It's all over but for the sweating?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Freebeard: while your at it look up black body radiation, absorbtion spectrum, and grey body. I have a feeling the discussion will be heading down that path.

I get the first two, grey body radiation is news to me. All the discussion makes my head hurt, but I'm trying to stick with it.

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

No answers to explain this, makes all of the global warming advocacy seem ludicrous, when barely 30 years ago they were worrying about a several million year old coral reef dying in the cold (below 60 degrees) ocean waters off the Florida Keys.

This is first hand personal experience. If you can't address this then you can't explain anything in any sensible manner, just propaganda and noise, wasted bandwidth.

The plural of anecdote is not data. What else do you need?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

The clean air act is cleaning up the air in China?

Don't forget about india.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I get the first two, grey body radiation is news to me. All the discussion makes my head hurt, but I'm trying to stick with it.

Greybody radiation is when you account for the fact that elements, molecules etc... don't radiate the full spectrum, you get spectral lines or bands. It is the same process by which astronomers can determine the chemical makeup of the atmosphere on other planets, our sun, and distant stars.

I went through the same headach several years ago when I started looking into the actual science behind the theory, and when you get this far in it gets really complicated, and I am pretty sure there aren't many climate scientists that are looking at things down to the grey body level besides pointing out the absorbtion bands of CO2.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Real materials emit energy at a fraction—called the emissivity—of black-body energy levels. By definition, a black body in thermal equilibrium has an emissivity of ε = 1.0. A source with lower emissivity independent of frequency often is referred to as a gray body.[4][5] Construction of black bodies with emissivity as close to one as possible remains a topic of current interest.[6] A white body is one with a "rough surface [that] reflects all incident rays completely and uniformly in all directions."[7]

I will think of it as a grey body is a black body that's been left out in the weather.

[suspectnumber961]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'd heard about 20z/10gal of acetone but I haven't tried it. Do you see any difference in your mileage? Is the Xylol 'and' or 'or'? And what's the synth oil for? My digression bears fruit.

Started out using 6 oz acetone/xylol (50-50) and think I saw a drop in mpg by maybe 5-6%. Been gradually reducing to 3 oz acetone/xylol...now moving to 2 oz acetone/1 z xylol and will use over winter. All with some synth oil (~ 1 oz) ...supposed to lube piston rings when at top travel where most friction is supposed to occur. Hard to say about mpg...temps are cooling...just added copper core plugs...did notice top of pistons now showing clean alum areas with some "old" carbon crust left.

As far as I can tell... 2 oz acetone/1 z xylol is the best bet for mpg gains. Might try 2 oz acetone/1 z xylol/1 oz diesel this summer.

According to the sticker under the hood...this car is both a PZEV and a ULEV (Cali)....so it should have been burning clean...at least what comes out the tailpipe. Using a PCV jar and have no CEL. Maybe with the additive the converter and O2s will clean up and last longer?

[NeilBlanchard]

The US was not as hot as the rest of the world this year, as far as I know. Certainly not in October.

The temperature change that was probably affected by the Clean Air Act is over the North Atlantic. China was not burning nearly as much coal from the 1950's through the 1980's as they are now - let's not conflate things. We'll see if the current pollution produced in China and India will "offset" the heat retention caused by the rising levels of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other GHG that have been increasing faster and faster.

What do you think of the Frontline program?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Science is supposed to be open, open to ones peers, open to scrutiny, open to opposing views. That is how HONEST science is conducted. The open discussion either strenthens the theory, or kills it.

Up to a point, and assuming that one's peers are willing to look at the science, rather than coming in with the attitude that they're going to use any tactic, including outright lies and disruption, to try to discredit science that conflicts with their economic, political, and religious ideologies. Do you really think astronomy should be "open" to Flat Earthers, or that geology & biology should give serious attention to creationists?

Why is much of climate science conducted behind closed doors with only the conclusions being public...

It isn't. (See above about lies & disruption.) It's perfectly open to anyone who troubles to learn how to do the science. Granted, that's not something your average American is willing to do, but the lack of willingness is their problem. The information & tools are readily available. You might start with this: Amazon.com: Principles of Planetary Climate (9780521865562): Raymond T. Pierrehumbert: Books

Why is it that only those scientists that agree are allowed to work on the core data.

Got it backwards. First, the "core data" is nothing more than the mechanics of radiative transfer & properties of CO2, which has been known & freely available for a century and more. (Arrhenius worked out the basics with pencil & paper, back around 1900.) Add to that the measured increase in atmospheric CO2, again readily available, and you have all you need.

Second, to prove this statement you'd have to come up with instances of disagreeing scientists, who are vanishingly rare. Then you'd need to find one of these who's not been allowed to work on whatever you allege to be "core data".

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Who is sensationalizing one event? As mentioned in the video, the 5 biggest storms all occurred since 1992 and 4 of those since 2005, and the insurance actuarial tables show the trend. I hope you watch the video.

Another chart from NOAA:

The US was not as hot as the rest of the world this year, as far as I know. Certainly not in October.

I checked and double checked, the graph you posted was for the national average (cherry picking) and showed October being the higest October ever, where October was actually below average. (graph incorrect)

The Frontline vidio was accurate but biased, there is also a campain though less out in the open to discredit any scientist who disagrees with the concensus. There is massive ammounts of money also being spent to sway the public into supporting that we are the sole cause of global warming, often targeted at young children, going for getting an emotional response and a knee jerk reaction to supporting a stance that is not entirely true.

Back to radiative forcing...



and using the equation dF= 5.35*ln(c/c0)

The direct measurement using a full spectrum source (not one represenative of the earth) comes up with 3.39w/m^2.

dF = 5.35*ln(600/300) = 3.71w/m^2

Correcting the equation to match the measured result changes it to
dF = 4.89*ln(c/c0)

So for current increases
dF = 4.89*ln(390/270) = 1.80w/m^2 assuming the earth is a perfect black body radiator, which it is not.

[TheEnemy]

James, my father works with an ex-climate scientist, who was fired for not agreeing. (at least that his story)

Also the climate gate emails, I had read a couple of them where Mann himself was saying to limit data to certain people because he was unsure what side they were on.

Besides it looks like I am doing a good job of shooting myself in the foot anyways

[TheEnemy]

Since the majority of the difference is where CO2 is only partly emissive (approx eyeball 50%), I am reducing the multiplier by half. 0.9w/m^2, add the solar forcing gives about 1.1w/m^2

dt = ldf

dt = 0.8 *1.1 = 0.88C

Compairing that to last years yearly observed anomaly of 0.51 (11th warmest) tells me that the climate sensitivity variable is too high I'll err high and set it to 0.6.

So now using all of these tweaked values and figuring we might hit 600ppm CO2 before leveling off.

CO2 -> 2.45 * ln(600/270) = 1.86w/m^2

assuming the sun stays pretty close = 2.06w/m^2

dt = 0.6 * 2.06 = 1.24C Thats assuming all of my math is at least close to realistic.

If anyone sees a problem let me know.