swansont

A little less than an ohm. You can solve it using Green's functions. Yecch.

Since we're nerds, too, there's this (from http://xkcd.com/ of course)

I understand your claim. What I'm pointing out is that you have not presented any evidence to support it. How do you know that there are no other contributions to warming? Without support, the choice of date is arbitrary. Take your choice of 1941 to 1976. 1941 and the vicinity represents a local peak, from the temperature graph you have previously cited. But 1976 does not represent the end of the cooling; the temperature reaches a minimum around 1950. Solar variation ends by 1960 and is small for several years before that. "1941 to 1976 saw a net cooling" is a true but an inaccurate statement since "1941 to 1950 saw net cooling" better represents the data. Your claim that other forcings were or were not present in the respective periods demand supporting quantitative evidence.

From a physics standpoint, with no variation in the driving terms, and only feedback, and under the assumption that you start in equilibrium, that sounds like a reasonable assumption.

Ironic that you would say this because I said nothing about a linear projection in that post. But your statement is self-contradictory. It says basically, that the trend is linear and will continue to be so, which is a linear extrapolation. But you have to justify that 30 years is a long-term, among other things. But how do you justify this, other than saying it's the region that looks more-or-less linear? That's a circular argument. The previous 25 years look linear, too, but with a smaller slope. Why isn't that a case of "clearly CO2 had a smaller effect then?" But CO2 was not steady (linear), it was faster, something like an exponential. You've previously claimed that there is a certain relationship between CO2 and temperature to attempt to justify this, but did not provide a citation for it. Again, it's a circular argument. At some point you have to tie it back to some physics to justify your assertions, and you haven't done this.

And this is where you will find disagreement, because does not have a solid basis in science or math, and we've been through all of this. "long term trends have been shown by history to have a tendency to continue" is self-fulfilling; if you have a long-term linear process then you have a long-term linear process. But you haven't established that this trend is actually linear. 30 years is arbitrary; there is an obvious reduction in slope prior to that. The justification that you can only use that range because it's clearly dominated by CO2 is a circular argument in the absence of supporting information. The use of a linear fit is artificial, since nonlinear functions will exhibit linear behavior if limited data is used. The CO2 driving term is increasing exponentially.

From what I've read, it's a far more significant problem in regional climate models, because the large "grid" size can ignore local effects that are below that resolution.

Now that we have gotten the invective out of the way, how about we can it, and stick to the science.

Oh, good grief. Spend the day away froom the board (with the relatives) and look what happens. Time to close the thread.

I think Farsight is on record as not being a proponent of string theory.

Peer-review of a paper that uses a model tests the model. Either the results are good or they're not. And Hansen works at GISS, so that's probably not a good example of a researcher using a model developed elsewhere. And YMMV. I've developed models of atomic behavior in papers I've written. Nothing on the scale of GCMs, but any application of equations to predict or explain behavior is a model. And I've borrowed models from other papers, because the paper demonstrated that they work.

But cost being passed along to the consumer implies that the older way of doing business — that was endangering the consumer — was cheaper. Businesses generally won't voluntarily go with a more expensive process unless they can somehow recover the expense, because they can't otherwise compete as effectively (they would have to leverage e.g. higher quality to justify the higher price)

Note that something can be the "largest uncertainty" and still be smaller than the contibution with which it's associated. The description tells you nothing of its actual magnitude. But that's still assuming that the system is linear. To exclude results, you have to have a physical basis for doing so. Which means quantifying effects, and that means modeling it. Without that, any prediction is baseless. But it does work if the slope had stayed the same? AFAIK the graph was predicting what would happen of CO2 kept increasing at its exponential rate. Without reference to the actual curve, and the model & data it's based on, you really can't say one way or the other. But the context here is a doubling of CO2; what is the effect of that? The prediction is conditional. Other factors will have different effects, but they, too, can (and must) be quantified. But it's perfectly valid to estimate the effect of a single forcing, that being a doubling of CO2.

Sorry, no. No reason? Reread the thread and perhaps you can find one.

