic over a range of your choice. And you already have accepted that, and been asked several times to confirm that you still believe it, which you say you do.
I've also pointed out that the relationship holds down to very low levels of CO2, though that is not in the least bit relevant to your continuing inability to understand how logarithms work.
Note this is still a beta version but now UAH is in closer agreement with RSS.
Ah, yes. The creationist Roy "God won't allow global warming to be a problem" Spencer has finally issued forth V6 of his UAH dataset, and Willard "no qualifications" Tony gets the crackpot Bob "the oceans are immune from the greenhouse effect" Tisdale to tell his disciples what it all means. You duly genuflect.
"The codes described here and provided to NOAA have not been optimized in a software engineering sense. Much of the programming structure originated over 20 years ago, starting around 1989, and was written by the authors who came from a generation of self-taught programmers and have little formal computer programming training. Much of the work was done with little funding support, so no professional programmers were utilized. In Christy’s code, there are numerous sections devoted to image creation through NCARgraphics for detection of problems, but which are not necessary for the production of the ASCII files desired by the users.
There is little use of subroutines in Spencer’s code, but more in Christy’s. Continuity of operational procedures has taken precedence over elegance or speed of execution.
As algorithm enhancements were tested, many were abandoned, but those portions of the code were simply commented out rather than deleted, i.e. they are vestigial in reality. While this is somewhat sloppy from a software design standpoint, the practical advantage of this is to provide a detailed reminder of what has been tried before.
In some cases, rather than having unused code commented out, there are sections which are never branched to in the operational running of the code because an initial adjustable parameter is always assigned a single value. A good example is diurnal adjustment of the AMSU data, for which much code is included, but has never been used operationally. In other cases, a particular ancillary analysis was needed for a publication, but not needed for production runs. These sections are usually commented out.
Most of the programs have array dimensioning and assignments which must be manually updated every month and year, since (at this writing) they only handle data through July 2011. Similarly, if a new satellite is added, then there are program changes which must be made to accommodate those new datasets.
The programs were originally developed on an SGI workstation or an IBM mainframe,and then later transitioned to Linux. As a result, all previous binary input and output files had a byte-ordering issue. We retained the SGI handling of binary files, so some of the programs must be run with a byte-swap option used on execute. This might not be an issue if NOAA re-generates all output files from scratch, but if our previous outputfiles are used, there will be a problem.
Also, we have had problems processing of a month’s worth of global AMSU data causing some sort of memory size allocation exceedance during a single program execution, which leads to only a portion of the data being processed properly. This is also handled with a special option during execute."
Lies are all you seem to have.. Oh, and try googling for DC appliances. Let's try to keep all your lies in one place.
They're the same in Eelian mathematics. What you fail to grasp is whether your assumption that the relationship is logarithmic all the way down to zero is true, or not.. And if it is true, how your physics are expected to work.
The lies are all yours. I'm pretty sure njp and/or I have explained that the logarithmic relationship doesn't necessarily apply all the way down (or up), if you understood this you know it couldn't apply to zero CO2 as that would be infinitely cold.
But it certainly applies more than your less than one degree reduction with no CO2, because, generally, "it's a log thing", just like you told us.
How would that help me establish which appliances you claim to be converting at Eel Towers? Why, it's almost as though there is no such project!
Your inability to state an energy budget for CO2, explain the 'right satellite', explain why a satellite designed to measure CO2 by radiative emission can't measure radiative emission and now how lower amounts of CO2 create more energy.. Is almost as though you have no clue.
In the time since you failed to understand simple power system design, you've found many new things you fail to understand.. So let's not get distracted..
And you already have accepted that, and been asked several times to confirm that you still believe it, which you say you do.
Obviously I don't, otherwise I wouldn't have to keep asking you to try and explain the Busby-physics behind your belief that allows half the amount of CO2 to generate 10x the energy.
I've also pointed out that the relationship holds down to very low levels of CO2
No, you simply keep stating that as fact. So back to basics. CO2's 4 absorption points 'trapping' IR. You're convinced fewer molecules trap more CO2 so 0-275 gives you far more warming than 275-550. Again, how does this work?
I'm pretty sure njp and/or I have explained that the logarithmic relationship doesn't necessarily apply all the way down (or up)
nlp hasn't accepted it.. If you have, that's some small progress..
But it certainly applies more than your less than one degree reduction with no CO2, because, generally, "it's a log thing", just like you told us.
Yup. But saying that doesn't really say much, does it? Think of it as a science thing. So you have a logarithmic looking relationship in some data. Do you automatically assume that holds true for data you don't have, or in all cases?
I point out it's a beta version. I know what beta versions mean. You duly hurl your predictable insults..
Much of the programming structure originated over 20 years ago, starting around 1989, and was written by the authors who came from a generation of self-taught programmers and have little formal computer programming training.
Yup. Normal for climate science. Do you remember Harry's readme file from Climategate? Same challenges there, although CRU has a lot more funding..
There is little use of subroutines in Spencer’s code[/B], but more in Christy’s. Continuity of operational procedures has taken precedence over elegance or speed of execution.
Oh how utterly terrible. Atmospheric physicist doesn't write 'elegant' code. Beat him with a stackless Python and cover him in style sheets..
While this is somewhat sloppy from a software design standpoint, the practical advantage of this is to provide a detailed reminder of what has been tried before.
Yep. Rather handy from a maintenance or code-reuse perspective to have the code well documented. Again something the CRU hacks failed to do..
A good example is diurnal adjustment of the AMSU data, for which much code is included, but has never been used operationally. In other cases, a particular ancillary analysis was needed for a publication, but not needed for production runs. These sections are usually commented out.
Yup. Again can be handy if you want to use the code in a test or model mode.
