Register to reply

Physics of Global Warming

by Xnn
Tags: global, physics, warming
Share this thread:
Skyhunter
#19
Feb24-09, 09:20 AM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by Phrak View Post
These data sources are science when practitioners are in a position to be objective. As the last is governed by a political body, it fails to meet this screening.

Provide critical sources for any of your remaining claims. Not the original reports, but the criticisms--pro or con if you can.
The IPCC is a valid source. It does not conduct science, it assembles the body of research related to climate change every five years into a comprehensive assessment.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=280637
John Creighto
#20
Feb24-09, 10:20 AM
P: 813
Quote Quote by Skyhunter View Post
The IPCC is a valid source. It does not conduct science, it assembles the body of research related to climate change every five years into a comprehensive assessment.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=280637
When anyone does a paper they assemble research that supports their position. It is called references. The references (or papers in the case of the IPCC) may be valid but not the selection criteria. The report summery is biased and written by policy makers. Anyway, aren’t we getting off topic?
Bored Wombat
#21
Feb24-09, 12:20 PM
P: 119
Quote Quote by John Creighto View Post
The report summery is biased and written by policy makers.
Not really.

It undergoes political review by government delegations, but the summary (at least of working group 1's report) it is written by scientists.

The political review process ensures that the IPCC reports are slightly biased to the conservative. But at least what they say is true. They leave out other stuff that might be true, so things could be a whole lot worse.
Phrak
#22
Feb24-09, 12:47 PM
P: 4,512
Quote Quote by Bored Wombat View Post
Not really.

It undergoes political review by government delegations, but the summary (at least of working group 1's report) it is written by scientists.
No. The report is written by 'participants'. The 'facilitator' reserves the power to rewrite anything.
Phrak
#23
Feb24-09, 12:49 PM
P: 4,512
Quote Quote by Skyhunter View Post
The IPCC is a valid source.
Interesting opinion.
Bored Wombat
#24
Feb24-09, 01:08 PM
P: 119
Quote Quote by Phrak View Post
No. The report is written by 'participants'. The 'facilitator' reserves the power to rewrite anything.
It undergoes government review last, but the lead authors don't rewrite anything, unless bullied by the government review.



Who is this 'facilitator'?
Skyhunter
#25
Feb24-09, 01:17 PM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by Phrak View Post
Interesting opinion.
Since the assessment reports are cited all the time by peer reviewed papers, the IPCC is a valid source for scientific information in regards to climate science.
John Creighto
#26
Feb24-09, 01:18 PM
P: 813
Can I ask a moderator to move the parts of this discussion about the IPCC to the social science area. I really don’t want to derail this thread.
Phrak
#27
Feb25-09, 04:04 AM
P: 4,512
Quote Quote by Xnn View Post
The temperature of the earth is governed by physics, namely the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the amount of energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.
It certainly is not. The Earth is not a black body.

Where are your references? It's fairly unbelieveable that they would use such a poor model.
Phrak
#28
Feb25-09, 04:05 AM
P: 4,512
Quote Quote by John Creighto View Post
Can I ask a moderator to move the parts of this discussion about the IPCC to the social science area. I really don’t want to derail this thread.
I couldn't agree more.
Xnn
#29
Feb25-09, 06:06 AM
P: 555
Quote Quote by John Creighto View Post
... is biased ...
Huh?

The Physical Science Basis report contains all types of uncertainity analysis as well as assessments of where the current level of scientific understanding may be low and needs further study.

So, what part of the report might be biased?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Bored Wombat
#30
Feb25-09, 06:59 AM
P: 119
Quote Quote by Phrak View Post
It certainly is not. The Earth is not a black body.
Any coloured body is still radiates energy proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. It just has a different emissivity constant.
John Creighto
#31
Feb25-09, 11:13 AM
P: 813
Quote Quote by Xnn View Post
Huh?

The Physical Science Basis report contains all types of uncertainity analysis as well as assessments of where the current level of scientific understanding may be low and needs further study.

So, what part of the report might be biased?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
I realy think we should be discussing the science and not the politics but anway:

The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.

A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.

Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

This might also be worth taking a look at:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/...t/ipccflap.htm
Xnn
#32
Feb25-09, 11:35 AM
P: 555
John Creighto;

So there is no specific part of the IPCC's Physical Science Basis report that is considered as possibly biased in a scientific sense. Just broad dismissals based on the opinion and insinuations of an Economics Professor.
Phrak
#33
Feb25-09, 11:52 AM
P: 4,512
Quote Quote by Bored Wombat View Post
Any coloured body is still radiates energy proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. It just has a different emissivity constant.
So this is Earth Science? The Earth is not a 'coloured body'.
John Creighto
#34
Feb25-09, 11:57 AM
P: 813
Quote Quote by Xnn View Post
John Creighto;

So there is no specific part of the IPCC's Physical Science Basis report that is considered as possibly biased in a scientific sense. Just broad dismissals based on the opinion and insinuations of an Economics Professor.
Can you please reframe from expression your opinions in such an authoritative tone and get back to discussing the physics of global warming. If you object to a point in the summary I posted above then please quote it and we can discuss that point in another thread.
mheslep
#35
Feb25-09, 01:24 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by Xnn View Post
...First; a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) as well as sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have directly measured the imbalance. They have found it to be about 1.4 watts/meter^2. Of course it varies somewhat over time.
Perhaps I missing something, but shouldn't these radiation power figures be referenced to some power spectrum? That is, the measurement can not cover DC to gamma rays. The Earth Radiation Budget for instance measures 0.2 - 50.0 µ m and 0.385 - 1.02 µ m.
John Creighto
#36
Feb25-09, 01:46 PM
P: 813
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Perhaps I missing something, but shouldn't these radiation power figures be referenced to some power spectrum? That is, the measurement can not cover DC to gamma rays. The Earth Radiation Budget for instance measures 0.2 - 50.0 µ m and 0.385 - 1.02 µ m.
They are average quantities. Given that most of the energy lies between the IR and Infra Red wavelengths it is not necessary to measure the entire spectrum.

However, it would also be interesting to break it down by frequency.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Global warming Earth 0
Global warming Earth 5
Global warming- Yes or no? Earth 12
Global Warming Earth 10