If only…….

Italics here are to be read as if in a dream state….. sort of like the wavy line thingys on sitcoms that cue the audience that the actor is in a dream state of sort ………

One of the biggest problems with all of this climate science is the fact that we don’t have a test earth to experiment and observe, so the empirical evidence is lacking.  Well, this has been a vexation for all of us.  If only we had a test earth that would include all of the variables, oscillating and cyclic events, and all of the other factors that go into our climate.  We could then drop in some CO2 and see how the test earth would react!  Then we could have some empirical evidence to go by and draw our conclusions based on physics and observations!  Well, that’s just a pipe dream we’ll never have a test earth with all of the natural variants and then add in the impact modern man has made on this earth.

But, if we did, we could set the atmospheric CO2 level back to where they believe the pre-industrial setting was…… about 280ppm ….. and then we could over time add CO2 to the atmosphere and observe the changes.  Of course we’d have to include all of the things mentioned earlier, like the PDO, the AMO, the solar cycles, volcanoes…. well again….. just a pipe dream.

We have over 130 years of temperature measurements with the start point of atmospheric CO2 levels at ~280ppm.  Since then atmospheric CO2 has increased by almost 120ppm.  Or, 43% increase towards a doubling of CO2.  GISS puts the temperature rise at about 0.7°C – 0.8°C.  If GISS is accurate, and, if the posit of the relationship CO2 has with temps is correct, such as the logarithmic effect, then calculating a linear relationship would somewhat overestimate the expected heating.  The 0.8°C represents 43% of the next doubling of CO2.  0.8/0.43 = 1.86 expected linear increase to represent the high end.  0.7/0.43 =1.63 to represent the lower end.  Subtract the 0.8 from 1.86 for the already accomplished warmth and the 0.7 from the 1.63 for the high and low expected resultant.  Again, assuming the veracity of GISS is acceptable and the CO2/temp relationship exists, completion of the next doubling of CO2 (560 ppm) we can expect less than 1 degree increase when factoring in the posited logarithmic relationship.  Linearly we could expect a high/low 1.06/0.93 degree increase when atmospheric CO2 is at 560ppm.  All known and unknown cyclic and intermittent occurrences are included in the calculation except for those which occur outside the 130 year parameter.

Well, I guess we’ll never know.  How could we?  Our models can’t factor in events and effects we are unaware of, nor do we understand the weightings of such events.  We’ll just have to wait and see what is going to happen……. sigh.  Well, it was fun dreaming…….

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to If only…….

1. Mike Davis says:

That .8C is well within the known errors involved in measuring and processing regional temperatures and would be compounded for global. It is entirely possible that with two hundred years of more reliable information they might know more about the natural variations the regional weather experiences. My suspicion is they will need two thousand years of reliable measurements just to get an idea of the extent of the real world weather patterns. They might be able to find a meaningful trend with a data base that long.
Real world proxy evidence suggests the globe has been on a cooling trend for five to eight thousand years that has been interrupted by short periods of warming. Rather than make futile attempts to restrict warming they should be looking for ways to restrict the loss of warmth and slow the cooling.
Like what farmers do with a Greenhouse!

2. PhilJourdan says:

They are testing their theories on reality since there is no test earth. And so far, they have failed. Which has not stopped them from trying to starve more people to satisfy their egos. In other words, we have the worst possible scenario – they are testing without reprecussions and do not care if they are wrong.

• suyts says:

That’s exactly what they’re doing.

But my point was that we do have a test earth, its called history. While we can’t know the future by playing history forward, we certainly can make educated and reasoned assumptions by past observations. We don’t have to know all of the variables to go into our climate, we can be reasonably sure that most of them were included in the 130 year test phase. These do, of course, exclude some well known cycles…. but they’re beyond control anyway.

Even if the measurements are reasonably correct, (there’s evidence GISS exaggerates the warming) and even if the relationship, (CO2 = measurable warming), really does exist (I’m not convinced), and if all of the observed warming is attributable to CO2 (I haven’t see anyone who suggests that) given the empirical evidence already obtained, we can say that a total of less than 1°C can be expected with a doubling of CO2 (560ppm). There just really isn’t any amount of reasoning or logic that dictates any thing else.

• PhilJourdan says:

For the most I agree with you, however on one point I will be anal. History shows us what was – not what could be. A test shows us what could be by changing the inputs in a controlled environment (no pun intended). So while history is a guide, it is not a road map. They are playing Russian roulette with the planet since they do not know what chamber is loaded, but they are bound and determined to pull the trigger.