Similarly, if a new satellite is added, then there are program changes which must be made to accommodate those new datasets.
Like.. yes? Wouldn't you expect to have to do that if you're including a new satellite that has different parameters and data structure?
This might not be an issue if NOAA re-generates all output files from scratch, but if our previous outputfiles are used, there will be a problem.
Well, yes. There have been frequent problems with climate scientists attempting to use data without understanding it. Using Tiljander upside down because the 'signs don't matter'. That kind of thing. Or again for CRU and NOAA, simply not knowing where their data came from or how it had been adjusted..
Also, we have had problems processing of a month’s worth of global AMSU data causing some sort of memory size allocation exceedance during a single program execution, which leads to only a portion of the data being processed properly. This is also handled with a special option during execute."
Memory leaks in beta code. How terrible. This sort of thing never happens in the software world. So any thoughts on why there's an option for large data/small memory?
So criticisms about the style, not much on substance. Normal for climate 'science', and was expected.
Ah, you mean the one you thought would be needed for you to see the flaw in your crackpot theory - the one that you alone believe - that "CO2 prevents warming during the day". But that was always utterly irrelevant to your failure to understand basic physics. That's why nobody else on Planet Earth agrees with your theory!
In the same way, your current slithering about just how far down (or up) the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing holds is utterly irrelevant to your failure to understand how logarithms work.
In the time since you failed to understand simple power system design
That was you, Eel. It's always you. That's why you won't give any details about your alleged DC conversion scheme at Eel Towers. There's the obvious reason that it's just a fantasy. But there's the other reason that you know that if you do, I will immediately point out all the flaws - just as I did with your other fantasy scheme to game the Economy 7 tariff with a clapped-out UPS you claim someone gave you!
No, you simply keep stating that as fact. So back to basics. CO2's 4 absorption points 'trapping' IR. You're convinced fewer molecules trap more CO2
Your lies are becoming ever more incoherent...
so 0-275 gives you far more warming than 275-550. Again, how does this work?
It's a log thing, Eel. You don't understand logarithms. It's such a shame you can't find someone with a basic secondary school education to explain them to you.
Still, why don't you tell us over what range of CO2 you think "it's a log thing"? Or have you now abandoned that belief entirely? In which case, what have you replaced it with?
Yup. Normal for climate science. Do you remember Harry's readme file from Climategate? Same challenges there, although CRU has a lot more funding..
Indeed I do. And what I remember most of all is a gaggle of knuckle-dragging buffoons on the usual denier websites shouting loudly about how this showed the data could not be trusted. I'm fairly sure I remember The Auditor spurring them on.
How come they never paid any attention to what the creationist Roy Spencer was up to? How many major errors have been fixed in the UAH temperature since its inception? And not one of them by an "auditor".
Like all science deniers, you lack a sense of irony.
In the same way, your current slithering about just how far down (or up) the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing holds is utterly irrelevant to your failure to understand how logarithms work.
Jolly good. So if there's a logarithmic relationship between say, a substance in solution for some concentration, you believe it must be true at all concentrations, and thus you support homeopathy.
Again you're missing the point. There's a big difference between how logarithms work and how reality works, so your problem of 10x warming at <50% concentration.
That was you, Eel. It's always you. That's why you won't give any details about your alleged DC conversion scheme at Eel Towers. There's the obvious reason that it's just a fantasy.
No, that's just your flawed logic. You won't explain how fewer molecules give you more energy, so obviously this is just your fantasy..
Your lies are becoming ever more incoherent...
If no CO2 = snowball and 0-275C gives you 20C or so warming, then somehow fewer molecules give you more energy. It's just a problem with your 'log thing'.
Still, why don't you tell us over what range of CO2 you think "it's a log thing"?
The range shown in the paper would seem reasonable. Anything else would seem to be your own original research.
Indeed I do. And what I remember most of all is a gaggle of knuckle-dragging buffoons on the usual denier websites shouting loudly about how this showed the data could not be trusted..
Yep, deltoid, you/stoat, the SkS treehouse gang. All critical of UAH because it's inconvenient for your belief system. Now it's even more incovenient, you're attacking it for it's style rather than it's substance.
nlp hasn't accepted it.. If you have, that's some small progress..
<sigh>, lying again, soooo tedious. It's not even worth pointing out where he has explained that to you, you still can't admit you're wrong.
Yup. But saying that doesn't really say much, does it? Think of it as a science thing. So you have a logarithmic looking relationship in some data. Do you automatically assume that holds true for data you don't have, or in all cases?
No, but the science says your "it's a log thing" maths does hold for the ranges we are talking about.
It certainly holds more for a halving of CO2 than your "less than a degree" figure plucked from thin air.
Jolly good. So if there's a logarithmic relationship between say, a substance in solution for some concentration, you believe it must be true at all concentrations, and thus you support homeopathy.
Good grief. You don't understand logarithms or homeopathy!
Rather than posting even more of your egregious nonsense, why won't you just tell us over what range of CO2 values you believe the logarithmic relationship applies?
Then I can amuse myself by digging up your earlier posts in which you "explain" the impossibility of a logarithmic relationship. Oh, wait, that's why you won't tell us what you believe!
Again you're missing the point. There's a big difference between how logarithms work and how reality works
There's an even bigger difference between how reality works and what goes on in your head.
So are you back to not believing "it's a log thing"? What have you replaced your previous belief with?
The range shown in the paper would seem reasonable. Anything else would seem to be your own original research.
Oh dear. The problem there is that you rather hilariously did not understand "the paper". Even I sometimes forget just how daft your beliefs about science are. Look, here you are:
So. If again. On the one hand there's a simple and generally accepted logarithmic relationship between ΔF and CO2. Which shows that as CO2 levels drop, ΔF drops to fractions of a Watt pretty fast..
