Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Rob R

$
0
0

In the discussion above there is reference to planets in space with no nearby stars and just the cosmic background radiation. The planet is either atmosphere-less, has a non-GHG atmosphere or has a GHG atmosphere. It also has either a water surface or a rock surface.

What about an atmosphere-less planet (called Vulcan) that is both solid (rock) and translucent at the surface with an optical depth of 50 metres. It is a grey body with an emissivity of say 0.85. What is the surface temperature? Is it higher than the cosmic background temperature?

The planet Vulcan is not transparent and it is not opaque. It is made of a substance intermediate between black obsidian and transparent silica glass.

Now put the planet into our solar system at the orbital position of the Earth. What is the new surface temperature of Vulcan? Presumably it is not the standard SB temperature of 255 k. It must be significantly higher.

If the surface temperature is substantially greater than 255 k then this must reduce the approximate warming that can be attributed to the greenhouse effect on Earth. This is because the Earth has an ocean that is an analogue for the translucent obsidian. The Earth’s translucent ocean lifts the average surface temperature regardless of the presence or absence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so long as its surface does not freeze over.

An argument is made in a previous comment that with a non-GHG atmosphere the Earth’s oceans would evaporate, condense, and fall to the surface as ice, thereby freezing all water at the surface. This does not apply to Vulcan. Nor does it actually apply to the real Earth as the real Earth always has an atmosphere. In other words the argument is a red-herring.

So on Earth how much of the observed greenhouse effect is caused by the the translucent nature of about 70% of its surface, given that most of the ocean surface is not frozen, and how much is caused by GHG in the atmosphere?


Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Rob Ellison

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Tom C

$
0
0

mosomoso –

In complete agreement. I have analyzed data and the associated graphs my entire career. It took me about 30 seconds to conclude that the HS was bogus. I almost think that it was counter-productive for Steve and Ross to spend so much effort taking it apart bit by bit. A lot of laughter might have been more effective.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by ianl8888

$
0
0

> have to give up cars and air conditioning

Not a hope :)

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

$
0
0

Joshua, Fanboy and Michael are the old women walking around Red Square holding pictures of Stalin. Their time is close to up, the age of full Greenshirt stupid is closing and I just don’t see the millennial generation maintaining the dogmatism of the boomers. Stick a fork in it, 2006 was the peak and almost pointless at that.

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

$
0
0

There are many paths to appreciating thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and microscale (quantum) dynamics. Here is one such path … it’s optimized for fun learning AND practical applications.

—————
FOMD’s Thermodynamical Reading List

Knuth’s “A=B” essay  for overall philosophy (e.g. “Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.”)

Zia et al on Legendre transform  to make sure your mathematical foundations are tuned-up.

Frenkel and Smith on classical simulation algorithms  to get your feet wet, Knuth style.

Onsager on entropy  to define entropy the modern way … as a thermodynamic potential, whose hessian is specified by local fluctuations, from which all other potentials can be derived (per Zia et al.).

Nielsen and Chuang on quantum dynamics  to appreciate how quantum measurement back-action enters into the Third Law.

Murcko’s video on quantum simulation agorithms  to advance to the super-hip frontier of modern quantum simulation research.
————–

Happy learning to all Climate Etc thermodynamicists!


@inbook{Knuth:1996it, Author = {Donald E.
Knuth}, Publisher = {A.~K.~Peters, Ltd.},
Title = {$A=B$}, Year = 1996}

@article{Zia:2009lr, Author = {Zia, R. K.
P. and Redish, Edward F. and McKay, Susan
R.}, Journal = {American Journal of
Physics}, Number = {7}, Pages = {614-622},
Title = {Making sense of the {L}egendre
transform}, Volume = {77}, Year = {2009}}

@book{Frenkel:1996ly, Address = {San
Diego}, Author = {Frenkel, Daan and Smit,
Berend}, Publisher = {Academic Press},
Title = {Understanding {M}olecular
{S}imulation: from {A}lgorithms to
{A}pplications}, Year = {1996}}

@article{Onsager:1953fk, Author = {Onsager,
L. and Machlup, S.}, Journal = {Physical
Review}, Pages = {1505 - 1512}, Title =
{Fluctuations and irreversible processes},
Volume = {91}, Year = {1953}}

