“solar dynamo indicates vector math is necessary”

Yes, but this is a different problem – moving fluid through preexisting magnetic field, which itself is generating the magnetic field – so directionality is important.

“so I’m not inclined to pursue this further, as uncertain approximations aren’t the goal.”

That is fine. I enjoyed our discussions.

J. McL

However, a look at Brandenberg or Miesch’s work on the solar dynamo indicates vector math is necessary there so I’m not inclined to pursue this further, as uncertain approximations aren’t the goal.

Physical interactions (without chemical reactions) should not change the mass balance relations, for say CO2, in a representative volume. There are also reactive flows, a typical example is flow in a jet engine or in the transfer lines in a chemical plant, where you have to apply mass balance relations to specific elements, since components are undergoing reactions. I am sure they cover these things in fluid dynamics classes as a part of physics.

>>”Your appeal to authority is fallacious as you must be aware.” Yes. But since you talked about your climate science classmates, I assume you were implying that they are somewhat incompetent and their opinions have diminished value, I just showed the other side of the spectrum. My appeal to authority is as bad (or as good) as your implication about your climate science classmates.

Your ‘education’ not withstanding I can make no sense of your physical/chemical argument.

Your appeal to authority is fallacious as you must be aware.

“the fluence into and out of the four sides didn’t figure, not because they weren’t large but because they cancel.”

Not if it is a compressible flow like air – fluences do not cancel out.

“I don’t believe the component interactions are complex at all,”

Yes, but accounting for the directionality for each and every CO2 exchange surface is.

“What is difficult is the concept ……..makes trivially false, silly”

This part I cannot follow, you will have to explain a little more. In particular about “interact with multiple others …” : as long as these are physical interactions, shouldn’t change anything. If they are chemical interactions, then of course, mass balance should be on carbon than CO2.

“When one adds the…. increase or decrease.”

I do not know how they find how much CO2 is absorbed. I think they probably could test the acidity of water, to get some estimate, etc. Here I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt.

“I sat thru higher level classes… You assume too much. Its not the credentials that determine competence but the work”

I do not have any climate science friends (or class mates), so I cannot make any judgment on that. I agree with the last part, that it is the competence of the work that is important. But I would also claim that credentials represent a measure of the number and depth of competent work by a scientist – so credentials and competence are not opposite things.

If we just look at what some of the Nobel Laureates are saying, it is pretty one sided. As I said earlier, I cannot find more than one Nobel Laureate in science who is a skeptic. Here is a partial list of them, that called for the ratification of the Kyoto treaty. Again, I have to assume that these people at least read and understood AGW and did not find any major problems with it.

Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978

“Some type of average fluence has to be used to make the problem solvable.”

I think this is different than ’simplifying assumptions’. In the example of the ‘cube’ of air, the fluence into and out of the four sides didn’t figure, not because they weren’t large but because they cancel.

I don’t believe the component interactions are complex at all, those at each interface, though empirical testing may be difficult.

What is difficult is the concept that the players are free to originate at one interface and interact with multiple others, and in fact does so. The problem is that the ‘balance’ equation does not model this reality.

Most of ‘climate science’ believes that the warmed atmosphere back radiates heating the warmer surface which the radiative example, when properly setup with vectors, makes trivially false, silly.

When one adds the human CO2 flux in on one side of the equation, along with the ocean “contribution” and on the other notes the rise in the atmospheric total, they then think the ocean could only take up half of the human excess. But this is ridiculous. The human contribution is taken up at night, expelled during the day, on and on. It is the overall heating of the ocean that results in increase or decrease.

“I assumed that they got that part correctly.”

I sat thru higher level classes in physics and math, say four of us at times, boosting the curve. Do you really think ‘climate scientists’ kept me company, getting Bs and Cs? Of course not, how would they get into grad school without their As. You assume too much. Its not the credentials that determine competence but the work.

“I’m an engineer.” Come on, you should have told this long ago, then I would have been more aggressive in stating that engineers are fully capable of doing basic science, and the distinction between engineering and science is not too deep!! I assume you are an example.

Let us see: I am agreeing with your original statement that for EM radiations directionality is important (where changing direction does not happen in short lengths unless other surfaces are involved like mirrors, since we have to apply strong gravitational pull or scattering in a large region or something like that change the direction). But that approach of directionality is not needed for the CO2 exchange, since it probably is not going to add any significant information. The surface where such CO2 exchange is happening is a complicated interface, covering the surface of the oceans, the surface of leaves, mountains, etc. impossible to account for directionality. Through this interface CO2 is coming out in a certain direction, but that direction is lost very quickly due to other mechanisms – like wind for example. Some type of average fluence has to be used to make the problem solvable. But I am not sure how they came up with these estimations of CO2 fluence coming out and going in – I assumed that they got that part correctly. If they got that correctly, then algebraic summation is fine. That is all. I know that people work on Knudsen diffusion in leaves and lungs, where they take direction, which is very useful if we are looking at the immediate region (micro or milli-meters) near that surface. I hope I am bit more clear here. If you have any more explanations, I would be curious to know.

No papers, I’m an engineer.
My Thermodynamics reference is “Thermal Physics”, Kittel & Kroemer, 2nd. Ed., Freeman, for quantum electrodynamics, “QED”, Richard Feynman, Freeman again, I forget those for Electromagnetic Fields and Optics but I’ll have time to pluck them from the shelf this weekend. For vector math its “Div, Grad, Curl and All That”, I forget the author, but I’ve got it near the bed.