No, Eel. That's the exact opposite of what the "generally accepted" logarithmic relationship shows. As levels get higher, it takes progressively larger increases in CO2 to achieve the same amount of warming. As levels get lower, the logarithmic relationship continues to hold, so it takes progressively smallerreductions in CO2 to achieve the same amount of cooling. In fact, it's worse than that, because at very low levels (a few ppmv), the change in radiative forcing becomes faster than logarithmic, because of the opacity in the 15 micron absorption band (this is the reason why methane is a more potent GHG than CO2 - in today's atmosphere, it exists in very low levels relative to CO2. If it existed at the same concentrations, it would be less effective than CO2).
and
You won't get there on your own, so I'll have to explain it to you. The graph shows a logarithmic relationship between RF and CO2. But there is no plot below about 300 ppmv, as the RF approaches 0. You think this is because CO2 becomes unimportant below this level - the exact opposite of reality. In fact, the reason the graph stops there is that Myrhe is concerned with the radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the most important well-mixed GHGs since pre-industrial time. So if we wind the clock back to pre-industrial time, we should see no radiative forcing at all. That is our baseline. It does not mean that CO2 (or the other GHGs) aren't having a radiative effect! It does not mean that the logarithmic response to CO2 magically stops at 300ppmv, to be replaced by no response at all. Can you really not grasp how unphysical that would be?
Your inability to state an energy budget for CO2, explain the 'right satellite', explain why a satellite designed to measure CO2 by radiative emission can't measure radiative emission and now how lower amounts of CO2 create more energy.. Is almost as though you have no clue.
Or that you're lying again. It took mithy73 about 10 minutes to suss you out.
I can tell you as often as you ask, it's no more our job to tell you what the "right satellite" (you having explained how yours was the wrong one) than we'vd need to point out the right murder suspect if we'd given another one an alibi.
You showed us your satellite didn't measure the radiative emission you'd assured us it had.
And only you claim CO2 "creates" energy. that word is all yours, putting it in our mouths is another of your oh so necessary lies to keep the argument going.
Or that you're lying again. It took mithy73 about 10 minutes to suss you out.
And about 2mins to suss out they didn't understand any of the basics, and weren't really interested in learning anything.
I can tell you as often as you ask, it's no more our job to tell you what the "right satellite" (you having explained how yours was the wrong one)
Nope. Initially nlp confused a programme with a satellite. But you've both been wibbling a bit about MODTRAN recently without any real idea where the data for that comes from. Denying that a satellite designed to measure radiance measures radiance was pretty special though, even by you and nlp's low standards.
You showed us your satellite didn't measure the radiative emission you'd assured us it had.
If you're talking about OCO-2, it's still measuring radiative emissions, just as it was designed to do.
And only you claim CO2 "creates" energy. that word is all yours,
Nope. That seems to be your imagination. CO2 blocks some incoming and outgoing IR. That's GHG 101. Where it gets a bit weird is you and nlp thinking less CO2 has a much greater effect.
But hey ho, 18+ years of no global warming and we're still expected to pay billions to combat something that isn't happening..
Good grief. You don't understand logarithms or homeopathy!
You seem to think they're teleconnected in some way. Fewer molecules retain memories of more energy or something..
Rather than posting even more of your egregious nonsense, why won't you just tell us over what range of CO2 values you believe the logarithmic relationship applies?
The ones in the paper. I've mentioned that before. They've been peer-reviewed and all. If you think the same is true at other levels, feel free to cite your sources. 0-275 giving you 10x the energy is a neat trick when 275-550 doesn't.
Then I can amuse myself by digging up your earlier posts in which you "explain" the impossibility of a logarithmic relationship.
Well, you do like digging in your holes. Sensible people would know when to stop though.
It does not mean that the logarithmic response to CO2 magically stops at 300ppmv, to be replaced by no response at all. Can you really not grasp how unphysical that would be?
I grasped that a long while ago. You've not grasped how unphysical your beliefs about what happens at lower concentrations is though.
But again this is politics. So reducing CO2 levels below 275 would give us a rapid cooling (in your world). Increasing CO2 levels gives an ever diminishing warming, especially with low CO2 sensitivity and no observable strongly positive forcings or feedbacks to amplify it's weak effects. So we can burn all the carbon currently discovered and stay below 2-3C warming.
And about 2mins to suss out they didn't understand any of the basics, and weren't really interested in learning anything.
They understood far more than you, without having expressed any interest in the science. You claim to be interested in the science, but can't understand any of it. You can't even understand logarithms!
Nope. Initially nlp confused a programme with a satellite.
No, that was a faulty inference you drew, in one of the rare moments when you weren't preoccupied with not understanding what any of the satellites actually do.
Still, weren't you going to somehow torture the satellite data to make it reveal the numbers you falsely claimed to need to see why your crackpot theory that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" is wrong? How is that fantasy project going?
You seem to think they're teleconnected in some way. Fewer molecules retain memories of more energy or something..
No, Eel. What I think is that "it's a log thing". Sadly, you do not understand logarithms, despite also claiming to believe that "it's a log thing".
The ones in the paper. I've mentioned that before.
Yes, you did. "The paper". You've obviously forgotten what it was called, or who it was by, even though it's presumably the only paper by proper scientists you've ever looked at. Still, I'll assume you mean "New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases" by Myhre et al (1998). So, let's see what values of CO2 they depict in the graph that excited you so much:
Ah, yes. CO2 from 300 ppmv to 1000 ppmv, with a clearly logarithmic curve which stops suddenly at 300 ppmv, even though the x-axis is labelled down to 200 ppmv. Oh, and which stops equally suddenly at 1000 ppmv, even though the x-axis goes up to 1200 ppmv. So (using Eelian logic), presumably you think this means that reductions in CO2 below 300 ppmv make no difference, and that increases above 1000 ppmv make no difference. Is that what you believe, Eel? or do you have some peculiar curve you think takes over at either end? What does that look like?
