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

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

The difference is spending $2.5 trillion to 2030 on smart goals with practical objectives – and continuing to waste our time with insane ideas of social and economic transformation.

FOMBS is a master only of the frivolous and the superficial. Does there seem to be a pattern emerging here?


Comment on Open thread by Skiphil

0
0

FOMT, you are a disgusting human being overflowing with ad homs, and that is why few here bother to engage you in any substantive way. You don’t “argue fair” and you are not fit for rational, open-minded discussion.

Comment on Open thread by David Springer

0
0

Givens:

1) Equilibrium point is maximum entropy.
2) Maximum entropy is when there is no mechanical energy gradient.
3) Mechanical energy gradient includes gravitational potential and kinetic energy together.

Therefore, since the gravity field establishes a potential energy gradient from zero at elevation zero to maximum at elevation maximum then temperature gradient will adjust so that there is no mechanical energy gradient. The temperature gradient is established by collision strength being made asymmetrical in the vertical axis – kinetic energy flows downward because molecular collisions are stronger in the downward direction aided by gravity and weaker in the upward direction opposed by gravity.

Comment on Open thread by Fernando Leanme

0
0

I think it’s pretty simple, yguy. The “conservatives” aren’t real Republicans. And people like me, who voted REPUBLICAN are getting really tired of conservatives. Maybe they need to form their own Conservative party. If they bring me along another crazy nut who sings “Bomb Iran” and picks a Sarah Palin type for VP I’d rather vote for Governor Moonbeam for president. We got too many legless veterans, and wars the “conservatives” didn’t know how to win, to risk another crazy nut in that job.

Comment on Open thread by David Springer

0
0

The instrument record before satellites in 1979 is not global and cannot be used for comparison. At least a 60-year cycle with global measurement is needed otherwise a record is insignificant. Further making the measure meaningless is solar cycles. The twentieth century saw a solar grand maximum and the effects of waxing and waning solar activity is not well known except to say that known regional warming and cooling (eg. Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period) lasting many decades in the past spookily align with changes in solar activity directly observed through sunspot counts and indirectly recorded with changes in radio-isotope production in the atmosphere corresponding with more or fewer very high energy particles impacting same.

Comment on Open thread by Fernando Leanme

0
0

It’s a realistic thingy in my case. I’d rather focus on geoengineering and solar, and nuclear R&D. The world can’t afford the solutions proposed by the warmist camp pseudo engineers, who don’t understand much about real life decisions outside the ivory towers.

And to be honest I’m much more worried about the fact that we are running out of oil. We can do ok with sea level 5 meters higher. But the lack of a liquid fuel like oil, and the associated shortages of raw materials for plastics is going to get a lot of people killed.

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘Feature EnergyRenewables
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change

‘Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?’

The Google project has been canned – but the question asked in the article is – even if it worked would it succeed in reducing emissions?

‘As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.’

Quite frequently with FOMBS the divergence from reality is simply mind boggling.

Comment on Open thread by nickels

0
0

Just numbers is all… better chance to win, taking opportunity where it exists….


Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort

0
0

You have missed my point, tim. Nickels is a victim of Democrat propaganda that is rolled out in every election to caricature Republican candidates as reactionary throwbacks who want to take away people’s bedroom rights and their social security checks.

I asked the little dude a legitimate question and he tells me I am the kind of person that keeps him from voting Republican and whines about bullying. In fact, I am the kind of person that has very nearly made the ultimate sacrifice numerous times, so that low information civilians like nickels may continue to have the right to negate my vote.

I don’t have any spare cigars or cartridges, tim. And the prone, or supine, position would be very likely for you, if it came to that:)

Comment on Open thread by RiHo08

0
0

Rob Ellison,

I was interested in the Riche & Caldeira paper regarding a pulse of CO2 and the model simulation estimate of a climate sensitivity number.

