Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Matthew R Marler

December 1, 2014, 3:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Willis Eschenbach

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joseph

$

0

0

a fan of *MORE* discourse: • ignorance that feels like knowledge, and

Maybe you know the answer to my questions.

1. If the Earth surface warms by 1C, how much does the rate of evaporative-transpirational transfer of energy from surface to upper troposphere change?

2. Does that change increase or decrease the cloud cover? — In what regions?

3. Does it increase or decrease rainfall? — in what regions?

4. In the places and times that generally produce evaporation (e.g. early summer days in the American Midwest), what are the net effects of an increase of 4W/m^2 downwelling LWIR? (evaporation, cloud cover, rainfall.)

My ignorance of these topics feels much like ignorance. If you know who has the information and where it has been published, please share it. As you probably know, Romps et al recently derived the result that a 1C increase in the surface temperature would produce a 12% increase in the lightning rate; apparently with no increase in the rate of evaporative-transpirational energy transfer that produces the clouds, rain, and lightning in the first place. Perhaps you can fill in the gap here between the surface warming and the lightning bolt increase.

---

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Willis Eschenbach

December 1, 2014, 3:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by cwon14

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Matthew R Marler

$

0

0

Hey, Doc, good question. Yes, any mono-atomic gas doesn’t either absorb or emit thermal IR. The usual example is argon. Gases can only absorb and emit IR by flexing, stretching, twisting, or otherwise disturbing the bonds between the molecules that make up the gas … but being mono-atomic, argon has no such bonds.

Argon can absorb and radiate at other frequencies, absorbing radiation by kicking an electron up to a higher orbit and radiating it when the electron drops down again. But thermal radiation at the temperatures found on earth doesn’t have enough energy to kick an electron out of orbit.

w.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by cwon14

December 2, 2014, 11:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Willis Eschenbach

$

0

0

Good points, like all extreme subtopics….green culture, AGW in particular….it’s never been a referendum issue at a national level. Those interested know what more government means and will vote perhaps accordingly but likely in sequence to other policy directions.

Of course Obama is making it a cringe worthy acid test for Hillary who needs to fake being a moderate more than ever for a general election. Just as Obama did in 08′. The greens just might revolt and go full moon with likes of Warren etc. she can’t be happy seeing the EPA executive authority abuse and having the XL debate left for the 16′ cycle either in primaries or national elections.

When it gets close to broad referendum Greens are going to lose. This why they do most of their damage in small, opaque elitist circles.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Matthew R Marler

December 2, 2014, 11:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by R. Gates

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by cwon14

$

0

0

Steven Mosher: That diversion allowed them to ignore
Mcintyre issues

So you decline to say who got away with it or what they got away with. McIntyre is not responsible for explaining what you meant.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by R. Gates

December 2, 2014, 11:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Matthew R Marler

$

0

0

“David in Cal | December 2, 2014 at 1:31 pm | :

R. Gates, maybe 2014 will turn out to be the warmest year on record, based on one of several temperature measures. That’s no big deal, because:

1. 2014 will not be the warmest year based on other standard measures. (These are “secret” standards the only the pseudoscience crowd understands or agrees with?)
2. A warm 2014 wouldn’t change the fact that we remain in a lengthy Hiatus that’s quite different from the alarmist models. (The models are always wrong, but their failure to track natural variability in a chaotic system does not mean the climate system is not gaining energy. Have you been following anything here? Regarding the “hiatus”, from the full climate system perspective, the hiatus really doesn’t exist. It’s a false-flag argument regarding the basis validity of AGW theory, which is about energy accumulation.)
3. A warm 2014 doesn’t prove that future warming will be catastrophic. (I agree, nor does is prove that it won’t be, but still keeps the possibility open that it could be.)
4. A warm 2014 doesn’t show what portion of the warming has been anthropogenic. (No, it takes some pretty powerful supercomputers to indicate that with any degree of confidence. Likely we’re at least 95% sure that 2014 will be at or near record warmth primarily as a the result of anthropogenic forcing.)

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison

December 2, 2014, 11:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by R. Gates

$

0

0

There is – objectively and from their own words – a cabal of demented progressives with an insane social and economic agenda. I don’t think Bill Gates is part – but haven’t exonerated Jimmy Dee yet.