What I suggest you now do is revisit all your posts in which you express incredulity at the greater radiative effect of small increases in CO2 when the atmospheric levels are low, complete with an assortment of stupid "analogies", and consider them over the range of CO2 values for which you have accepted a logarithmic response. Having thus disproved your flawed analogies, you can move on to consider CO2 levels outside what you wrongly believe to be some Myhre-approved range. To first order, the physics will be the same for much lower concentrations, or much higher concentrations. Of course, if you can think of a reason why it isn't, feel free to tell us. More importantly, feel free to astonish the community of physicists who work on radiative transfer. I expect they'll want to give you a prize.
They've been peer-reviewed and all. If you think the same is true at other levels, feel free to cite your sources. 0-275 giving you 10x the energy is a neat trick when 275-550 doesn't.
It's a log thing, Eel. You don't understand logarithms.
Well, you do like digging in your holes. Sensible people would know when to stop though.
No, I like pointing out that you don't understand any of the science, or even any of the most elementary mathematics, such as logarithms. I plan to keep doing that. I wouldn't want a casual reader to be in any danger of taking any of your beliefs about science or mathematics seriously.
but then you prefer to believe in simulations rather than reality.
No, that was a faulty inference you drew, in one of the rare moments when you weren't preoccupied with not understanding what any of the satellites actually do.
So you now accept that OCO-2 actually measures CO2 radiance? NASA will be pleased..
Ah, yes. CO2 from 300 ppmv to 1000 ppmv, with a clearly logarithmic curve which stops suddenly at 300 ppmv, even though the x-axis is labelled down to 200 ppmv. Oh, and which stops equally suddenly at 1000 ppmv, even though the x-axis goes up to 1200 ppmv.
Yep. And you'll notice there are other lines on that graph showing other models..
So (using Eelian logic), presumably you think this means that reductions in CO2 below 300 ppmv make no difference, and that increases above 1000 ppmv make no difference.
Using Eelian logic, which is normal logic, I'd question how or why you'd make claims about results that aren't shown in the paper.. Like you say, it makes no claim about results below 300 or above 1000. Yet for some reason, you've extrapolated results beyond those supportable by the paper you now cite..
To first order, the physics will be the same for much lower concentrations, or much higher concentrations. Of course, if you can think of a reason why it isn't, feel free to tell us.
Because that's an assumption you're making using a simple 1-D model that doesn't claim any skill beyond the results it shows.. And if you could stop to think about the phyiscal basis behind the model, you'd realise you're expecting to get 10x more energy from concentrations below 300ppmv to support your 'snowball' theory.
You don't understand logarithms.
And you don't understand leading questions, or where they can lead you..
And about 2mins to suss out they didn't understand any of the basics, and weren't really interested in learning anything.
No, your inability to make a point honestly was obvious to mithy without needing to know any of the science.
Nope. Initially nlp confused a programme with a satellite. But you've both been wibbling a bit about MODTRAN recently without any real idea where the data for that comes from. Denying that a satellite designed to measure radiance measures radiance was pretty special though, even by you and nlp's low standards.
YOU were the one who showed it didn't measure the radiance figure you alleged it did. You kindly pointed out the appendix showing which radiance figures it did measure and it didn't include the one you had said it measured.
That's why you are so rarely specific, preferring to waft in the direction of something that shows you are wrong instead of establishing your error beyond doubt.
If you're talking about OCO-2, it's still measuring radiative emissions, just as it was designed to do.
But you can't find a quote where we use it. Because it's your word you are dishonestly trying to put into our mouths.
When confronted with it you deny it like a coward.
CO2 blocks some incoming and outgoing IR. That's GHG 101.
No, GHG101 is that CO2 blocks much more outgoing IR than incoming.
Where it gets a bit weird is you and nlp thinking less CO2 has a much greater effect.
You were the one who said "it's a log thing".
But hey ho, 18+ years of no global warming and we're still expected to pay billions to combat something that isn't happening..
But, hey ho, you know that, with the rises expected, you won't see statistically significant warming over too few throws of the climate dice and that we have seen statistically significant warming over less than 20 years, because you showed us that.
You can't even con people who don't know about the science, like mithy, so why you think you can con anyone is a mystery.
That's just the creationist Roy Spencer lying about climate models. He has God on his side, you see. And God won't let global warming be a problem. Roy knows this, because God told him.
So you now accept that OCO-2 actually measures CO2 radiance? NASA will be pleased..
I accept that it won't do what you thought it was going to do, not having been designed to do it. NASA concurs.
But still, you were planning to torture the data to give you the answer you claimed to need. How is that project coming along? We don't seem to have seen any results yet.
Yep. And you'll notice there are other lines on that graph showing other models..
Yes. And all of them are logarithmic. Sadly, you don't understand logarithms.
Using Eelian logic, which is normal logic, I'd question how or why you'd make claims about results that aren't shown in the paper.. Like you say, it makes no claim about results below 300 or above 1000. Yet for some reason, you've extrapolated results beyond those supportable by the paper you now cite..
Eelian logic is very far from being normal. It never makes any sense.
Unlike you, I read widely about the subject. So I know what mainstream science says, and I understand the purpose of the Myhre paper.
So what do you think happens above and below the plotted data points? Do you imagine it's an unexplored void, and nobody has any idea? Do you imagine the curve suddenly reverses direction, or deviates wildly from a logarithmic response the moment it drops below 300 ppmv, or rises above 1000 ppmv? How do you imagine the physics of that would work?
