Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by D o u g  C o t t o n 

0
0

No your problem is that you can’t explain why the albedo would not be close to zero without clouds, nor the emissivity closer to 0.75 than to 1.000. So I take it that you concede I’m right.

Yes this is a serious matter involving many billions of dollars of wasted money on a totally false premise that carbon dioxide warms.


Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

PA, Can’t be land use,

The CONSENSUS says so

Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by rls

0
0

Rob

“So sad too bad.”

Reminds me of the story:

Son writes home “No Mon, No Fun, Your Son”
Dad writes back “Too bad, How Sad, Yout Dad”

Keep warm,

Richard

Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Michael

0
0

“Our intelligence and our technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family? Do we value short-term advantages above the welfare of the Earth?

Or will we think on longer time scales, with concern for our children and our grandchildren, to understand and protect the complex life-support systems of our planet? The Earth is a tiny and fragile world. It needs to be cherished.” – Sagan.

Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by kcom1

0
0

I don’t see any irony on display. I see a possible lack of reading comprehension.

Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by kim

0
0

Input effort is the attraction.
========

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0. [1]

But this is an erroneous assumption because the Earth and its subsystems are not blackbodies, but gray-bodies. The Earth and all of its subsystems are gray-bodies because they do not absorb the whole load of radiant energy that they receive from the Sun and they do not emit the whole load of radiant energy that they absorb.’ http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

Is this the new meme?

It doesn’t absorb all of the radiant energy – because of both clouds and reflective surfaces generally. So the energy it does absorb is 240W/m2 on average. And the calculation asks what the emitting temperature of a black body would be.

Secondly – the planet does emit all of the energy it absorbs – eventually. .

Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by rls

0
0

Went to the APC site and learned that Koonin left his job there, because he wants to be involved in the public debate on climate. Also learned that the draft APS statement on climate has been made available to members. What will happen next?


Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by kim

0
0

Saddle up, there’s cattle to water.
=======

Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Rob Ellison

0
0

These are his four essential steps.

1. Energy efficiency
2. Energy research
3. Reforestation
4. Bringing affluence to the very poorest to curb population

I’d suggest we ignore the flowery moral posturing and focus on the practical.

Comment on Week in review by Curious George

0
0

Rob, Doug – I see the 255K problem elsewhere. It is a blackbody temperature – they approximate the Earth as a black body with an infinite thermal conductivity – no temperature difference between day and night, no difference between summer and winter. Guess what – it yields an incorrect result. A “good” modeler never faults the oversimplified model – it must be greenhouse gases, stupid.

Comment on Week in review by D o u g  C o t t o n 

0
0

Now you really have put your foot in it dear Rob. That is not what emissivity is about. The emissivity of a substance has nothing to do with how much radiation has been reflected or absorbed on its way to that substance. Emissivity of a rock, for example, is the same no matter where or on what planet you place it.

Check this reference ,,, http://www.coleparmer.com/TechLibraryArticle/254

where you’ll see these emissivity values …

Basalt: 0.72
Clay: 0.39
Granite: 0.45
Sand: 0.76
Soil 0.38

My value of 0.75 (giving a surface temperature of 299K where albedo and atmospheric absorption are zero) may even be too high for a rocky dry planet without water, vegetation or greenhouse gases.

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

That’s the problem with trying to model climate with a one dimensional static equation – and then getting it wrong.

Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Steven Mosher, after they make the massive adjustment to the satellite temperature data I guess they will need to adjust the OLR data.

Funny how the high northern latitudes started leaking more energy around the start of the “pause”. Increased SSW intensity, strong Arctic Winter Warming, unstable polar vortex, nah, must be the satellite and radiosonde data are wrong :)

Comment on Week in review by jim2


Comment on Week in review by D o u g  C o t t o n 

0
0
Even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> could have helped you Rob my boy ... <i>"Quantitatively, emissivity is the ratio of the thermal radiation from a surface to the radiation from an ideal black surface at the same temperature as given by the Stefan–Boltzmann law."</i> Emissivity is an intrinsic property of a surface, and for a dry rocky surface is would quite likely be 0.75 given the lower values for some rocks and soil. Then you calculate the solar radiation received (a mean of one quarter of 1362W/m^2) without any further deductions because we are assuming a transparent atmosphere that neither reflects or absorbs solar radiation. I would accept that the surface may reflect about 3% but not 30% of the solar radiation. (NASA says the surface reflects 6% but that's with water, snow and ice.)

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

In a video that surfaced on Friday, economist and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said “lack of transparency” and “stupidity of the American voter” were “critical” to passing the president’s unpopular health care law.

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

There is a fundamental relationship (Gustav Kirchhoff’s 1859 law of thermal radiation) that equates the emissivity of a surface with its absorption of incident light (the “absorptivity” of a surface). Kirchhoff’s Law explains why emissivities cannot exceed 1, since the largest absorptivity – corresponding to complete absorption of all incident light by a truly black object – is also 1.[6] Mirror-like, metallic surfaces that reflect light well thus have low emissivities, since the reflected light isn’t absorbed. A polished silver surface has an emissivity of about 0.02 near room temperature. Black soot absorbs thermal radiation very well; it has an emissivity as large as 0.97, and hence soot is a fair approximation to an ideal black body.[10][11] Wikipedia

How can you explain complete and utter cluelessness to the completely and utterly clueless? It is like explaining colour to the blind I suppose.

Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by PA

0
0

CD2 – nice chart … and it did make me recheck my data.
The chart is northern hemisphere above 30° and I believe includes water.

http://www.en.uni-muenchen.de/news/newsarchiv/2014/zabel_landnutzung.html

Globally 54 million km2 is under cultivation according to this AGW article with a total 148 million km2 land area roughly 37% is cultivated.

This doesn’t include forests or abandoned preused rainforest.

It just beggars belief that the subject of land use doesn’t get mentioned much as a climate influence. I didn’t realize how much land had been repurposed.

IPCC says that a 1/10000 change in atmospheric composition has 10 times more influence than over 40% (urban+agricultural) of the land area…

Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Beta Blocker

0
0

Peter Lang, you are obviously not understanding what it was I asked Mr. Planning Engineer to do.

The premise of my request to Mr. Planning Engineer was clearly enunciated to him, and he clearly understood what it was I was asking for, and why. Mr. Planning Engineer’s response then went right to heart of the matter in addressing the topics that I wanted addressed.

The premise I laid out for Mr. Planning Engineer is that we use the entire state of California in a grand experiment in technology application theory and practice to see if a green agenda which strongly pushes the renewables can be successfully implemented from a purely technical perspective. Achieving 50% renewables in the state of California by 2030 is the experiment’s objective.

The premise states that Californians pay for the cost of this grand experiment in a way which spreads the burden as fairly as possible.

The Great California 50% Experiment deliberately excludes the use of nuclear power. The majority of Californians don’t like nuclear power, and by not including nuclear, the rest of us non-Californians gain a wealth of useful information concerning how a renewable energy future can be technically implemented in the absence of nuclear.

Mr. Planning Engineer says that he can get the job done under the constraints and the stipulations that I’ve laid out, with the caveat that if Californians realize what is happening to their costs for energy, and they come to realize how much they will have to pay for this grand experiment, they might well choose to constrain funding for the experiment and he would then be left with the task of holding the whole mess together with shoestrings and duct tape.

If the experiment commenced in 2016, but the Californians got cold feet after a few years, I have to say that it would surely be most ungenerous of them to end the experiment prematurely, thus robbing the rest of us of an excellent opportunity to see just what does, or does not, work well technically in pursuing a very aggressive program for adopting renewable energy.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images