• Mike Davis says:

The problem is that history shows with little doubt that current weather patterns are very similar to those experienced in the past without human interference. If they can not pull out a signal of human influence they are pissing into the wind. For over twenty years the entire globe has been suffering from their foolishness and the train wreck is continuing in slow motion. I will place the blame for the current global financial crisis exactly where it belongs in the laps of the ECO Whackos that have been driving restrictions of commerce and industry. The exponential growth of the research industry out stripped the real industry’s ability to fund the flights of fantasy that comes out of the Ivory Towers.
History also shows us that we need to balance real industry with dreams.
Millionaires and billionaires in the entertainment fields show us the dreaming is more important than producing. Looking at the funding for climate researchers nails the theory to the barn door.

• suyts says:

Agreed, one can’t play history forward.
Past results do not guarantee future success.

3. Speaking of if onlys………..

for a minute I thought I saw Brett Favre in a Bears jersey.

• suyts says:

lol, AAM, I swear, I’m going to get a sports page for this blog! I come up with a nice piece of logical, proper mathematical, historical, scientific piece and you give me Favre…….. lmao!

Yeh, I heard the chatter, too. No way. McNabb was brought up, too. It would be a bad call on the Bears part, but not a chance. If Orton wasn’t hurt I’d go after him. Wouldn’t that be something? Honestly, I’d go get Collins. He’d fit quite well in the Bears offense. Their biggest problem is RB. I love Barber, but he’s never been the workhorse. They need another one that can stretch the defense horizontally. Barber runs best north/south. No corners. He’s not that fast and he gets worn out if he has close to 20 touches a game. He’s a decent receiver and an adequate blocker. Find someone that can spell him and give a good change-up. Have the QB take care of the ball and rely on the defense. That’s the only way until Cutler gets healthy, and then, he’ll still have to do some magic with Forte out.

I’m prolly going into too much detail, but I love football! I’d give my left whatsy to be able to suit up and play again.

• Mike Davis says:

This:

• suyts says:

Andy got it just about right. You take that “pumpkin” an move it to where it needs to be.

Life is a lot easier when the goal is clear.

• GI think great defense and a QB that takes care of the ball isn’t enough for the Bears. Green Bay and New Orleans score too much for that to work, especially with New Orleans. I think New Orleans is going to be in the Super Bowl this year.

And about bringing up Favre: you have to give me a break. I thought I was going to see him playing again. It’s a sad let down right now. And you did say “If only”, so…………….

4. suyts says:

Farve was one of the few players I really enjoyed watching play. He had a competitive nature which should be visible in all players, but it isn’t. And he had the skill set to do some amazing things. Back in 2001, I introduced my wife to NFL football. The first game I watched with her was a Packer game. She asked about the player that kept his hands in and on “that big guys ass”. She recognized his love for the game. I told her they’d have to drag him off the field. He still wants to, he just can’t. Worse, what he knows, he can’t give to other players. It was just the fire. And that fire is never extinguished. I hope he comes to peace terms with it.

The Bears aren’t going to beat neither the Saints nor the Packers. They just don’t have the horses. Even if Cutler and Forte were healthy……not. But, if I were the Bears and I was facing either one, the way to beat them both is the same. First, good defense. Which is easy to say…. but, they’ve got the crew to make it happen……sort of. The rush has to happen. Peppers was a bit sore, but I think he’ll be ok. No more than 4 men on average. The LB’s have to cover the TE. Graham for NO will be rough for the Bears. I’d make sure Graham got beat to a pulp before he gets off of the line. The Bear LB core is one of the few, I believe, could ensure this happens.
The typical defense that is necessary is to man up with the corners and then zone the safeties for the deep. Again, this exposes the LBs, but it has to be done. The Bear’s LBs close well. This also exposes a DB. On the passing packages of both the Pack and Saints, they’ve got excellent receivers. A rush is a must.

On offense, we’ve seen this before. A couple of years ago, the only way to beat Manning or Brady? Run the ball. Same goes for Brees and Rogers. They can’t beat you if they’re on the bench. Running well does two things. It keeps those maniacs off the field and it beats a defense down. Gains of 3-4 yards on a run should be repeated as often as it can be.

In the end, I don’t think the corners of the Bears can get it done. With the rules today, I’d designate a corner to get thrown out. I’d have him punch the weakest Wide right in the mouth, every play. I’d play to accept some penalties if they were smart and hurtful. That’s the way you beat those guys. But even then, ……

• I don’t think Farve is beyond the ability to play. If he was he would know it himself. And he would say it. I think Lovie Smith is not good when it comes to QB’s. He stuck with Rex Grosmann when EVERYONE knew it would make them lose. Now he’s sticking with a losing situation with QB’s again. He’s always had great special teams, defense, and a good running game. The only time he had a good situation at QB was with Kyle Orton, like you already said. But he didn’t recognize it. What’s sucks for the Bears is that Devin Hester had a TD on the opening kickoff of the Super Bowl. It looked like momentum was so strong for the Bears that they would win. But poor play by Grosmann did all that in.

