Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Jan 8th 2010, 4:59 am
#16
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Do you seriously believe, for one second, that we will accept that we have to 'turn the lights off' permanently?. That we will be prevented from flying because planes emit too much greenhouse gas?. That people in third world will except that they won't be allowed to develop because it will 'make the planet warmer'?.
Not a bloody hope.
Jan 8th 2010, 5:01 am
#17
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
goodness ... simple primary school maths answers the problems
quick ... tell everybody ... send you information to the UN ... to leading science research groups etc etc ... and put your name to it.
.....
The interesting thing about the "debate" and "controversy" is that the small minority group of deniers seem to get the same airtime as the scientists from many many countrues and research groups that support theories of humand induced global warming..
What is a worry is that many "deniers" seem to have their minds so open that their brains have fallen right out... this sort of open mind is considered intelligent by many.
quick ... tell everybody ... send you information to the UN ... to leading science research groups etc etc ... and put your name to it.
.....
The interesting thing about the "debate" and "controversy" is that the small minority group of deniers seem to get the same airtime as the scientists from many many countrues and research groups that support theories of humand induced global warming..
What is a worry is that many "deniers" seem to have their minds so open that their brains have fallen right out... this sort of open mind is considered intelligent by many.
dT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)
I suggest you (re-)read the letter.
Last edited by WillBlack; Jan 8th 2010 at 5:09 am.
Jan 8th 2010, 5:03 am
#18
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Ilukapool. WA
Posts: 12,467
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
OK, so we accept that its all the fault of humanity. Now what?.
Do you seriously believe, for one second, that we will accept that we have to 'turn the lights off' permanently?. That we will be prevented from flying because planes emit too much greenhouse gas?. That people in third world will except that they won't be allowed to develop because it will 'make the planet warmer'?.
Not a bloody hope.
Do you seriously believe, for one second, that we will accept that we have to 'turn the lights off' permanently?. That we will be prevented from flying because planes emit too much greenhouse gas?. That people in third world will except that they won't be allowed to develop because it will 'make the planet warmer'?.
Not a bloody hope.
Jan 8th 2010, 5:08 am
#19
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Yes, but that's my point, Quoll.
The subject is so complex and the disciplines so many, that no-one - including each individual of the IPCC - can follow the arguments for and against. The trouble is, the average Joe tends to accept the simple argument - and there are plenty of *them* about, most from people who have next to no idea about climate. Who think that a snowfall means the climate is getting colder. Who seem to imagine that the IPCC have never heard of the Milankovitch cycle. Or that they haven't taken any account of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud nucleus seeding. And so on.
David Bellamy, for example, is a distinguished botanist. But when you read some of the things he says about climate (assuming he's reported accurately) you do wonder if he's not a few years past it.
An expert in tree ring dating probably won't have much idea of the mathematics of solar nuclear physics (another part of the AGW eqution), nor of the paleontological dating of sedimentary layers. But when all the different disciplines are in general agreement even when they can't appreciate the others' research, they have to be taken seriously - more so, IMO, than all those folk who say it's simple sums.
(PS Sorry about the font a couple of paragraphs above - I checked the spelling of Malankovich on Wiki and the formatting somehow imported itself!)
The subject is so complex and the disciplines so many, that no-one - including each individual of the IPCC - can follow the arguments for and against. The trouble is, the average Joe tends to accept the simple argument - and there are plenty of *them* about, most from people who have next to no idea about climate. Who think that a snowfall means the climate is getting colder. Who seem to imagine that the IPCC have never heard of the Milankovitch cycle. Or that they haven't taken any account of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud nucleus seeding. And so on.
David Bellamy, for example, is a distinguished botanist. But when you read some of the things he says about climate (assuming he's reported accurately) you do wonder if he's not a few years past it.
An expert in tree ring dating probably won't have much idea of the mathematics of solar nuclear physics (another part of the AGW eqution), nor of the paleontological dating of sedimentary layers. But when all the different disciplines are in general agreement even when they can't appreciate the others' research, they have to be taken seriously - more so, IMO, than all those folk who say it's simple sums.
(PS Sorry about the font a couple of paragraphs above - I checked the spelling of Malankovich on Wiki and the formatting somehow imported itself!)
