Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

$
0
0

“This is like saying that when you sit on a table, the force that holds you up “is coming from” your making contact with the table and not from the table.”

O…M…G that is one of the least informed things I’ve heard here in a while.

There is no “force” holding me up when I sit on a table. The muscles in my legs provided the force to lift my a$$ up to the table height. Energy isn’t expended to sit there once elevated and potential energy provided by my legs isn’t bleeding off.

And where I come from we sit on chairs not tables. And we don’t have to fuel our chairs so they have enough force to hold us off the ground indefinitely. ROFLMAO


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

$
0
0

Actually Piers Corbyn has an 85% accuracy rate, but then he’s an astrophysicist, not a climate modeler. See his interesting site. http://weatheraction.com/

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

$
0
0

It’s funny how often they jump the gun given climate is a long term proposition.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

It appears that Climate Etc don’t uniformly appreciate these engineering facts:

• ultracentrifuge rotors spin in a vacuum, and

• the rotors themselves are not cooled in any way, and

• the drive-motors are cooled by an ordinary heatsink (no different from the heatsinks of an desktop computer).

Needless to say, the thousand-degree temperatures that the gravito-thermal effect (if it existed!) would generate in million-g untracentrifuges would swiftly destroy biological samples.

Observation  This doesn’t happen.

Conclusion  There just plain ain’t no such thing as a “gravito-thermal” effect!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

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

$
0
0

‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

Curious – we are talking from vastly different perspectives and I can see why but the transition to the threshold concept in the two papers I linked is quite difficult. It is a fundamentally different idea.

Initial values and grid size are interrelated issues. Grid sizes are related to computing power – smaller grid increase the number of calculation exponentially. This results in practical grid sizes that are relatively coarse. Below this grid size are processes of fundamental impostence to climate that need to be parametised – and there are uncertainties in the parametisation that create initial differences. All of the inputs in fact have a range of feasible values that create initial differences that propagate through time in divergent solutions. So there are very many feasible and divergent solutions. This is what McWilliams refers to as irreducible imprecision and Slingo and Palmer as uncertainty in prediction of weather and climate. It leads to the schematic I linked to showing a range of feasible solutions to any model – and hence the need for a probabilistic rather than deterministic solution space.

Models certainly work with ‘necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model’. The structural instability – the divergence of solutions starting from slightly different initial values for data – uncertainties in boundary conditions – are magnified through deterministic chaos in the non-linear equations at the core of the machine.

The plausibility of the algorithms and the coupling is another question entirely. All of the models have problems with regional and natural variation. Is there much point in the models at all? Not for current policy purposes – but I withhold judgment on the long term value. .

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Stephen Wilde

$
0
0

Note that during the very first convective cycle, whilst KE (equivalent to 33K) is being converted to PE and no PE is yet being returned to the near surface, the surface is losing energy by radiation to space AND to the first convective cycle via conduction.so the surface temperature will drop below 255K for a while.

When the first convective cycle completes and adiabatically warmed air is being returned to the surface at the same rate as surface warmth is being taken up adiabatically then the surface temperature rises to 288K because:

i) Incoming solar energy continues to arrive at a rate commensurate with a surface temperature of 255K AND

ii) Descending adiabatically warmed air is returning to the surface at a rate commensurate with surface warming of 33K AND

iii) The next convective cycle is simultaneously removing KE from the surface at a rate commensurate with surface warming of 33K thereby locking it away in PE which is not heat and does not radiate.

The net outcome is that the surface temperature of 288K is provided by 255K from the sun plus 33K from descending air but the surface cannot use that 33K for radiation to space because it is recycled into further convective uplift. Nevertheless the surface temperature will still be enhanced by 33K because the energy required by the ongoing convective cycle is still held at the surface.

The result is a surface temperature of 288K, 255K escaping via radiation to space and 33K continuing to support the weight of the atmosphere.

Some AGW proponents say that adiabatically descending air that has been warmed cannot heat the surface.

It doesn’t have to warm the surface directly. All it has to do is provide a less steep lapse rate which inhibits convection so that the surface warms from solar irradiation more than it otherwise would have done.

We see that all the time within atmospheric high pressure cells containing descending air and often they create an inversion which blocks convection altogether.

The irony is that reducing or blocking convection is what the glass in greenhouses does.

That descending adiabatically warmed air acts just like the glass on a greenhouse roof by reducing convection so it is mass acting via the adiabatic convective overturning cycle that is and always was the true greenhouse effect.

The term ‘Greenhouse Effect’ must have been originally coined by a meteorologist maybe 100 years or more ago who realised that adiabatically warmed air by virtue of being transparent and inhibiting convection would act exactly like a greenhouse roof.

The radiative chaps never learned that so they often say that the term is misleading.

The term might be misleading in terms of their attempt to use it in connection with their imagined radiative only scenario but it is spot on in terms of long established meteorology.

The thing is that meteorology was a very arcane subject in the 20th century and earlier.