“I agree with you about the need for accounting directionality if our objective is a detailed knowledge about CO2 exchange mechanisms [in close proximity to the exchange surface]. But the real process is extremely complex, so I believe the above objective can (and will) be a hopeless task.”

I agree with the preceding allowing for the excision of the indicated qualifier. Which leads me to wonder anew: Why are balanced equations of fluences practicable?

I’m not sure I understand much of the remainder of your reply.

Those in discussion, who will not acknowledge their counterpart’s points and proceeds with their monomania without appreciating its consequence are not serious or reasonable: They are unwilling or unable to modify their worldview for any reason.

This fellow is wasting your time and is no more teachable than Joel.

All those studies cited in that graph are rotating the tires on MBH98 and calling it a new car.

The most hilarious thing on that page is this:

“Data for Oerlemans was provided by William M. Connolley.”

I have no time to go into detail. You can read all about those studies by clicking on their links in the left nav here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=7

The IPCC view is that there is a climate sensitivity of around 3 deg C for a doubling of CO2. That’s probably more than “minimal”.

“Two, history shows that, by and large, warm periods were times of expansion, peace and trade while colder times tend to be those where famine, war and disease reigned.”

The Little Ice Age is variously dated, but assume it began around 1300 and with variations lasted until the mid-19th century. What were some of the events during that period? Renaissance, Discovery of New World, Reformation, birth of modern science and medicine, beginnings of industrial revolution, modern technology, democracy, human rights.

So colder times are correlated not only with war and disease, but also with expansion and trade, as well as scientific and social advances.

The human contribution accounts for a 30 per cent or more increase in CO2 over the past 150 or so years. The amount and speed of the increase are the important factors in the CO2 ‘forcing’ of temperatures.

“You’ve been brainwashed, Brendan.”

I’m touched by your concern for my welfare, Bruce, but I think I have critically examined the science, as far as my ability allows. As a matter on interest, until a year or so ago I was agnostic on the science of AGW. I am now reasonable confident that the science is sound, but of course if the evidence turns against it I will change my views.

Keep in mind that I was replying to this claim: “Not sure how that’s possible, since we haven’t yet reached the highs of the MWP and RWP as the best evidence shows us.”

The evidence is a matter of dispute, so “the best evidence” is very much a matter of opinion. However, a reconstruction from various sources shows that the general thrust of the hockey stick graph supports my original claim that: “Globally temperatures are now higher than those of any period over the past thousand years…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And, you say, “Which ‘accepted scientific understanding’ would this be?” It would be the understanding as expressed by the IPCC AR4 report and the NAS report on temperature reconstructions, based on several studies including…but certainly not limited to…the hockey stick study.

And, both global data sets show clear net warming relative to 1934.

This only became “true” after NOAA/GISS adjusted the past to be cooler than it really was as of a couple years ago.

As for comparison to the MWP, this is more difficult since it involves temperature proxies but the accepted scientific understanding is that current temperatures are likely higher now than they were then (for the Northern Hemisphere at least…Proxy data is too sparse for the Southern Hemisphere).

Which “accepted scientific understanding” would this be? Certainly not the Hockey Stick or any study based on the same data. They’ve pretty much been invalidated due to poor statistical correlation, sloppy data, and refusal by the parties involved to divulge data and methods. In other words, it aint science.

This isn’t true. Here are the results for temperature trends for the HADCRUT and NASA GISS temperature records over the past several decades ending in 2007: If you look just over a few years, then it is true that the trend you get depends strongly both on the start year and on whether you use HADCRUT or GISS. However, after about 12 years or so, the trends settle down to around 0.2 C per decade, basically independent of the data set used or the start year chosen. (These trends are, of course, from regression fits since noone would be silly enough to just connect the start year and end year data, would they?)

And, both global data sets show clear net warming relative to 1934. As for comparison to the MWP, this is more difficult since it involves temperature proxies but the accepted scientific understanding is that current temperatures are likely higher now than they were then (for the Northern Hemisphere at least…Proxy data is too sparse for the Southern Hemisphere).

“If temperature is a proxy for heat, and heat is a form of energy, the AGW concern is not just about ‘warmth’, but also about the injection of additional amounts of energy into the climate system. It’s this additional energy that could cause the atmospheric system to become more unstable and therefore less hospitable to human life.”

Brendan, the others have made their points, but one they missed is what you said above. Insofar as energy is concerned, the Sun is the only (disregarding the fractional amount from geothermal sources) source of energy for this planet. The reason that the planet is as warm as it is is that the energy received is delayed on it’s way to being re-emitted. The IR absorbing gases, of which water is by far the main player, are what enables this effect, along with heat stored in the oceans. There is NO additional energy being added. So the system will not cause any instability or in-hospitability to life. Indeed, the extra CO2 might slightly extend the retention time of the Sun’s energy before release, but this effect is minimal. It also is beneficial on two fronts. One, extra CO2 is causing increased plant growth, some of which is crops. Two, history shows that, by and large, warm periods were times of expansion, peace and trade while colder times tend to be those where famine, war and disease reigned.
Take your choice, I know where I want to be.

Oh, and one last detail, even if the warming theory is correct, but without the tipping points, which are just bunk, it says that the increase in AVERAGE temperature is achieved by increasing the daily minimum without altering the daily maximum. Therefore, even on their own theory, there will be warmer nights with similar days. I can live with that, too.

Essentially we’d have to double the “original” 280ppm to get any measurable CO2 warming. And saying that’s a bad thing is quite a stretch. As always, cold is more dangerous than warm.