Jan 8th 2010, 5:15 am
#20
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
It follows that the fraction of photons absorbed when passing through this slab is equal to the total opaque area of the particles in the slab, σAN dz, divided by the area of the slab A, which yields σN dz. Expressing the number of photons absorbed by the slab as dIz, and the total number of photons incident on the slab as Iz, the fraction of photons absorbed by the slab is given by
Note that because there are fewer photons which pass through the slab than are incident on it, dIz is actually negative (It is proportional in magnitude to the number of photons absorbed).The solution to this simple differential equation is obtained by integrating both sides to obtain Iz as a function of z
The difference of intensity for a slab of real thickness ℓ is I0 at z = 0, and I1 at z = ℓ. Using the previous equation, the difference in intensity can be written as,
rearranging and exponentiating yields,
This implies that
and
which again takes me back to my point: most people (including myself) have neither the expertise, the time nor the inclination to follow the whole argument through from first principles. For heaven's sake, hundreds of researchers spent decades gathering data, sifting them, amending some to take account of differences in measurement techniques, collating them against each others' findings and coming to the conclusions they did. Sometimes things are just too complex to be laid out in a few sentences for the likes of me to comprehend.If the IPCC is wrong then it truly could be the biggest boo-boo ever in financial terms. But IMO it would be the result of lack of full understanding of all the science, and not of a gigantic conspiracy or of a global fraud by lefties, as is often being said in strident tones.
Jan 8th 2010, 5:19 am
#21
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
But your quote refers to Beers law, which in part (Wikipedia, given the link in that quote) says:
It follows that the fraction of photons absorbed when passing through this slab is equal to the total opaque area of the particles in the slab, σAN dz, divided by the area of the slab A, which yields σN dz. Expressing the number of photons absorbed by the slab as dIz, and the total number of photons incident on the slab as Iz, the fraction of photons absorbed by the slab is given by
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/c...b02e2de4e4.png Note that because there are fewer photons which pass through the slab than are incident on it, dIz is actually negative (It is proportional in magnitude to the number of photons absorbed).
The solution to this simple differential equation is obtained by integrating both sides to obtain Iz as a function of z
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/c...512e604298.png The difference of intensity for a slab of real thickness ℓ is I0 at z = 0, and I1 at z = ℓ. Using the previous equation, the difference in intensity can be written as,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/b...028bcee7a2.png rearranging and exponentiating yields,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/7...70f2161dae.png This implies that
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/8...ea044b6cba.png and
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/b...78893caed0.pngwhich again takes me back to my point: most people (including myself) have neither the expertise, the time nor the inclination to follow the whole argument through from first principles. For heaven's sake, hundreds of researchers spent decades gathering data, sifting them, amending some to take account of differences in measurement techniques, collating them against each others' findings and coming to the conclusions they did. Sometimes things are just too complex to be laid out in a few sentences for the likes of me to comprehend.
If the IPCC is wrong then it truly could be the biggest boo-boo ever in financial terms. But IMO it would be the result of lack of full understanding of all the science, and not of a gigantic conspiracy or of a global fraud by lefties, as is often being said in strident tones.
It follows that the fraction of photons absorbed when passing through this slab is equal to the total opaque area of the particles in the slab, σAN dz, divided by the area of the slab A, which yields σN dz. Expressing the number of photons absorbed by the slab as dIz, and the total number of photons incident on the slab as Iz, the fraction of photons absorbed by the slab is given by
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/c...b02e2de4e4.png Note that because there are fewer photons which pass through the slab than are incident on it, dIz is actually negative (It is proportional in magnitude to the number of photons absorbed).
The solution to this simple differential equation is obtained by integrating both sides to obtain Iz as a function of z
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/c...512e604298.png The difference of intensity for a slab of real thickness ℓ is I0 at z = 0, and I1 at z = ℓ. Using the previous equation, the difference in intensity can be written as,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/b...028bcee7a2.png rearranging and exponentiating yields,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/7...70f2161dae.png This implies that
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/8...ea044b6cba.png and
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/b...78893caed0.pngwhich again takes me back to my point: most people (including myself) have neither the expertise, the time nor the inclination to follow the whole argument through from first principles. For heaven's sake, hundreds of researchers spent decades gathering data, sifting them, amending some to take account of differences in measurement techniques, collating them against each others' findings and coming to the conclusions they did. Sometimes things are just too complex to be laid out in a few sentences for the likes of me to comprehend.
If the IPCC is wrong then it truly could be the biggest boo-boo ever in financial terms. But IMO it would be the result of lack of full understanding of all the science, and not of a gigantic conspiracy or of a global fraud by lefties, as is often being said in strident tones.
Jan 8th 2010, 5:25 am
#22
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
But your quote refers to Beers law, which in part (Wikipedia, given the link in that quote) says:
It follows that the fraction of photons absorbed when passing through this slab is equal to the total opaque area of the particles in the slab, σAN dz, divided by the area of the slab A, which yields σN dz. Expressing the number of photons absorbed by the slab as dIz, and the total number of photons incident on the slab as Iz, the fraction of photons absorbed by the slab is given by
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/c...b02e2de4e4.png Note that because there are fewer photons which pass through the slab than are incident on it, dIz is actually negative (It is proportional in magnitude to the number of photons absorbed).