Part of your problem of course is that you have no understanding of why the response is logarithmic. And the rest of your problem is that you have no understanding of the mathematics of logarithms. That's a quite a double whammy of incomprehension.
Without abundant fuel and power, prosperity is impossible: workers cannot amplify their productivity, doctors cannot preserve vaccines, students cannot learn after dark, goods cannot get to market. Nearly 700 million Africans rely mainly on wood or dung to cook and heat with, and 600 million have no access to electric light. Britain with 60 million people has nearly as much electricity-generating capacity as the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, minus South Africa, with 800 million.
But both the old church and your new one like to keep people in the dark..
I accept that it won't do what you thought it was going to do, not having been designed to do it.
So you're still denying a satellite designed to measure radiance will measure radiance. At least you're consistent..
But still, you were planning to torture the data to give you the answer you claimed to need.
I keep pointing out I've been waiting for your budget for some years..
Yes. And all of them are logarithmic. Sadly, you don't understand logarithms.
The GISS copy seems to have gone AWOL, but like all 'good' climate scientists, they're a bit careless with their data. So where does that one show the simple 1-D model holds true beyond the ranges stated?
So I know what mainstream science says, and I understand the purpose of the Myhre paper.
Fooling the gullible?
So what do you think happens above and below the plotted data points?.
This is what I'm asking you. Effect is proportionate to CO2 concentration. Yet at lower concentrations you think the effect is 10x greater. So 50W/m^2 or wattever it was for your 'snowball' theory for 0-275 vs 3W/m^2 for 275-550.. How does this work?
So you're still denying a satellite designed to measure radiance will measure radiance. At least you're consistent..
No, I am denying it will give you the numbers you claimed to need to see why your crackpot theory - the one that is so outlandish that not even other crackpots believe it - is wrong. Your theory, let us never forget, that "CO2 prevents warming during the day".
How does a link on a dubious looking website to a paper you haven't read and wouldn't understand if you tried validate your claim to understand logarithms, when all your posts show that you do not?
This is what I'm asking you. Effect is proportionate to CO2 concentration.
No it isn't. The response is logarithmic, not linear [Actually at very low concentrations it is linear, but that need not concern us.]
Yet at lower concentrations you think the effect is 10x greater.
It's a log thing, Eel. You don't understand logarithms. Or physics.
Your theory, let us never forget, that "CO2 prevents warming during the day".
And your theory is that GHG's will only ever prevent outgoing radiation..
But you said it would. So where are they?
On their website. Where would you expect them to be?
How does a link on a dubious looking website to a paper you haven't read..
Like I said, GISS seem to have lost their copy. It's quite a (in)famous paper though, so I'm suprised you're unfamiliar with it. Especially as it's part of your supporting citation.
No it isn't. The response is logarithmic, not linear
Perhaps. Within specified ranges. But no matter how often you keep repeating this, it doesn't make it true. So you do you explain 10x more energy at progressively lower concentrations.. other than parrotting 'logarithms' again..
And your theory is that GHG's will only ever prevent outgoing radiation..
On their website. Where would you expect them to be?
Like I said, GISS seem to have lost their copy. It's quite a (in)famous paper though, so I'm suprised you're unfamiliar with it. Especially as it's part of your supporting citation.
Perhaps. Within specified ranges. But no matter how often you keep repeating this, it doesn't make it true. So you do you explain 10x more energy at progressively lower concentrations.. other than parrotting 'logarithms' again..
Typical alarmist delusion.
Which is why old NJ can't understand that tropospheric water vapour also produces a negative feedback in addition to the positive one.
And your theory is that GHG's will only ever prevent outgoing radiation..
No, Eel. That would be impossible without some Eelian-style unidirectional physics. What I say, and what science says, and what both I and andykn have repeatedly explained to you, is that the effect on incoming radiation is tiny (so small that for most purposes it can be ignored) and the effect on outgoing radiation is rather large. This is the greenhouse effect, and you deny it. As well as denying mainstream physics, you keep lying about what we have said. Denial and lying are the only tools in your intellectual armoury.
For your claim that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" to be true, GHGs would have to have a greater effect on incoming radiation than on outgoing radiation. This is egregious nonsense.
On their website. Where would you expect them to be?
That's another lie, obviously.
Like I said, GISS seem to have lost their copy. It's quite a (in)famous paper though, so I'm suprised you're unfamiliar with it. Especially as it's part of your supporting citation.
You haven't told me what it was you didn't understand. All of it, presumably. After all, a man who can't even understand logarithms isn't really in a position to understand any science!
Perhaps. Within specified ranges.
As soon as you accept that it is logarithmic "within specified ranges", all your previous arguments from personal incredulity collapse in a puff of flawed logic.
But no matter how often you keep repeating this, it doesn't make it true. So you do you explain 10x more energy at progressively lower concentrations.. other than parrotting 'logarithms' again..
But I'm afraid it is a log thing, Eel. You just don't understand logarithms.
Do you agree with the Eel that "CO2 prevents warming during the day"? If so, I'll have to revise my claim that he can't find a single other crackpot who does.
Although I'm not sure you really count as an independent source.
Which is why old NJ can't understand that tropospheric water vapour also produces a negative feedback in addition to the positive one.
That's because it doesn't, of course. He doesn't understand logarithms, and you don't understand subtraction. You make quite a team.
That's because it doesn't, of course. He doesn't understand logarithms, and you don't understand subtraction. You make quite a team.
Of couse it does you just reject it on ideological grounds because it acts against warming.
Unfortunately for you water vapour is not going to stop behaving in accordance with its own, well established, radiative properties just because you don't like waht it does.
