Well Phil. I digest everything that makes it through the system; that bears your logo.

Eventually it got through, for some reason my spectra caused problems?

My “Infra-Red Handbook” has high resolution spectra for the atmosphere; but since the book is mainly for military applications such as weapons targetting and such, for some reason they measure through a horizontal layer of air, and not through the vertical atmosphere.

Yes I recall doing some consultancy work for the RAF on IR transmission through clouds, the cloud lab was situated underground near a runway (I forget why). Part way through the experiment there was a huge roar above, is was the nuclear bombers on standby warming up their engines!

I can’t tell whether computed spectra, properly deal with all the real world isotopic species of atmospheric gases. Given that you have C12/13/14, and O16/18, as well as H and D, and all the possible combinations of those in the existing GHGs, i would think a computed spectrum could get very complicated.

The spectra I showed have all the possible isotopologues in their appropriate proportions, e.g.:

Molecule No. Name Formula Isotopologue No. Formula Abundance
1 water H2O 1 H(16)OH 0.997317
1 water H2O 2 H(18)OH 0.00199983
1 water H2O 3 H(17)OH 0.000371884
1 water H2O 4 HD(16)O 0.000310693
1 water H2O 5 HD(18)O 6.23003e-07
1 water H2O 6 HD(17)O 1.15853e-07
2 carbon dioxide CO2 1 (16)O(12)C(16)O 0.984204
2 carbon dioxide CO2 2 (16)O(13)C(16)O 0.0110574
2 carbon dioxide CO2 3 (16)O(12)C(18)O 0.00394707
2 carbon dioxide CO2 4 (16)O(12)C(17)O 0.000733989
2 carbon dioxide CO2 5 (16)O(13)C(18)O 4.43446e-05
2 carbon dioxide CO2 6 (16)O(13)C(17)O 8.24623e-06
2 carbon dioxide CO2 7 (18)O(12)C(18)O 3.95734e-06
2 carbon dioxide CO2 8 (17)O(12)C(18)O 1.4718e-06
2 carbon dioxide CO2 9 (18)O(13)C(18)O 4.446e-08

George E. Smith (11:40:27) :
“”” Phil. (10:31:31) : “””

I’ll take your word for it Phil. I’m totally at the mercy of the people who publish these purported spectra. Given the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have given to “climate scientists”, I would think that the least we could have gotten out of the deal would be some real measured spectra of real world absorption by all these EPA poisons that the government is telling us they are going to tax us up the wazoo to get rid of.

I keep trying to answer this George but my posts aren’t being accepted, sorry. “”"

Well Phil. I digest everything that makes it through the system; that bears your logo.

My “Infra-Red Handbook” has high resolution spectra for the atmosphere; but since the book is mainly for military applications such as weapons targetting and such, for some reason they measure through a horizontal layer of air, and not through the vertical atmosphere.

I can’t tell whether computed spectra, properly deal with all the real world isotopic species of atmospheric gases. Given that you have C12/13/14, and O16/18, as well as H and D, and all the possible combinations of those in the existing GHGs, i would think a computed spectrum could get very complicated.

And then when you throw in the emitted spectrum; well it gets even crazier; and of course including the emitted spectrum form all levels of the atmosphere, as well as the surface emission.

But although it would be nice to know; I’m still convinced it is totally irrelevent, since I believe that the cloud negative feedback simply wipes out any changes due to GHGs or any other perturbations; except major orbital changes of course.

When the history of all of this is finally written 100 years from now, if we survive on this planet that long; people are going to puzzle over why we thought it was all so complicated.

Perhaps if more climatologists were physicists; instead of statisticians, they would get to the answers sooner. Planet earth knows how to calculate the effetcs; and does so with complete accuracy; we should attempt to do likewise, instead of writing ever more arcane computer video games.

George

Just high resolution, you need that to see the overlap (or lack thereof), the water spectra are rather sparse as is apparent when you look at high res.
The lines get narrower as you get higher in the atmosphere.

Is the heating from soot more or less than CO2?

Those spectra are at atmospheric pressure and 296K.

“Offering computer model projections that fail to meet observations is not even pseudo-science. It is computer gaming.”

I remember Bob Carter saying this about a computer model projection, that it was “Playstation 4 stuff”.

I’ve been wondering though, since I watched Kay’s presentation, about the use of computer models for projections, and this seems to get into a different area. I was talking about a different context because it seems to me the AGW promoters have been using computer models in an attempt to carry out scientific investigation, which is deeply flawed.

Meteorologists use atmospheric models to help them make projections, but they do not use them to make projections. It used to be that economists used computer models of the economy the same way, but given what we learned in the latest economic collapse it sounds like they’ve been used to make economic projections, which is scary, and this situation shows how wrong they were.

It seems to me that it depends on what kind of phenomenon you model. For example, if one were to construct a gravity simulator, one could use it with reasonable accuracy to project the paths of comets and asteroids, with the understanding that some error will be introduced by the model. We can think of the model as a scientific instrument for making projections, and as with all instruments, some error is introduced into observations. It seems to me the reason this can be done is that a gravitational system can be modeled in a linear deterministic fashion, despite the fact that there will be multiple forces acting on any one object. It’s always important, even in a model like this, to inspect its internals for what, if any, assumptions are being made.

The atmosphere (and an economy) cannot be modeled this way, because the element of chaos comes into it. We cannot project exactly the way a clump of molecules will interact, and the error grows, probably exponentially with time.