@book{Nielsen:00, Address = {Cambridge},
Author = {Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L.
Chuang}, Publisher = {Cambridge Univ{.}\
Press}, Title = {Quantum {C}omputation and
{Q}uantum {I}nformation}, Year = 2000}

@inproceedings{Murcko:2014aa, Author =
{Mark Murcko}, Booktitle = {Advances in
Drug Discovery and Development}, Month =
{24 September}, Organization = {Chemical
\&\ Engineering News (Virtual Symposium)},
Title = {Accelerating Drug Discovery:
The Accurate Prediction of Potency"},
Year = {2014}}

\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 Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Rob Ellison,

Any warmer body will emit radiation which if absorbed by a cooler body will result in both bodies being in thermal equilibrium, eventually, in the absence of changing external energy inputs.

If you are referring to the nonsensical CO2 warming concept, may I respectfully point out that energy emanating from the surface results in a lowering of surface temperature. Even if one hundred percent of the outgoing energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, and radiated back to the surface, the best that can happen is that the surface temperature does not fall.

Now the only thing that will return one hundred percent of the outgoing radiation is a perfect insulator, which by definition will allow no energy from the Sun to reach the surface. Of course, Warmists continue to ignore physics, and espouse the nonsense that arises from their ignorance. The fact that the CO2 warming effect, like the gravito-thermal effect, cannot be shown to exist, deters the Warmists not one jot.

In relation to the Earth having cooled since its creation in a molten state, you seem to dispute this being fact. I must admit to the assumption that the Earth’s surface was originally molten, and observe that currently it is not, and draw the inference that it has therefore cooled.

You may assume that the Earth was created at absolute zero or thereabouts, and due to the magical and mysterious effects of CO2, in combination with the distant Sun, heat has been absorbed to the point where the interior of the Earth is now molten, and the surface will continue to warm until it too, is molten. AFOMD appears to subscribe to this view, as does another commenter who proposes the mechanism of heat creep to overcome the inherent defects of the initial cold Earth theory.

I suppose I should ask if you believe that the Earth was created with a colder surface than is now the case, and if you believe that the core, if hotter than space surrounding the Earth, is either losing no energy at all, or accruing energy and heating up. I presume you can adduce some logic to support your contention, and if so, I would be most grateful to be apprised of same.

I suggest, once again, that you quote me directly, rather than ascribing to me words which you think or wish I uttered.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Peter Davies

$
0
0

Mosomoso +1 and very well put! Splicing disparate time series data achieves nothing from a descriptive nor predictive POV.


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

$
0
0

Does the legacy of Climategate include some doubt about how accurately global temperatures can be measured? Not at the BBC, where David Shukman claims that 2014 is heading to be the warmest year on record, saying in justification: “The provisional record for 2014 is only slightly higher than for the previous record year of 2010 – one-hundredth of a degree.” I commented that no one can accurately measure global temps to tenth of a degree, never mind a hundreth.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816

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

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rud Istvan

$
0
0

RB, I would beg to differ, although you might quibble about your qualifier ‘obvious’.
In climate science, The ‘pause’ has falsified climate models by the climatologists own prior definitions. See essay An Awkward Pause in Blowing Smoke, foreward from JC herself. Many of the predicted ‘climate catastrophes’ aren’t happening. Lots of essays from Polar Bears to Northwest Passage to Extreme Extremes. The Stadium Wave hypothesis is one of several more specific reinstatements of cyclical natural variation, which Mann’s hockey stick sought to expunge.
In AGW remediation (what the politics is about), the costly consequences of renewable intermittency become ever clearer. See Planning Engineer’s recent guest posts here. The physical and economic fallacies behind other ‘mitigation’ proposals also become clearer. See essays Hydrogen Hype and Clean Coal (the latter guest posted by Judith here previously after her usual vigorous editorial scrub) for concrete examples. I consider those to be science based.

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

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rud Istvan

$
0
0

John Smith, eloquent. Deep. You have more than returned the favor upthread. May I have permission to cite with attribution?

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

$
0
0

“Conspiracy” does not imply that the conspirators know themselves to be in the wrong somehow.

Really? How do you reconcile that with the actual definition of a “conspiracy.”