So now Lovie Smith is making the HUGE mistake of not taking Favre onto the team. I know there would be instant electricity among all the players if they had Favre. And the tv ratings would spike, especially for the Christmas Day game vs. the Packers. What football fan would not have watched that game?

But, I digress from reality.

• suyts says:

Hope springs eternal! I love that! If Farve ever gets to read this, he’ll play only because of the faith you’ve showed him. And he’d play better than he ever could without such motivation! It is what he played for. That is exactly what motivated him. But, AAM, you know time waits on no one. We fight it, but it comes for us anyway.

What I find amazing is that a Bears fan would believe Farve can still do what he did. Vikings fans would still probably want him back if they were anywhere close to the playoffs. That is a great tribute to a great player. In my minds eye, I can still see Roger Staubach playing. He had the same ……. stuff. That spit in the eye, the unstoppable will to win, the dare to attempt what shouldn’t or couldn’t be done. But, Staubach had something more…… peace. I see much of the same in Tebow, but he’s got a long ways to go.

• I’m not saying he would play like he did in his prime. I am saying he is still better than most QB’s in the league and would bring immediate electricity to every player on the Bears. Everyone would play better with him around. Belief is powerful. And Favre doesn’t have to be as good as he used to be to still be good enough to help bring the Bears to another Super Bowl. Their defense is good, and their special teams are exceptional. I don’t have a single doubt Farve would be enough for them—and clearly better than what they have now. I think will and heart are underestimated when it comes to people like Favre. The question I have now is if the Bears lose to Denver, and I think they will, will that be inspiration enough for the Bears to pick up the phone and call 1-800-BRETTFAVRE?

• suyts says:

AAM, I don’t know. Farve was a great player, and you’re right about “heart” and the “will” to win. But, he’s been out of the game. He hasn’t practiced, suited up, or anything. Worse, his style is the exact opposite of what is needed. He’s the epitome of the gunslinger.

You might laugh, but if it were possible, were I the Bears, I’d go after Kitna. He’s got a very good body of work behind him, and it was done with some very poor teams. He did a more than adequate job for the Cowboys last year, and he’s familiar with 2 of the Bears’ receivers and their running back! I don’t know if the ‘boys would let loose of him, but he’d be the one I’d look for. In 2006 and 2007(Lions) he got sacked 114 times and still managed an 80 passer rating. Imagine what he could do with just a decent offense.

• Favre can still play. I don’t have a doubt. Especially since there’s only 4 games left.

.

But I just read that Favre said yesterday he won’t play. So, whatever.

• I wouldn’t laugh about Kitna. He’s a good player.

I’m just sitting here shaking my head over how dumb the Bears are. No wonder they’ve been bad for so many decades. And no wonder they can’t get over the hump. How was it they were able to win a Super Bowl with Ditka??? I know–even a broken clock is right twice a day.

• suyts says:

Ditka knows football. 🙂 That’s how. I think when Halas died the Bears lost much. He was one of the very few that understood every facet of the game. Player/Coach/Owner…. wow!
I once had a book wrote right after the merger about the history of the NFL….. all the way back prior to its inception. It was a fountain of information and insight. All of the stats and great writing to boot!

It burnt in a house fire I had….. sad. And strange that I lament the loss of a book, but I do.

5. Pingback: Pipe volcanoes | Selaiyur

6. PhilJourdan says:

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
December 7, 2011 at 10:54 pm

I’m not saying he would play like he did in his prime. I am saying he is still better than most QB’s in the league and would bring immediate electricity to every player on the Bears. Everyone would play better with him around. Belief is powerful. And Favre doesn’t have to be as good as he used to be to still be good enough to help bring the Bears to another Super Bowl. Their defense is good, and their special teams are exceptional. I don’t have a single doubt Farve would be enough for them—and clearly better than what they have now. I think will and heart are underestimated when it comes to people like Favre. The question I have now is if the Bears lose to Denver, and I think they will, will that be inspiration enough for the Bears to pick up the phone and call 1-800-BRETTFAVRE

I will take exception. I agree with almost all you say, except the Superbowl. Favre is not that good. He is good enough to get them to the dance, but he is no longer good enough to be the prince of the ball. And yes, the Bears defense is one of the best around. There is no question his heart is better than most, but you still have to have the skills and Favre has lost a lot both from the injury and sitting out so long (and of course due to age).