As I said they both applaud and deny it. No conspiracy – it is all just right wing fantasy.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by aaron

December 2, 2014, 11:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison

$

0

0

WUWT crowd has gone downhill a bit lately. The post quality too.

There are still very good posts, and very good commenters, but there is a lot of noise.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by steven

December 2, 2014, 11:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Paul

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by aaron

$

0

0

Gates, it doesn’t matter to me if you throw them under the bus. I knew they were going there eventually. It just happened a little quicker than I had expected :).

---

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Paul

December 2, 2014, 11:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by steven

$

0

0

History will care…and it will remember…

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison

December 2, 2014, 11:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Paul

$

0

0

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin

Yes – there is a big lie.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by ordvic

December 2, 2014, 11:55 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison

$

0

0

Third times a charm and lessons learned in insulting others grandfathers.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by JCH

December 2, 2014, 11:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by John

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by ordvic

$

0

0

2010 started hot, and got cold.

2014 started cold, and has been getting warmer.

With SOI heading south yet again, C&W could set a record/near record if November and December are warm enough.

UAH November does not have much of a North American cold wave. Perhaps offset by positive ONI.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by John

December 2, 2014, 12:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Kristian

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by JCH

$

0

0

Seems like motherhood and apple pie issues?
So, what are we to make of all this?
•  The ‘establishment’ has maintained that Climategate… and We found inquiries to be Insightful!
• There was the “Wegman Report” which told the Truth!

So, what has changed…?
This foolishness still has the smell of “Mom’s” pie and sad results from Kiddies at the Table.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Kristian

December 2, 2014, 12:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by John

$

0

0

Sure. No one can force you not to cherry-pick your responses. It just speaks volumes when you do …

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Steven Mosher

December 2, 2014, 12:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Kristian

$

0

0

“So you decline to say who got away with it or what they got away with. McIntyre is not responsible for explaining what you meant.”

Briffa and Wahl for circumventing the AR4

you dont even know the basics.

later Mann for passing on the instruction to delete mails.

---

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by steven

December 2, 2014, 12:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

JCH, C&W don’t think it’s likely and they know more about their system than I do so I bow to their superior knowledge on the topic. I don’t care which data set people prefer but if one is superior, as the argument was going, it should be superior regardless of the results it shows. I also don’t care if it is the warmest year or not. I’m looking 10-20 years down the road and consider the year to year and month to month comparisons sort of a waste of time.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joseph

December 2, 2014, 12:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by John

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by steven

$

0

0

<blockquote>curtain machinations of the climate cabal</blockquote> The who?? Sounds like a conspiracy..

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by John

December 2, 2014, 12:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joseph

$

0

0

Dr.,
Hero is a title Won by Few.

YOU make THE Difference!!!

Best Wishes to You and Yours this Holiday Season!

Best Regards,
John

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

December 2, 2014, 12:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by John

$

0

0

“the work that is responsible for the increase in gravitational potential of the rising air parcel comes from the surrounding (and ultimately, as I argued, from the gravitational potential energy lost by other parcels of air that are descending while the expanding parcel rises in their midst). ”

Totally confused and wasting myeveryone’s time.

Spooky potential energy exchanges at a distance. Now I’ve heard everything.

The standard model is missing yet another particle now… a particle that carries the force of gravity and a particle that carries the force of gravitational potential energy. ROFL

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison

December 2, 2014, 12:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

$

0

0

‘That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.’ Trenberth

There were two things that struck me as funny in the 2 most famous emails. The ‘hiding the decline’ and the ‘surely it isn’t decadal’ emails. That was as far as I bothered to read in fact.

Hiding the decline is obviously a questionable scientific procedure – and surely it isn’t decadal is just tragically incompetent given what was known at the time.

I note that the PDO turned positive in 2007 – giving hope that the big lie would be redeemed by a deus ex machina intervention. They are still looking for this miraculous turnaround. A super El Nino, A reversal of the PDO. The hottest year on record – in an accident of early warming of the central Pacific. Perhaps we should do a running 12 month mean instead?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/mean:12

It is quite obvious that nothing has changed – it is multi-decadal – the big distortion and spin continues – the delusion is as vivid as ever.