An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

Acombination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

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

$
0
0

If the Sun is a pulsar, then reality is that mankind is powerless over the future.

Even Barbara Streisand and Al Gore can’t predict the future, but they can sneer at the religionists who told them a Higher Power controls our fate.


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

$
0
0
Dick, the problem with this explanation is that for every area that you think is being exaggerated, you would have to "know" that <b>every</b> individual in the group has the same bias in the same direction and is unaware of it. I don't think you can logically do that. Trying to generalize in that way is not possible.

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

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

$
0
0

Right cwon, because we all know that the left wants there to be global warming that could lead to damaging impacts. I mean who wouldn’t want that??

Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later (Climate Etc.) | Uma (in)certa antropologia

$
0
0

[…] Posted on December 1, 2014 […]

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Dear Professor Mike

Any warmer body will emit radiation which if absorbed by a cooler body will result in both bodies being in thermal equilibrium, eventually, in the absence of changing external energy inputs.

Far be it for me to correct such a distinguished scholar of quantum mechanics. But dilute gases may not be a body in the sense of a fluid or a solid – and may not emit in a continuous spectrum.

If you are referring to the nonsensical CO2 warming concept, may I respectfully point out that energy emanating from the surface results in a lowering of surface temperature. Even if one hundred percent of the outgoing energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, and radiated back to the surface, the best that can happen is that the surface temperature does not fall.

Nonsensical? Right – got it. Added energy at the surface does not result in a temperature rise.

Now the only thing that will return one hundred percent of the outgoing radiation is a perfect insulator, which by definition will allow no energy from the Sun to reach the surface. Of course, Warmists continue to ignore physics, and espouse the nonsense that arises from their ignorance. The fact that the CO2 warming effect, like the gravito-thermal effect, cannot be shown to exist, deters the Warmists not one jot.

Right – the increase in IR interaction with gases in the atmosphere between 1970 and 1997 is not observational proof in the atmosphere of laboratory results.

Git it – sorry.

In relation to the Earth having cooled since its creation in a molten state, you seem to dispute this being fact. I must admit to the assumption that the Earth’s surface was originally molten, and observe that currently it is not, and draw the inference that it has therefore cooled.

You may assume that the Earth was created at absolute zero or thereabouts, and due to the magical and mysterious effects of CO2, in combination with the distant Sun, heat has been absorbed to the point where the interior of the Earth is now molten, and the surface will continue to warm until it too, is molten. AFOMD appears to subscribe to this view, as does another commenter who proposes the mechanism of heat creep to overcome the inherent defects of the initial cold Earth theory.

Obviously I had assumed heat transfers from the core and mantle at 0.05W/m2 was some 3000 times less than the 161W/m2 hitting the surface from the Sun – and even the changes in the energy flux – incoming and outgoing – were orders of magnitude greater then the core and mantle flux.

Sorry. Where would I be without Professor Mike.

I suppose I should ask if you believe that the Earth was created with a colder surface than is now the case, and if you believe that the core, if hotter than space surrounding the Earth, is either losing no energy at all, or accruing energy and heating up. I presume you can adduce some logic to support your contention, and if so, I would be most grateful to be apprised of same.

You have obviously forgotten again that we have discussed this – and I have gone into the various processes that create core and mantle heat.

I had thought that the surface warms and cools due to the transient difference between incoming and outgoing energy at a nominal top of atmosphere where all energy flux is radiative. This is obviously a fairly popular. I apologise for falling for it.

I suggest, once again, that you quote me directly, rather than ascribing to me words which you think or wish I uttered.

You may suggest again – but I did quote your comment of a month ago that I referenced twice – and which you had forgotten – despite being reluctant to search through the back issues for something that was clear in my memory. You then complained that I went searching through the back issues. As I said – you have many more important things on your mind than a throwaway comment that you were sorry that I was finding the paper difficult but that you understood it perfectly. I am disconcerted – what I claimed you said – was what you had said.

Equally my shortform versions – CO2 has never warmed anything by surrounding it – the Earth is cooling from the core out – seem quite accurate depictions of your positions on the topics.

Having memorized each and every one of your uniquely valuable contributions – I humbly suggest that this may be another – quite understandable – memory lapse and not bad faith at all.

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images