Comments
You really are desperate. I've already pointed out that all you have to accept, for all your arguments from personal incredulity (your various daft "analogies") to be false, is that the relationship be logarithmic over a range of your choice. And you already have accepted that, and been asked several times to confirm that you still believe it, which you say you do.
I've also pointed out that the relationship holds down to very low levels of CO2, though that is not in the least bit relevant to your continuing inability to understand how logarithms work.
At least we now now why the beta took so long to appear, and why the self-annointed "auditors" aren't interested in looking at the code:
"The codes described here and provided to NOAA have not been optimized in a software engineering sense. Much of the programming structure originated over 20 years ago, starting around 1989, and was written by the authors who came from a generation of self-taught programmers and have little formal computer programming training. Much of the work was done with little funding support, so no professional programmers were utilized. In Christy’s code, there are numerous sections devoted to image creation through NCARgraphics for detection of problems, but which are not necessary for the production of the ASCII files desired by the users.
There is little use of subroutines in Spencer’s code, but more in Christy’s. Continuity of operational procedures has taken precedence over elegance or speed of execution.
As algorithm enhancements were tested, many were abandoned, but those portions of the code were simply commented out rather than deleted, i.e. they are vestigial in reality. While this is somewhat sloppy from a software design standpoint, the practical advantage of this is to provide a detailed reminder of what has been tried before.
In some cases, rather than having unused code commented out, there are sections which are never branched to in the operational running of the code because an initial adjustable parameter is always assigned a single value. A good example is diurnal adjustment of the AMSU data, for which much code is included, but has never been used operationally. In other cases, a particular ancillary analysis was needed for a publication, but not needed for production runs. These sections are usually commented out.
Most of the programs have array dimensioning and assignments which must be manually updated every month and year, since (at this writing) they only handle data through July 2011. Similarly, if a new satellite is added, then there are program changes which must be made to accommodate those new datasets.
The programs were originally developed on an SGI workstation or an IBM mainframe,and then later transitioned to Linux. As a result, all previous binary input and output files had a byte-ordering issue. We retained the SGI handling of binary files, so some of the programs must be run with a byte-swap option used on execute. This might not be an issue if NOAA re-generates all output files from scratch, but if our previous outputfiles are used, there will be a problem.
Also, we have had problems processing of a month’s worth of global AMSU data causing some sort of memory size allocation exceedance during a single program execution, which leads to only a portion of the data being processed properly. This is also handled with a special option during execute."
The lies are all yours. I'm pretty sure njp and/or I have explained that the logarithmic relationship doesn't necessarily apply all the way down (or up), if you understood this you know it couldn't apply to zero CO2 as that would be infinitely cold.
But it certainly applies more than your less than one degree reduction with no CO2, because, generally, "it's a log thing", just like you told us.
Your inability to state an energy budget for CO2, explain the 'right satellite', explain why a satellite designed to measure CO2 by radiative emission can't measure radiative emission and now how lower amounts of CO2 create more energy.. Is almost as though you have no clue.
In the time since you failed to understand simple power system design, you've found many new things you fail to understand.. So let's not get distracted..
Obviously I don't, otherwise I wouldn't have to keep asking you to try and explain the Busby-physics behind your belief that allows half the amount of CO2 to generate 10x the energy.
No, you simply keep stating that as fact. So back to basics. CO2's 4 absorption points 'trapping' IR. You're convinced fewer molecules trap more CO2 so 0-275 gives you far more warming than 275-550. Again, how does this work?
nlp hasn't accepted it.. If you have, that's some small progress..
Yup. But saying that doesn't really say much, does it? Think of it as a science thing. So you have a logarithmic looking relationship in some data. Do you automatically assume that holds true for data you don't have, or in all cases?
I point out it's a beta version. I know what beta versions mean. You duly hurl your predictable insults..
Yup. Normal for climate science. Do you remember Harry's readme file from Climategate? Same challenges there, although CRU has a lot more funding..
Oh how utterly terrible. Atmospheric physicist doesn't write 'elegant' code. Beat him with a stackless Python and cover him in style sheets..
Yep. Rather handy from a maintenance or code-reuse perspective to have the code well documented. Again something the CRU hacks failed to do..
Yup. Again can be handy if you want to use the code in a test or model mode.
Like.. yes? Wouldn't you expect to have to do that if you're including a new satellite that has different parameters and data structure?
Well, yes. There have been frequent problems with climate scientists attempting to use data without understanding it. Using Tiljander upside down because the 'signs don't matter'. That kind of thing. Or again for CRU and NOAA, simply not knowing where their data came from or how it had been adjusted..
Memory leaks in beta code. How terrible. This sort of thing never happens in the software world. So any thoughts on why there's an option for large data/small memory?
So criticisms about the style, not much on substance. Normal for climate 'science', and was expected.
In the same way, your current slithering about just how far down (or up) the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing holds is utterly irrelevant to your failure to understand how logarithms work.
That was you, Eel. It's always you. That's why you won't give any details about your alleged DC conversion scheme at Eel Towers. There's the obvious reason that it's just a fantasy. But there's the other reason that you know that if you do, I will immediately point out all the flaws - just as I did with your other fantasy scheme to game the Economy 7 tariff with a clapped-out UPS you claim someone gave you!
Your lies are becoming ever more incoherent...
It's a log thing, Eel. You don't understand logarithms. It's such a shame you can't find someone with a basic secondary school education to explain them to you.
Still, why don't you tell us over what range of CO2 you think "it's a log thing"? Or have you now abandoned that belief entirely? In which case, what have you replaced it with?
Indeed I do. And what I remember most of all is a gaggle of knuckle-dragging buffoons on the usual denier websites shouting loudly about how this showed the data could not be trusted. I'm fairly sure I remember The Auditor spurring them on.
How come they never paid any attention to what the creationist Roy Spencer was up to? How many major errors have been fixed in the UAH temperature since its inception? And not one of them by an "auditor".