I had noted a while back that the Mt. Pinatubo eruption had impacted the global surface temperature record which resumed its pre-eruption baseline three years later. I have also been aware that the gases that are emitted include CO2, and according to Timothy Casey October 2009, http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net, more CO2 may be ejected than SO2. To me, the eruption of Pinatubo is the same experiment in nature that R&C performed by model simulation.

To me, the return to baseline of the global surface temperature record after Pinatubo, suggests that the CO2 warming effect was either minuscule and/or not long lasting such that when the SO2 and other aerosols rained out, the earth was no warmer than before the eruption. A CO2 sensitivity would then be very low.

I’m just wondering out loud.

Comment on Open thread by nickels

0
0

“In fact, I am the kind of person that has very nearly made the ultimate sacrifice numerous times, so that low information civilians like nickels may continue to have the right to negate my vote. ”

If in fact the first part is true then I have to thank you for that. And for the right vote either way.
And I understand that my original wording was provocative so I’ll thuink about that next time.

Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort

0
0

Which conservative wars are you talking about, Fernando? Korea-Truman? Vietnam-Kennedy/Johnson? First Gulf War-Bush Sr.? Second Gulf War- Bush Jr.? Weren’t the Bushes mainstream Republicans?

Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort

0
0

The only conservative President we have had in forever, was Ronald Reagan, who won the Cold War.

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

David Springer assumes [not quite rightly] “Maximum entropy is when there is no mechanical energy gradient.”

Well *THERE’S* yer problem!

Fact  The well-validated Sackur-Tetrode entropy function depends upon *BOTH* mechanical energy *AND* particle density.

Consequence  The distribution of density and temperature, in a gravitational column at maximal entropy, is stationary under variations of *BOTH* mechanical energy *AND* particle density.

Result  When density and energy *BOTH* are varied, subject to conservation of total energy and total mass, and the total entropy is required to be stationary, then the gravito-thermal effect disappears, and all the results of standard thermodynamics (like Boyle’s Law) are obtained.

It is a pleasure to concretely assist your thermodynamical understanding, David Springer!

\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 Open thread by aaron

0
0

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5471

http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/07/week-in-review-34/#comment-646237

aaron | November 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
David, I agree. Fish also breed fast. Plant life in the ocean is consumed quickly. I brought this up in a couple comments on this post. http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/07/week-in-review-34/#comment-646123

Danny, I meant a decrease in the emissions growth rate. We seem to be approaching a linear growth rate.

Sinks are growing. With emissions rates growing, sinks have grown so much that concentration growth is almost linear.

I would think it is largely an increase in biomass, but not primarily vegetation. Think of the oceans, how much old plant growth is there? I imagine much is consumed by animals…

The oceans are huge, there is a lot of plant mass which reproduces quickly, is short-lived, and may be growing because of warming and CO2 (and keeping upper ocean CO2 lower than equilibrium with the increased atmospheric concentration). This mass is likely consumed by animal life rather quickly. Fish also breed very quickly, so both CO2 and energy may be sequestered in large increases in ocean biomass, and waste sinks and transports it to the deep ocean to decay (some of Trenberth’s direct deep ocean heating :) )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)#Ocean_biomass

Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort

0
0

I will shake your hand and buy you a drink. But no daisies or chocolates.

Comment on Open thread by Tonyb

0
0

Rih008

I am not sure if the item you linked to specifically covered something I would be interested in resolving

That volcanoes emit much less co2 than man has done in recent decades, bearing in mind that co2 is supposed to hang around for hundreds if not thousands of years, over the last 1000 years have volcanoes emitted enough co2 to materially affect the temperature?

Tonyb

Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Rob Ellison appreciates ideas of social and economic transformation

Keen insight by Rob Ellison, link by FOMD!

Common sense  It’s not likely that the 21st century will end WITHOUT social and economic transformation, eh Climate Etc readers?

After all, the previous six centuries haven’t!

\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 Open thread by nickels

0
0

I should probably be the one buying the drink :)

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images