Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming
From the PR:
Haven't read it yet, and probably won't until after xmas, but figured some of you would be interested.

Ok are those topics helpful for climate scientists in developing climate models?

Ok well this book, Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems,was given as a reference for this article Sturm–Liouville theory

Interesting. According to the abstract, most of the paper is about the ozone hole, then at the end they disprove AGW. We shall see.

My guess would be no. I did research in computational differential equations before learning those topics. I did have to learn a bit about SL before I was able to write a paper, my coauthors helped me out alot in the theory sections though, but it was a math paper that I don't think would be readable to most climate scientists.

It's not looking good already.
Okay, if CFCs "completely control" arctic temperatures, then we should see arctic temperatures plummit after 2000. And what do we find?



I wish he were right.

So I guess I stand corrected on DE's in highschool (I assume you just did basic ones Ike?), but you certainly arn't doing non-linear DE's in highschool.

As for those two theorems, I suspect some in undergrad would get Strum-Liouville, as that seems to apply to linear separable PDE's, though I don't think I did it as an Electrical Engineer. Ascoli theorem (and really, most analysis in general) isn't given to undergrad Engineers at all (and certainly not rigorously). I have had to learn quite a bit of analysis in grad school, as it is quite important for proving things.

But I also don't see how either of those apply to climate, which is a bunch of non-linear PDE's. We have no symbolic solution to this problem, and barely any theory to apply, and most of what we do have involves linearizing it, which has it's own serious limitations.

Finally, Max, I also still don't think, despite you claiming to, that you know what an unstable equilibrium is in the context of non-linear systems, nor what a saddle point is, as you continue to be completely flabbergasted at the idea that positive feedbacks on temperature rises implies that the current state isn't stable (which we can show, in a theoretically sound manor, using linearization). This was admittedly not aided by my use of Venus, as that was really a perfect demonstration of the folly of the straight line.

BUT ITS PEER REVIEWED!!

And that prof is at my school!

And ITS PEER REVIEWED!!!!!

PS: 13ballExplain to me how any reasonable scientist would EVER say the following:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it

heh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method

I think i was aware of the existence of non-linear DEs. Certainly hadn't done much in solving them.

No, not at all. Extension to non-linear PDEs is a large topic in SL theory. Like I mentioned before, i did some work in numerical methods for non linear PDE's (mostly releated to Navier Stokes) and SL matrices were needed for part of the motivation.

I don't think you see how those apply to nonlinear PDEs because you don't seem to know anything about SL.

Lol, nice complaint in a post were you were rambling about something that you maybe just read the wiki article on.

I'm willing to bet he has his own data not from a pro-agw blog lol. I thought article was free, but apparently it's behind a paywall. Will see if I get the full text.

Edit: And you missed the "CFCs and cosmic rays" part didn't you. Jeez.

And I may be wrong on this, but isn't the antarctic the one with the huge ozone hole and not the arctic?

Are you disagreeing with research in a published peer-reviewed journal?

Here is a PRL from the same author from earlier in the year that talks about ozone depletion and cosmic rays. I only skimmed it and don't know anything about the topic to begin with, so I don't have anything intelligent to say about it

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

ok cool found that too but couldn't get past the pay wall. tytytytyty.

13, I'm pretty sure the guys point is that CR has a big impact on the ozone layer, not just CFCs, so you made a huge mistake by missing the CR.

i don't know why people don't want to believe it's real. take a look at the world with google maps. we cover huuuge tracts of land with our population. our cities are massive, our farms cover massive swaths of land, arable and artificially irrigated. old-growth forests are practically non-existent in the first world and being cut down quickly in the 3rd. we've even fished out huge swaths of the oceans. there are 7 billion of us, eating and making trash and driving and buying crap and watching tv. chinese people are getting cancer by the millions just from breathing. even in the u.s., thousands are dying just from breathing.