Like all science deniers, you lack a sense of irony.
Jolly good. So if there's a logarithmic relationship between say, a substance in solution for some concentration, you believe it must be true at all concentrations, and thus you support homeopathy.
Again you're missing the point. There's a big difference between how logarithms work and how reality works, so your problem of 10x warming at <50% concentration.
No, that's just your flawed logic. You won't explain how fewer molecules give you more energy, so obviously this is just your fantasy..
If no CO2 = snowball and 0-275C gives you 20C or so warming, then somehow fewer molecules give you more energy. It's just a problem with your 'log thing'.
The range shown in the paper would seem reasonable. Anything else would seem to be your own original research.
Yep, deltoid, you/stoat, the SkS treehouse gang. All critical of UAH because it's inconvenient for your belief system. Now it's even more incovenient, you're attacking it for it's style rather than it's substance.
It certainly holds more for a halving of CO2 than your "less than a degree" figure plucked from thin air.
Rather than posting even more of your egregious nonsense, why won't you just tell us over what range of CO2 values you believe the logarithmic relationship applies?
Then I can amuse myself by digging up your earlier posts in which you "explain" the impossibility of a logarithmic relationship. Oh, wait, that's why you won't tell us what you believe!
There's an even bigger difference between how reality works and what goes on in your head.
So are you back to not believing "it's a log thing"? What have you replaced your previous belief with?
Oh dear. The problem there is that you rather hilariously did not understand "the paper". Even I sometimes forget just how daft your beliefs about science are. Look, here you are:
And as I told you:
and
Or that you're lying again. It took mithy73 about 10 minutes to suss you out.
I can tell you as often as you ask, it's no more our job to tell you what the "right satellite" (you having explained how yours was the wrong one) than we'vd need to point out the right murder suspect if we'd given another one an alibi.
You showed us your satellite didn't measure the radiative emission you'd assured us it had.
And only you claim CO2 "creates" energy. that word is all yours, putting it in our mouths is another of your oh so necessary lies to keep the argument going.
Got any evidence for that?
And about 2mins to suss out they didn't understand any of the basics, and weren't really interested in learning anything.
Nope. Initially nlp confused a programme with a satellite. But you've both been wibbling a bit about MODTRAN recently without any real idea where the data for that comes from. Denying that a satellite designed to measure radiance measures radiance was pretty special though, even by you and nlp's low standards.
If you're talking about OCO-2, it's still measuring radiative emissions, just as it was designed to do.
Nope. That seems to be your imagination. CO2 blocks some incoming and outgoing IR. That's GHG 101. Where it gets a bit weird is you and nlp thinking less CO2 has a much greater effect.
But hey ho, 18+ years of no global warming and we're still expected to pay billions to combat something that isn't happening..
You seem to think they're teleconnected in some way. Fewer molecules retain memories of more energy or something..
The ones in the paper. I've mentioned that before. They've been peer-reviewed and all. If you think the same is true at other levels, feel free to cite your sources. 0-275 giving you 10x the energy is a neat trick when 275-550 doesn't.
Well, you do like digging in your holes. Sensible people would know when to stop though.
I grasped that a long while ago. You've not grasped how unphysical your beliefs about what happens at lower concentrations is though.
But again this is politics. So reducing CO2 levels below 275 would give us a rapid cooling (in your world). Increasing CO2 levels gives an ever diminishing warming, especially with low CO2 sensitivity and no observable strongly positive forcings or feedbacks to amplify it's weak effects. So we can burn all the carbon currently discovered and stay below 2-3C warming.
Why are we wasting so much money?
No, that was a faulty inference you drew, in one of the rare moments when you weren't preoccupied with not understanding what any of the satellites actually do.
Still, weren't you going to somehow torture the satellite data to make it reveal the numbers you falsely claimed to need to see why your crackpot theory that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" is wrong? How is that fantasy project going?
No, Eel. What I think is that "it's a log thing". Sadly, you do not understand logarithms, despite also claiming to believe that "it's a log thing".
Yes, you did. "The paper". You've obviously forgotten what it was called, or who it was by, even though it's presumably the only paper by proper scientists you've ever looked at. Still, I'll assume you mean "New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases" by Myhre et al (1998). So, let's see what values of CO2 they depict in the graph that excited you so much:
Ah, yes. CO2 from 300 ppmv to 1000 ppmv, with a clearly logarithmic curve which stops suddenly at 300 ppmv, even though the x-axis is labelled down to 200 ppmv. Oh, and which stops equally suddenly at 1000 ppmv, even though the x-axis goes up to 1200 ppmv. So (using Eelian logic), presumably you think this means that reductions in CO2 below 300 ppmv make no difference, and that increases above 1000 ppmv make no difference. Is that what you believe, Eel? or do you have some peculiar curve you think takes over at either end? What does that look like?
What I suggest you now do is revisit all your posts in which you express incredulity at the greater radiative effect of small increases in CO2 when the atmospheric levels are low, complete with an assortment of stupid "analogies", and consider them over the range of CO2 values for which you have accepted a logarithmic response. Having thus disproved your flawed analogies, you can move on to consider CO2 levels outside what you wrongly believe to be some Myhre-approved range. To first order, the physics will be the same for much lower concentrations, or much higher concentrations. Of course, if you can think of a reason why it isn't, feel free to tell us. More importantly, feel free to astonish the community of physicists who work on radiative transfer. I expect they'll want to give you a prize.
It's a log thing, Eel. You don't understand logarithms.
No, I like pointing out that you don't understand any of the science, or even any of the most elementary mathematics, such as logarithms. I plan to keep doing that. I wouldn't want a casual reader to be in any danger of taking any of your beliefs about science or mathematics seriously.
