Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[BrownOut]

Seriously tcmtech, even the quote you put up to prove you didn't make a conclusion said absolutely nothing about "droppong the net combined effect" But since you aren't interested in defending that statement, then I won't pursue it further. But I am getting my calculations together to publish.

 

[ke5frf]

To publish? Which publication? "Nature" or "Climate Research?"...oh, "Electrotech?". Perhaps we can forward the URL to the IPCC.

Will forum posters be the peer reviewers? Will you be able to handle it if we reject your submission?

 

[BrownOut]

Janitor A telling Janitor B that he missed a spot on the floor is an example of "peer review" as well.

While that is technically correct, in the scientific realm, a "peer" reviews the published work of another "peer" While we are not really scientists and aren't really publishing, we are peers who are presenting the results of our research, and thus a better comparison can be made.

 

[ke5frf]

Then, since you admitted not being a scientist, lets not play pretend and call it "peer review" or "publishing". Lets call a spade a spade and just say we are a few obsessive/compulsive engineering type internet goobs kicking around topics that we are only sparsely familiar enough to comment upon...no different than the janitors discussing the best floor polish to use.

Really.

 

[BrownOut]

Who is pretending. We are peers and so peer review is correct. The illustration was to show that through the peer review process, errors can be correct and better science can be accomplished.

Just as the janitor peer review makes for cleaner floors.

 

[BrownOut]

First, define the ratio of the radiative forcing (RF) of CO2 to that of N2O, call it “R” for lack of a better name

R = RF(CO2)/RF(N2O) (1)

The forcing function is defined as the change in the balance of the radiation coming into the atmosphere to the radiation going out. (source **broken link removed**) (reference 1) The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is defined as the time integrated radiative forcing from the release of 1kg of gas to that of 1kg of a reference gas, the reference gas being CO2, which has a GWP of 1. (source: see post #223) (reference 2)

GWP = RF(1kg N2O)/RF(1kgCO2)
The value for N2O is 30, so for an equal mass of N2O to CO2, the radiative forcing is 30 times more.
Thus, given the mass of the various gases, equation (1) can be used calculate the radiative forcing ratio of two gases, ie CO2 and NO

R = GWP(C02)*mass(CO2)/GWP(N2O)*mass(N2O)

Now, the total mass of the atmosphere is 4.41 million billion tons, or 4.41X10^15 tons. ( I can’t find my source any longer, but this figure is conservative compared to other sources, and significance of which will become more clear later )

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 383ppm my volumn, or 582ppm by mass ( source: Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) If the rise on CO2 is 17% as in reference 2, then the starting value is about 497ppm. And thus, the rise in the mass of CO2 during the interval is given as the difference is ppm times the total weight of the atmosphere:

M(CO2) = 4.41X10^15*/1X1-^6*85 = 3.75X10^11 tons.

During the interval, the rise on N2O was 9000 tons. (see reference 2)

Using these results, the relative forcing can be calculated from (1)

R = 3.75X10^11/9000*30 = 1,309. Thus, the radiative forcing for the rise in CO2 is more than 1000 times that of the lowering for N2O over the same period.

EDIT: Corrected symbols

 

[ke5frf]

Fail: Wikipedia as a source. Reject.

 

[BrownOut]

Show a better source for the quantity then.

 

[ke5frf]

You are the researcher, I am the peer reviewer. Cite peer-reviewed references Doc.
(and get a sense of humor, I was just screwin' with ya)

 

[BrownOut]

There are some assumptions that I made in the analysis, which most likely introduces small errors. I wanted to keep the math simple, and I couldn't prove/disprove my assumptions without alot more research. What I hoped to show, however, was the GWP alone is insufficient to determine which greenhouse gas has the biggest effect, the total mass change of the gases has to be included.

 

[tcmtech]

Nicely done! Thank you!

However....

Point one.
In your first reference link , https://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/radiative-forcing-energy-balances-and-the-greenhouse-effect, SO has a negative number on the chart not positive. Plus its clearly listed in the low level of confidence coulomb on the chart as well.
Does that mean that the data cant confirm it and its considered fairly plausible thats its not a strong contributer? Also how does that make CO2 and the other more positive if its a negative greenhouse gas with a low confidence of proof value?

The highest bar on that chart has approximately a 2.5 watts SQ/Meter equivalent. Thats still around .15% to .3% of the net energy directly received from typical sunlight. And human production of CO2 is less than 20% of the total mass of global CO2 which then puts those numbers down to .03% to .06% or roughly .5 watts per square meter give or take.