*even when there were a few million of us and all we had was fire, we scarred the earth and wiped out megafauna.*

anyone who doesn't think that we're making an impact on the planet is beyond stupid. "but maybe it's not global warming. maybe we're just going to starve ourselves to death or bring on an ice age." oh. well then. i guess i'll shut up.

the irony being that i type this on a laptop made with plastic and rare metals, powered by fossil fuels.

Ummm who is arguing that the we aren't making an impact on the planet again?

btw, if anyone finds a full text link to the article I posted a blurb about I'd very much appreciate it. It seems interesting to me, and I have a feeling it will stand up to 13's excellent arctic temp analysis.

michigan finally locked me out of their library system so i don't have the access to academia i used to have

it wasn't directed at you. just a general tirade against people that think it's all a hoax or some other bull****.

You think those people think we don't make an impact on the environment? lol get a clue.

Aaaanyways, funny stuff going on here

Cliffs: IPCC 4 relies on non peer reviewed source from the World Wildlife Fund that mixes up 2350 for 2035. People point out this error. Response:

and from the dude who wrote the part of the article in question, in the magazine Science
Dr. Syed Hasnain



lollerskates.

the oceans are a much bigger heat sink than the atmosphere. if you want to find the smoking gun, look at the oceans.

You are catching on.

Are you kidding me?

The data are from GISS. Feel free to check and see if they are correct.

And the PR seems to make it clear that arctic and antarctic temps are what is causing this "cooling" [sic].

But yeah, I'm sure that 100 years of research will be undone in a quick correlation analysis at the end of a paper on an unrelated topic. That happens all the time, imo.

I'd never heard the Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035 meme (which sounds ridiculous on its face), but this appears to be some piss poor work from IPCC WG2.

You are looking at SSTs, which are surface temperatures. This is an incorrect way to look at it.

SSTs are driven by a number of factors, only one of which is heat from the atmosphere. Here are a number of elementary factors which can affect SSTs:

1) Atmospheric energy
2) Strength of ocean currents
3) Global wind patterns
4) Geothermal activity
5) Precipitation

Out of those, the #1 factor driving SSTs up are down in the current time is wind.

As an illustration, consider a hurricane. Now, there are many factors which can inhibit hurricane development other than SST, but when you look at very good situation for the development of a major hurricane which includes low shear, abudant atmospheric moisture, and minimal interference from landmasses within the projected track of the storm, you might first glance at SSTs, but this will never tell you how strong the storm can get.

The primary reason is that most storms hit a "ceiling" in which they get strong enough to upwell (or churn up) enough colder and deeper water that they end up becoming victims of their own success. That is why tropical meteorologists look at ocean heat content instead of SSTs because ocean heat content gives a representation of the total heat available at all levels of the ocean. The 2005 hurricane season which contained so many major hurricanes was so memorable precisely because one of the dominant storm tracks that year took the storms right over a piece of the Gulf loop current which had broken off as an eddy. As such, a huge and deep pool of warm water laid in the middle of the central Gulf. Further, the Gulf basin was predominately free of shear and there was little in the way of continental fronts moving through to dry out the air. Add in a few storms, and we had two near Cat 5s and then Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. This was such a recipe for disaster that there were several meteorologists who immediately recognized the situation.

More relevant, however, would be the development of El Ninos and La Ninas. As you probably know, an El Nino is defined by a warm pool of water in the Pacific whereas La Nina is defined by a cool pool of water in the same general location. There are objective standards that are used to define each.

Now, an El Nino is caused by a relaxing of the dominant winds over the area in question. The relaxing of the winds reduces upwelling of cold water from below and, over time, the water closer to the surface gets warmer and warmer as it continues to sit undistrubed. This, as you know, affects the dominant storm track and weather across the globe. We are currently in an El Nino now.

La Nina is the opposite and is generated by an increase in the winds and an increase in upwelling.

Likewise, summer water temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast are heavily influenced by upwelling. That is why it is possible to have water temps range from the 50s to the 70s during the summers there.

So, the first thing you need to do is look at total heat content on a global scale and then you still have to rule out the other factors such as geothermal activity.