The solution to this simple differential equation is obtained by integrating both sides to obtain Iz as a function of z
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/c...512e604298.png The difference of intensity for a slab of real thickness ℓ is I0 at z = 0, and I1 at z = ℓ. Using the previous equation, the difference in intensity can be written as,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/b...028bcee7a2.png rearranging and exponentiating yields,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/7...70f2161dae.png This implies that
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/8...ea044b6cba.png and
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/b...78893caed0.pngwhich again takes me back to my point: most people (including myself) have neither the expertise, the time nor the inclination to follow the whole argument through from first principles. For heaven's sake, hundreds of researchers spent decades gathering data, sifting them, amending some to take account of differences in measurement techniques, collating them against each others' findings and coming to the conclusions they did. Sometimes things are just too complex to be laid out in a few sentences for the likes of me to comprehend.
If the IPCC is wrong then it truly could be the biggest boo-boo ever in financial terms. But IMO it would be the result of lack of full understanding of all the science, and not of a gigantic conspiracy or of a global fraud by lefties, as is often being said in strident tones.
It follows that the fraction of photons absorbed when passing through this slab is equal to the total opaque area of the particles in the slab, σAN dz, divided by the area of the slab A, which yields σN dz. Expressing the number of photons absorbed by the slab as dIz, and the total number of photons incident on the slab as Iz, the fraction of photons absorbed by the slab is given by
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/c...b02e2de4e4.png Note that because there are fewer photons which pass through the slab than are incident on it, dIz is actually negative (It is proportional in magnitude to the number of photons absorbed).
The solution to this simple differential equation is obtained by integrating both sides to obtain Iz as a function of z
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/c...512e604298.png The difference of intensity for a slab of real thickness ℓ is I0 at z = 0, and I1 at z = ℓ. Using the previous equation, the difference in intensity can be written as,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/b...028bcee7a2.png rearranging and exponentiating yields,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/7...70f2161dae.png This implies that
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/8...ea044b6cba.png and
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/b...78893caed0.pngwhich again takes me back to my point: most people (including myself) have neither the expertise, the time nor the inclination to follow the whole argument through from first principles. For heaven's sake, hundreds of researchers spent decades gathering data, sifting them, amending some to take account of differences in measurement techniques, collating them against each others' findings and coming to the conclusions they did. Sometimes things are just too complex to be laid out in a few sentences for the likes of me to comprehend.
If the IPCC is wrong then it truly could be the biggest boo-boo ever in financial terms. But IMO it would be the result of lack of full understanding of all the science, and not of a gigantic conspiracy or of a global fraud by lefties, as is often being said in strident tones.
What the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley goes on to show, after accepting the IPCC's relationship, is that the cost of preventing carbon dioxide induced warming is astonishingly greater then the cost of adapting to the temperature change.
What I thought I found out was that the rate of temperature change due to carbon dioxide is quite small implying we have time to adapt and invent and don't need to hit the panic button.
Jan 8th 2010, 5:52 am
#26
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
If you really think that the contents of Wol's post is being done by primary kids in Australia I suggest you round half a dozen year 10's up and get them to solve the issue of cold fusion... and Fermat's theorem during their lunch break.
Jan 8th 2010, 6:39 am
#27
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Today kids have electronic calculators and can do the arithmetic above in under a minute.
Yet you can do none of the above.
Jan 8th 2010, 6:43 am
#28
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Now nip off somewhere... find your average Aussie 8yr old and put Wol's equations in front of them and tell them to give you the answer in 60sec.
Last edited by iamthecreaturefromuranus; Jan 8th 2010 at 6:51 am.
Jan 8th 2010, 7:07 am
#29
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
As you have stated on many occasions, all Brits are ignorant and stupid.... I guess that must be the reason.
Now nip off somewhere... find your average Aussie 8yr old and put Wol's equations in front of them and tell them to give you the answer in 60sec.
Now nip off somewhere... find your average Aussie 8yr old and put Wol's equations in front of them and tell them to give you the answer in 60sec.
Wol's equations are not relevant to the calculation which has been simplified by the IPCC to just what it considers to be the relevant terms:
dT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)
which requires the 3 simple operations of division, logorithm, multiplication which is within the capability of upper primary schools kids.
Jan 8th 2010, 7:15 am
#30
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
I have the advantage of knowing the mathematical ability of certain other Brits so I know that at least a few are not as ignorant and stupid as you would have me believe.
Wol's equations are not relevant to the calculation which has been simplified by the IPCC to just what it considers to be the relevant terms:
dT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)
which requires the 3 simple operations of division, logorithm, multiplication which is within the capability of upper primary schools kids.
Wol's equations are not relevant to the calculation which has been simplified by the IPCC to just what it considers to be the relevant terms:
dT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)
which requires the 3 simple operations of division, logorithm, multiplication which is within the capability of upper primary schools kids.