They weren't closed due to the report, if that's what you're implying because Watts looked at a subset of the sites and the closures were done after a review of all sites. The other major problem with this is, you know how people constantly make the accusation that data is 'manipulated?' Well, what's happening is that systematic biases have to be removed for data to be useful. And all Watts did was make the groundbreaking discovery that systematic biases exist. Except scientists have known about it this whole time, and when they fix it, people like Watts complain about manipulation. It's a total farce.
First graphic: What's the point this graphic is trying to make? It's temperature at a single site (right there in the label, Central Greenland) and doesn't even extend to the present (ends at 1855, also labeled). Even if we take it to be a representation of global temperature, and if we take it to extend to the present, then there's still the small problem of explaining how this is actually a problem. The caption simply makes the same logically false insinuation that because climate changes naturally, we can't
also affect it.
Second graphic: It's not clear what data actually went into the graph, because it says we've warmed by at most .3 C compared to 1980 reference value and that's just factually wrong. Here's NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The graphic on the right shows that the five year mean is at least .6 C greater than the reference mean at 1980.
Third graphic: What does this even
mean? Forget temperatures, if you take any graph and adjust the scaling you can make anything look flat or not. This graphic basically looks like the author discovered unit conversions and decided that this mathematical apparatus somehow debunks... something.
Fourth graphic: This is not even coherent for multiple reasons. First, he's comparing a global data set to data in a specific place. Second, the scaling of the x axis is radically different. This isn't even an 'apples and oranges' comparison, this is an 'apples and BOEING 767s' comparison.
The cliff notes version is that 1) the current trend is not what you would expect based on the natural effects alone, 2) we know how CO2 acts (greenhouse effect), and 3) modeling the
combination of natural and human factors produces not only the distant past, but also up to the present. The alternative is to propose new physics that not only nullifies the effect of our CO2, but simultaneously raises temperatures as if it had been due to our CO2, and this new physics decided to inexplicably not show up in the temperature record until we came along. I'm not one for believing in grand conspiracies perpetuated by nature.
Only simplistic textbook level problems can be modeled with simple equations. When you're dealing with anything remotely complicated, you're basically set the task of solving huge coupled systems of differential equations. And because these things basically become unsolvable by hand for situations that aren't very contrived, you have to do numerical modeling. Much of the work done in modern physics, astronomy, etc. are numerical models and simulations.
There shouldn't be any reason to suspect that complex systems can be analyzed solely in terms of simple formulas. I mean, fuck. You can't even write down a closed expression for how 3 bodies move when they act on each other via gravity, and that's a relatively simple system. Also, simulations and models are ultimately based off of fluid dynamics and statistical physics.
I actually saw that site when I was trying to find out where you got this stuff, and I did click on the link to NASA. The whole thing is... bad.
1) The calculations he does based on ideal gas law is off from the NASA value by a whole 6 Kelvin, which is equivalent to being off by a whole 6 Celsius. This large an error should make you weep.
2) A calculation based on the ideal gas law predicts exactly 1 temperature. Which is to say, temperature doesn't change at all. I.e. it basically predicts that climate change doesn't exist. This isn't even remotely correct.
3) Absolute temperature is not that meaningful. Notice that most of the charts in your link deal with temperature
variation. How does it even remotely make sense to take an absolute temperature calculation and try to say something about relative temperature changes?
4) He ridicules how far off the Blackbody Temperature is from his calculation. The Blackbody Temperature is not supposed to be a measure of actual temperature, by definition. It's defined as the equivalent temperature if the body had
no atmosphere and was
in radiative equilibrium. This sort of shit is useful because oftentimes astrophysics is interested in relative differences, and for that you need metrics that are defined for all bodies that you want to compare. Basically, this guy has no clue what the hell he's actually doing.
An ad hominem would be "you suck so your point is invalid." Calling your argument incoherent is not an ad hominem.
And no, it
poorly tracks the average temperatures listed on NASA's page. Also going to reiterate, because it's an incredibly important point, that the calculation based on the ideal gas law gives you a single value. How do you explain observed global temperature
change over
time when this amazing analysis returns the same (incorrect) value every single time?
Also, that link. The Greenhouse Effect is not a description about how >literal< greenhouses work. The results are clear that you or him or both are totally confused about terminology.
Except I'm explaining to you why the counterpoints don't make sense.
- - - Updated - - -
Greenhouse effect is not a statement about literal greenhouses.
Take a Dive into Plunderstorm’s Plundersurge Now!
Righteous Orbs no longer dropping
More permitted video sources
Sign Up To Test The War Within
[iStableMaster] New hunter addon
MMO-Champion
Originally Posted by Garnier Fructis
Recent Blue Posts
Recent Forum Posts
Reply With Quote