I think if one is doing projections they are not doing science. They are rather (hopefully) using what science has found in order to enhance our ability to respond to something. I refer to my earlier comments about how climate models have been constructed. If I were to assume the best of intentions behind their methodology it would still be flawed: that they use the assumption that just because they’ve tweaked a model to accurately predict climate in the recent past, even though their model does not contain a complete set of atmospheric influence factors, it will do so in the future. That’s wishful thinking.

“You can’t do science on a computer or with a book, because [with] the computer–like a book, like a movie–you can make up anything. We can have an inverse cube law of gravity on here, and the computer doesn’t care. No language system that we have knows what reality is like. That’s why we have to go out and negotiate with reality by doing experiments.

…the correct use of models was to have the students construct them after making observations of actual phenomena, and that their models should reflect what they observed.”

This is an excellent comment Mark. This is indeed the nature of the beast. And what there is so much resistance to. Offering computer model projections that fail to meet observations is not even pseudo-science. It is computer gaming.

(an old Kaypro fan)

It looks like the Spam filter might be holding up your posts because of the links. When I make a post and it doesn’t immediately show up as awaiting moderation, I follow it up with a post like this…

Mod’s – I think the Spam filter grabbed my last post because of the links it included.

It sometimes takes a little while, but the posts are almost always allowed.

It also seems that by using the Href HTML Code, the Spam filter is more likely to allow a post.

I looked this up when I saw the Daily Camera article. Kay gave a presentation several years ago called “What is Squeak?” (Squeak is an operating/programming system he designed that’s based on software work he did 30 years ago) Most of what he talked about was teaching real math and real science in schools, using computers, and how to go about that, but what he said has bearing on the use of computers in science. In the Q&A session afterwards the first question from the audience was on using computers to teach students about pseudo-science (the difference between it and real science). Interesting question! He said:

“You can’t do science on a computer or with a book, because [with] the computer–like a book, like a movie–you can make up anything. We can have an inverse cube law of gravity on here, and the computer doesn’t care. No language system that we have knows what reality is like. That’s why we have to go out and negotiate with reality by doing experiments.”

A questioner asked about a simulation he had running up on the screen, asking if it was pseudo-science. He said, “This is a model. If you present it to the kids as fact, it is pseudo-science.” Does this not say it all? We can even ignore the context that he’s talking about an educational situation. He’s talking about the context in which models should be used generally, if you think about it. He did not get into the subject of AGW at all. He just stated the “nature of the beast”–computers. He stated repeatedly that the correct use of models was to have the students construct them after making observations of actual phenomena, and that their models should reflect what they observed. The idea is through the process of making their models they’ll learn more about what they observed. Shouldn’t scientists use computer models the same way?

“Instead we get reams of papers on increasingly obstruse statistical mathematics trying to create data out of thin air; and the varmints that are supposed to be responsible for all of this aren’t even examined in detail once and for all to establish exactly how they function.”

I share your frustration! I recently saw an opinion column written in the Daily Camera, the local paper of record for Boulder, CO., whose author attempted to use a purely statistical analysis to show that CO2 has caused all of the warming we’ve seen since the Industrial Revolution. You (plural) probably don’t remember this, but in an earlier post on this blog I asked about the statements of a “professor” (that was my operating assumption) that were along the same lines. The guy who wrote the column is one and the same. I found out more about him, and I was wrong. He’s not a professor. He’s a blogger “who studies climate change as a hobby”. He is not a scientist, and yes, he has a regular opinion column in Boulder’s paper…

You can read the column I’m referring to here:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/05/global-warming-whodunit/

Get this. He loaded global average temperature and CO2 data sets into Excel, shifted the temperature data set around for a bit and found an AMAZING correlation between CO2 and temperature (I’m being sarcastic). This is the paragraph that got steam rising out of my head. His method was so amateurish I was surprised the Camera let this garbage get in the paper:

“Still not convinced? I loaded as much publicly available data as I could into Microsoft Excel. The result? An 88 percent correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The temperature correlation peaks about 12 years after the CO2 stimulus, and falls off slowly over decades. This is huge evidence that CO2 drives temperatures, and that the oil we burn today causes the most warming 10 to 15 years from now.”

Yes, you read right. He actually asserts from his statistical analysis alone that there’s a 10-15 year relationship between changes in CO2 levels to a temperature response, and that this entirely explains the temperature fluctuations from the Industrial Revolution onwards. Why are the alarmists playing around with sophisticated computer models when all you’ve got to do is load these two data sets into Excel and SEE the answer right in front of your face?? My goodness, we’ve been wasting billions of dollars studying this! (sarcasm off)

I and others asked the author how he arrived at this conclusion and he gave links in the comments that follow the article to a blog posting of his own which asserts the same thing, and which also shows the charts he generated in Excel, whereby he came to his conclusion. He could point to no scientific source of information for the assertions he made. Talk about an insult to our intelligence. This article isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on!

I’ve been corresponding with the opinion editor of the Camera, complaining about the low quality of this piece. So far she hasn’t been persuaded by my argument… It’s difficult to believe this is happening in the same town where NCAR and NIST are located. Personally I think it’s embarrassing.

I’ll take your word for it Phil. I’m totally at the mercy of the people who publish these purported spectra. Given the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have given to “climate scientists”, I would think that the least we could have gotten out of the deal would be some real measured spectra of real world absorption by all these EPA poisons that the government is telling us they are going to tax us up the wazoo to get rid of.

I keep trying to answer this George but my posts aren’t being accepted, sorry.

It’s a bit more like trying to cross the crowded ballroom with a cup of coffee without it being spilled and going back for a refill whenever it spills. The more crowded the more attempts needed for success. The GHG is the one carrying the coffee, everybody else on the floor are the N2/O2 molecules.