Neither of you seemed to understand this-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
but then you prefer to believe in simulations rather than reality.
So you now accept that OCO-2 actually measures CO2 radiance? NASA will be pleased..
Yep. And you'll notice there are other lines on that graph showing other models..
Using Eelian logic, which is normal logic, I'd question how or why you'd make claims about results that aren't shown in the paper.. Like you say, it makes no claim about results below 300 or above 1000. Yet for some reason, you've extrapolated results beyond those supportable by the paper you now cite..
Because that's an assumption you're making using a simple 1-D model that doesn't claim any skill beyond the results it shows.. And if you could stop to think about the phyiscal basis behind the model, you'd realise you're expecting to get 10x more energy from concentrations below 300ppmv to support your 'snowball' theory.
And you don't understand leading questions, or where they can lead you..
That's why you are so rarely specific, preferring to waft in the direction of something that shows you are wrong instead of establishing your error beyond doubt. Indeed, just not the one you said it did. <sigh> Yes, here you are using the word: But you can't find a quote where we use it. Because it's your word you are dishonestly trying to put into our mouths.
When confronted with it you deny it like a coward. No, GHG101 is that CO2 blocks much more outgoing IR than incoming. You were the one who said "it's a log thing". But, hey ho, you know that, with the rises expected, you won't see statistically significant warming over too few throws of the climate dice and that we have seen statistically significant warming over less than 20 years, because you showed us that.
You can't even con people who don't know about the science, like mithy, so why you think you can con anyone is a mystery.
I accept that it won't do what you thought it was going to do, not having been designed to do it. NASA concurs.
But still, you were planning to torture the data to give you the answer you claimed to need. How is that project coming along? We don't seem to have seen any results yet.
Yes. And all of them are logarithmic. Sadly, you don't understand logarithms.
Eelian logic is very far from being normal. It never makes any sense.
Unlike you, I read widely about the subject. So I know what mainstream science says, and I understand the purpose of the Myhre paper.
So what do you think happens above and below the plotted data points? Do you imagine it's an unexplored void, and nobody has any idea? Do you imagine the curve suddenly reverses direction, or deviates wildly from a logarithmic response the moment it drops below 300 ppmv, or rises above 1000 ppmv? How do you imagine the physics of that would work?
Part of your problem of course is that you have no understanding of why the response is logarithmic. And the rest of your problem is that you have no understanding of the mathematics of logarithms. That's a quite a double whammy of incomprehension.
Sorry. He's on your side..
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/28/402856086/vatican-hosts-climate-change-conference-ahead-of-papal-encyclical
The issue of climate change is front and center for the Vatican. Pope Francis frames global warming as a moral issue, with the poor suffering most.
And he's right, in a way. The poor will suffer the most if the climate lobby gets it's way and its $100bn a year. More on that here-
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/electricity-for-africa.aspx
Without abundant fuel and power, prosperity is impossible: workers cannot amplify their productivity, doctors cannot preserve vaccines, students cannot learn after dark, goods cannot get to market. Nearly 700 million Africans rely mainly on wood or dung to cook and heat with, and 600 million have no access to electric light. Britain with 60 million people has nearly as much electricity-generating capacity as the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, minus South Africa, with 800 million.
But both the old church and your new one like to keep people in the dark..
So you're still denying a satellite designed to measure radiance will measure radiance. At least you're consistent..
I keep pointing out I've been waiting for your budget for some years..
Oh, I do. So here's another-
http://www.klimaskeptiker.info/download/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
The GISS copy seems to have gone AWOL, but like all 'good' climate scientists, they're a bit careless with their data. So where does that one show the simple 1-D model holds true beyond the ranges stated?
Fooling the gullible?
This is what I'm asking you. Effect is proportionate to CO2 concentration. Yet at lower concentrations you think the effect is 10x greater. So 50W/m^2 or wattever it was for your 'snowball' theory for 0-275 vs 3W/m^2 for 275-550.. How does this work?
But you said it would. So where are they?
How does a link on a dubious looking website to a paper you haven't read and wouldn't understand if you tried validate your claim to understand logarithms, when all your posts show that you do not?
No it isn't. The response is logarithmic, not linear [Actually at very low concentrations it is linear, but that need not concern us.]
It's a log thing, Eel. You don't understand logarithms. Or physics.
And your theory is that GHG's will only ever prevent outgoing radiation..
On their website. Where would you expect them to be?
Like I said, GISS seem to have lost their copy. It's quite a (in)famous paper though, so I'm suprised you're unfamiliar with it. Especially as it's part of your supporting citation.
Perhaps. Within specified ranges. But no matter how often you keep repeating this, it doesn't make it true. So you do you explain 10x more energy at progressively lower concentrations.. other than parrotting 'logarithms' again..
Typical alarmist delusion.
Which is why old NJ can't understand that tropospheric water vapour also produces a negative feedback in addition to the positive one.
For your claim that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" to be true, GHGs would have to have a greater effect on incoming radiation than on outgoing radiation. This is egregious nonsense.
That's another lie, obviously.
You haven't told me what it was you didn't understand. All of it, presumably. After all, a man who can't even understand logarithms isn't really in a position to understand any science!
As soon as you accept that it is logarithmic "within specified ranges", all your previous arguments from personal incredulity collapse in a puff of flawed logic.
But I'm afraid it is a log thing, Eel. You just don't understand logarithms.
Although I'm not sure you really count as an independent source.
That's because it doesn't, of course. He doesn't understand logarithms, and you don't understand subtraction. You make quite a team.
Of couse it does you just reject it on ideological grounds because it acts against warming.
Unfortunately for you water vapour is not going to stop behaving in accordance with its own, well established, radiative properties just because you don't like waht it does.