Hardly anyone knew anything about it and a lot of the ways the laws of physics play out within an actual atmosphere are counterintuitive and hard to envisage such as the thorny concept of adiabatic processes.Everyone I discuss it with is oblivious to its true nature.

In the 1980s or thereabouts a bunch of astrophysicists thought they could take over climate science with no knowledge of basic meteorolgy and they have spread nothing but confusion in their wake.

Made them rich and famous though.

The Greenhouse Effect is perfectly described as a process that occurs as a result of a transparent layer of warm air that inhibits convection so as to allow the sun to warm the surface to above the S-B figure of 255K.

On average for the Earth as a whole the surface temperature enhancement for the mass induced ghreenhouse effect is 33K leaving no room for any contribution from radiative gases.

Believe it or not. Your choice :)

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

$
0
0

That’s not an ad Hominem, it’s just an insulting analogy. Basically name calling.

I don’t get the analogy.

Is it more conspiracy theory ideation, does he think skeptics say things just mask what they really believe so they can quietly hunt down real answers unnoticed?

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

$
0
0

Another member of the vast conspiracy to attribute everything to conspiracy ideation.


Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

$
0
0

Pierre-Normand | December 2, 2014 at 11:31 am |

“A Carnot engine works just the same in the absence of gravity.”

Who cares? Convective cells in the earth’s atmosphere won’t work in the absence of gravity. Duh.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$
0
0

Pekka, “All gas centrifuges used for isotope separation are such devices. Thus measurements of temperature distributions in such gas centrifuges should provide the evidence.”

I can’t find any. From what I have seen most applications involve heating or cooling to improve separation. What effect there is is so small it would be difficult to measure.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

$
0
0

Pierre-Normand | December 2, 2014 at 11:31 am |

“A Carnot engine works just the same in the absence of gravity.”

Carnot defines “work” as “weight lifted through a height”.

What does something weigh in the absence of gravity?

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

‘Needless to say, the thousand-degree temperatures that the gravito-thermal effect (if it existed!) would generate in million-g untracentrifuges would swiftly destroy biological samples.’

Temperatures created presumably by energy from quantum vacuum zero-point energy spontaneously emerging in this space/time as the rotor spins?

But it is potential energy of the atmosphere that I wanted to discuss briefly. The atmosphere has no potential energy as a whole – it is sitting in a gravity well and has no potential to flow anywhere by and large. Within the atmosphere there are multiple processes that change the height of individual molecules as some rise and some fall – but this doesn’t change the net zero of the PE of the atmosphere as a whole. The table sits on the floor – it has zero PE assuming it doesn’t collapse.

The processes for air movement are turbulence and convection – these change the bulk properties of specific regions of the atmosphere and these processes – extending down to high frequency micro-eddies – change the velocities of individual molecules as energies ebb and flow. .

The point is that simple Newtonian consideration of potential and kinetic energy at the molecular level do no begin to approach the complexities of the real atmosphere.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$
0
0

Fan do you have a site for anyone that claimed the effect was huge?

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

$
0
0

Mann’s hockey stick paper was published in 1998. Climategate happened in 2009.
How come that from 1998 to 2009 climate scientists did not notice the nonsensical nature of the hockey-stick ? Did they need climategate to “open their eyes”? Are climate scientists so terribly incompetent that they can’t read and asses a paper? Are they so obtuse? Was the uncertainty monster born only in 2009 ?

How could such nonsense as the hockey-stick be published, and pushed with such vehemence and force upon the public? And adopted as the cover illustration on IPCC’s TAR ? And all the climate science community actively applauded with enthusiasm!

It is really a most puzzling phenomenon. One of a whole series.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“The sooner you withdraw from this line of discussion, the better. Stephen Wilde has been arguing his nonsense physics about the adiabatic process against a whole truckload of pretty hardcore sceptics on Tallbloke’s blog for a long time. ”

he’s a lawyer. Note you will never see a formula or quantitative statement from him that can be tested.


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

$
0
0

I would very much like you to read my latest works.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
Thank you.
Tim
Historical Climatologist

PS My website is http://www.drtimball.com

My documentary

My recent presentation:

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

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

$
0
0

Sorry article is too polemic and lacking any “such as”; “for example”…

Bloody lightweight.

Talk of leadership. This not a fecking political movement or at least it shouldn’t be. Curry seems to be part of the problem in this respect.

The “sociology of climate science” says all one needs to know about how twisted this branch of science has become. Curry, once a bridge is now part of the problem. She seems confused as to whether this a branch of physical science or a anthropogenic peculiarity.

I dont give a crraap anymore this, like Curry, is becoming irrelevant. We are now see the passing of a political generation that gives as@”t

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

$
0
0

Need to add…

….gives a s@”t now giving way to those tgat dont. Curry now sees her celebrity vanish. How will they (Watts etc.) react? With selif-grandiose articles like this. Beware the skeptic whose interests mirror the believer!

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

$
0
0

What is a “cabal,” if not a group conspiring to accomplish some goal?

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images