During the interval, the rise on SO (stratospheric Ozone?) was 9000 tons. (see reference 2)

Where is SO in the references or for that matter in any list of green house gasses that are listed with the IIPC?
See link for list. IPCC list of greenhouse gases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please clarify thank you.

 

[BrownOut]

"SO" is a mis-type. I started out correctly abbreviating Nitrogen oxide as NO, but for some reason, typed it SO at the end. The numbers I used were form the data you provided in an earlier post, and referenced in my posting. Actually, the green house gas is nitrogen oxide, which might be one of many compounds, so I would do better to just write it out, and not assume which compound symbol to use ( I was just being lazy ) Should have been N2O, I guess. But as it looks to be one of the more abundent trace gases, it was just as just a representative gas for the purpose of the analysis.

I've corrected my symbols. See how the peer review makes things better?

 

[Mickster]

'Peer review'.....

A seemingly honest concept - Persons of equal standing get to analyse the results obtained from the amassed data, the methods used in order to gain the said results, along with a verification or a rejection of the findings.

That is perfectly fine, until the rules of who are considered to be peers gets changed....and by a panel comprising some of those who's previous findings could be called into serious question...

 

[ke5frf]

"I've corrected my symbols. See how the peer review makes things better?"

First of all, P.L.E.A.S.E stop condescending to all of us as if we didn't understand the ifs whys and fors of peer review 20 years ago.

Second of all, yes peer review DOES make things better. The only problem is that the skeptics do not get to be peer-reviewers or referees in climate publications. If you read all the e-mails you will see that this is a very privileged club with few members and they are actively vying to keeps skeptics OFF of review boards.

Peer review is priceless when done ethically.

 

[BrownOut]

Well, not everone seems to understand what the peer review does, so I offer some simple exapmples. It's not intended to be condescending. Deal with it. There are thousands of physicists, chemists, meterologists and so forth who review the science. Not everything published on the issue comes from a single IPCC conference. Further, the ground work for conference is a body of peer reviewed scientific work that came before.

 

[ke5frf]

Well, not everone seems to understand what the peer review does, so I offer some simple exapmples. It's not intended to be condescending. Deal with it. There are thousands of physicists, chemists, meterologists and so forth who review the science. Not everything published on the issue comes from a single IPCC conference. Further, the ground work for conference is a body of peer reviewed scientific work that came before.

I have seen no poster in this thread ask you to explain peer review. That is all in your head. And still, even in your reply, you go on attempting to teach us all about peer review when we already understand it, obviously better than you or else you wouldn't have been citing Wikipedia.

 

[ke5frf]

BTW, I am no spelling bee champ but you REALLY should get a friend to peer review your spelling. It makes it very difficult to take you very seriously.

 

[BrownOut]

Since when are we required to wait until someone asks? Who asked for your opinions before you gave them? I choose to give some simple examples, because from some of the reading I've done on this thread indicates it might be useful. I'll continue to post information and illustrations that I think will help people understand, so you can stop trying to squelch it.

you go on attempting to teach us all about peer review when we already understand it, obviously better than you or else you wouldn't have been citing Wikipedia

And what does one thing have to do with the other? This is an examply of why you are difficult to take seriously.

 

[Mickster]

Well, not everone seems to understand what the peer review does, so I offer some simple exapmples. It's not intended to be condescending. Deal with it.

'Simple', for the simpletons to understand? It's not intended to be condescending, but if someone personally feels it is.....'Deal with it' ???

Are you having a laugh? Quite possibly one of the most sneering posts you have made to date within this thread.

There are thousands of physicists, chemists, meterologists and so forth who review the science.

Are they all considered to be peers of equal standing? Who are the people lumped in the 'so forth' category? Are normal people, with valid concerns regarding the collection and interpretation of the data, permitted to raise questions?

Not everything published on the issue comes from a single IPCC conference. Further, the ground work for conference is a body of peer reviewed scientific work that came before.

But those sitting on the IPCC advisory panel get to choose which bodies of work are put forward for inclusion.....

 

[BrownOut]

BTW, I am no spelling bee champ but you REALLY should get a friend to peer review your spelling. It makes it very difficult to take you very seriously.

Why do you insist on trolling my typing. There are lots of typos on the thread. So what? Everyone who types poorly can't be taken seirously?