1. I'm guessing that scientists measure the temperature at a bunch of different places and, y'know, average them.
How do you determine the temperature of points with no measurements? Would it make sense to compare various predicted temperatures at those locations produced by various models with observations taken at those locations? Would you expect this sort of thing to be done regularly?
My real point though is that it is a calculated value which doesn't uniquely represent some aspect of the climate system, and the aspect it nominally represents is generally limited to the surface of the oceans, land, and a couple meters of atmosphere above it. Though some of these averages are actually of the entire troposphere, while others include values like the ocean heat content.
2. Submit your research somewhere reputable if you think it'll challenge overwhelming scientific consensus
I've long since discovered that trying to do this is futile. The fact that it is discussed in terms of a consensus should have been the giveaway, but I'm dense. You don't change a political position with science, and trying to argue politics on the merits of science goes nowhere.
It was for a school project originally, though I continued doing the experiments on my own after I finished the paper. Mostly it was about testing whether calculations which use an averaged power of sunlight over a period of time were in fact equivalent to ones using the full power of sunlight for half the time with a cooling period for the other half.
I set it up in the bathroom after determining that I could closely control and account for the day to day temperature changes in there during the winter with the vents and such closed. It has 4 light bulb sockets so I simply used different arrangements (swapping them to account for variations per bulb and geometry) and was able to get reproducible results with the 4x60 W and 2x60 W setups. The summary being that a system with twice the energy input for half the time does not follow a temperature profile like the system with the normal input for the full period of time, and the 2x input + 1/2 time system maintains a higher average temperature than the alternative.
I used those findings and observations to attempt to produce an energy budget along those lines, accounting for the geometry of the system, plus energy storage, transfer, and release.
The various methods I used to try and control the CO2 content showed no influence, but that is as likely a failure on my part as a disproof. All I had available were large freezer bags and bottles of coke for CO2 sources, so I partially sealed a bottle in one bag, sucked the air out with a straw before closing it completely, then carefully shook up and broke the seal on the bottle to inflate the bag with as close to pure CO2 as I could manipulate reliably. For the other bag I just shook it out to inflate it to the same size as the other bag with a bottle inside that I had broken the seal on in a different room, so both were the same size and thermal mass ideally. Later I found that there might be more overlap in the freezer bag IR range with that of CO2 than I thought so the lack of results there is inconclusive.
This was before it clicked that I was wasting time trying to argue science in a political discussion, of course.
3+4. Models are pretty useful but the ones you're proposing are based on the idea that greenhouse gases are not linked to climate change, and therefore irrelevant
Indeed! If the system is not well represented by models with a strong CO2 feedback, then it is a lot more difficult to argue we should regulate CO2 emissions because of *vague scary sounding stuff without even a chart to point at* huh?
Author
Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée (Read 1581836 times)