I saw them. They quantify the slope of a straight line. And you've clarified your statement. But that also means you can't exclude a result, either. If you can't predict, you can't predict. And I do disagree. I think you can predict, with some degree of accuracy. Even if one agrees with your objections about problems with the of multiple variables, it would seem that the changes of a single forcing, CO2, could yield reasonable predictions. No, that's not anywhere close to an ad hom. iNow is attacking your methodology (restricting a data set), not you.

"Eery serious professionals"? Geez, I know we're a little strange, but I don't think we're that bad. ——— Eponymous self-reference and WTC stuff? Moved to speculations.

But you did predict a linear increase (and exclude an exponential) ... ... and that's been a point of contention for several pages of posts. Which statement are you going to stand by?

darkshade, I've edited your post (added spoiler tags). Please note what I had just posted, since you may have been composing your post before it arrived: in the HW forum, it is not proper to just give the answer. Let the poster try and figure it out from the hints, and they will probably learn more.

You have once again mischaracterized the chain of events, but this has been pointed out may times; you can go back and reread previous posts to see the details. You made a linear projection of temperature, which was the objection. One thing you haven't acknowledged is the measurement of CO2 concentrations, which — as you recognize — are a significant driver of the temperature change. It is quite obviously an exponential. Your (well, everybody's) admission that CO2 levels several decades before did not have a significant effect on temperature is another bit of data that shows that the longer-term trend cannot be treated as linear. Despite the fact that a linear fit to the graph in question yields the numbers you gave, the projection of further tempeature increase and the conclusion you drew (i.e. whether a 3ºC increase is likely) isn't justified. That's just it, though. We have pointed out where arguments were wrong, and the posts have been ignored. Count up the number of times that Lance has stated that iNow "denied his data," (and all of the related claims) and the number of times that people have rebutted that. The really ironic thing here is that SkepticLance is not denying that the recent temperature changes are induced by human-generated CO2, and yet, there are claims that challenging his claims is politics and/or political correctness. If that were actually the case, there would be no argument — why criticize someone who agrees with you? The reality is that SkepticLance is being challenged because there are flaws in the analyses he's presented, which have been pointed out multiple times, to no avail. And conclusions drawn from invalid arguments are invalid (even if they end up with the right answer). There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. But a skeptic still has to follow the rules of science. A skeptic has to have a point where the quality and quantity of data will cause a change of mind, and point out specifically where the data and analysis fall short or are flawed. There is such a thing as false skepticism, where one's decision is not based on the relevant science, and that's where a lot of the denialist tactics come in. To paraphrase the old adage, you can pound on the data or pound on the science, but when you have neither, you pound on the table. Denialists do a lot of pounding on the table.

Please note that I have asked for references from both individuals so that this can be checked. I'll ask you, too, since your scenario also would need to be checked. Please also note that I never mentioned anything about what was melting on Saturn. The only one to mention melting was jryan. Paradelver mentioned heating of Jupiter, not melting. Without a source (again, which I asked for) how can you conclude that the argument is fallacious? Nothing here contradicts what I said.

Yes, KISS. One has to assume that the ambient temperature is the same, and that invisible elves are not dropping ice cubes into the mug, and that it's not sitting on a hot plate, etc. i.e. it's not a trick question. The question is "What is the effect of the stirring?" iNow's first response is appropriate. Remember this is HW help, and the goal here would be to point/lead drsckng3 to the correct answer, but not just blurt it out.

Note: Some posts copied from duplicate thread.

Yes. I'll close this and copy the relevant answers to the other.

But that is a shifting of the burden of proof. We know what the current climate entails. That's political, but one might hope that the weight of two valid arguments (assuming for the moment that both are valid) that say "reduce fossil fuel use" would spur more action than just one.

Ask away. I've provided one reference. But the numbers Paradelver gives (do you have a source?) eliminate solar variation as the cause. Jupiter, Saturn, et. al, only get a few percent of the solar flux we get (which one can calculate purely from geometry)