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

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by jacobress

0
0

It’s the “self proclaimed progressive elites”.


Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Joe Born

0
0

To say that heat conduction in response to a temperature difference is like electrical conduction in response to a voltage is a valid model for most situations. But he extended that beyond its range of applicability. (And he misrepresented a diode’s operation to boot.)

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

Dufour effect is the inverse effect of the Soret effect. While it’s difficult to find much material on the Dufour effect, that’s not the case for the Soret effect. Both effects apply only to mixtures of different particles including molecules. The conditions, where the Sorel effect is significant are very different from of a gas like the air near thermodynamic equilibrium.

In the thermodynamic equilibrium the atmosphere is not well mixed as the density profile of each type of molecule is determined by its mass. The relative concentration of O2 decreases slowly with altitude, because O2 is heavier than N2. The effect is somewhat stronger for CO2. It seems clear that the influence of the Soret and Dufour effects on the equilibrium profiles is negligible, if the effects affect these equilibrium profiles at all. My first guess is that the effect is totally absent at the thermodynamic equilibrium, but I’m not fully sure of that.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by I don’t get ‘the gravito-thermal effect’« Okulær

0
0

[…] few notable climate blogs, like The Hockey Schtick, Tallbloke’s Talkshop, Clive Best and even Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. (in fact, this is where the lengthiest discussion thread on the subject is to be […]

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Danny Thomas

0
0

Jacob,

Fully agree that appropriate Cost Benefit analysis needs to be applied. But as far as the need (or lack of need) for legislation, I’m not so sure. Clean Water/Air are still on the books and the EPA is part of the enforcement mechanism.

I’m not advocating this specific legislation, but I can see a need for: Evaluation and refocusing the EPA, Giving the EPA tools it needs, appropriate legislation should those tools not currently exist.

I’m not for spending for the sake of spending, but I am for the EPA as long as it’s mission creep is not excessive.

I’m only suggesting we take this nugget and work with it. History shows that we have a tendency towards inaction w/o prompting and if this is a nugget towards mutually acceptable prompting lets get on with it. Agreed?

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

0
0

Pekka, ” My first guess is that the effect is totally absent at the thermodynamic equilibrium, but I’m not fully sure of that.”

My response would be that the effect is likely small but I can’t be sure of that. When I use Totally, Exactly etc. I normally get bitten in the butt. Let’s call that Murphy’s Law.

Once you get past the nit picking, enthalpy is the main event which leads to lots of interesting possibilities. Like for an O2 atmosphere you can have various Ox combinations which leads to weak but interesting magnetic and gravitational anomalies. More fun that practical, but what the heck.

In a CO2 atmosphere you have neat considerations around 200K which likely leads to the 184K limit at near Earth gravity.

So designing a model that eliminates all the fun, just doesn’t appeal to me.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Steven Mosher

0
0

Count deCitations has spoken.

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by JustinWonder

0
0

“Under Obama, the U.S. has reduced more carbon pollution from energy than any other nation, about 475 million tons between 2008 and 2013, according to U.S. Energy Department data. ”

Oh yeah, don’t worry, the fox is guarding the hen house.


Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by JustinWonder

0
0

We can follow the advice of the greatest climate genius of all time, talented hockey stick user, and Venus is coming shouter Jim Hansen and build more nukes!

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ oppti

“Air in China is not healthy.”

Undeniably true.

Yet thousands of foreign individuals from countries all over the world, including the those from the State Department that provide the link that you posted, WILLINGLY subject themselves AND THEIR FAMILIES to the Chinese air. Apparently THEY have done the tradeoff analysis, threat vs reward, and have opted for the reward.

We in the US are being told that our betters are far more concerned than we are about our health and that they have decided that the minimal pollution that we are currently experiencing as a byproduct of having available cheap, plentiful energy is intolerable. Therefore, they have decided that it is better for us to drastically increase the price of energy and decrease its supply in the quixotic pursuit of an environment that contains NO chemicals traceable to the existence of humans on the planet.

Apparently Max_OK, Citizen Scientist thinks that this is a grand plan that every sane person should applaud.

“People who oppose regulations to curb pollution aren’t so hard to understand if you start from the assumption they like dirty air and dirty water, or at least don’t mind it. If there was a way they could expose themselves to pollution without exposing everyone else, I wouldn’t mind them.”

Maybe I’m not, since I don’t.

Someone should remind Max that the choices are ‘Insane, unrealizable regulation designed to bring industrial civilization to a halt’ and ‘dirty air and dirty water’ only if you let the folks trying to stamp out modern industrial civilization and kill off 90+ % of the human race define the term ‘dirty’.

How many times to people have to post links like this one (already posted previously):

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/print.php?id=13914

and this one (contains a couple duplications):

http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/musings-from-the-leaders-of-the-climate-change-movement-seeking-to-save-the-earth-from-humanity/

before it sinks home that government organizations like the EPA and environmental organizations which were responsible for its existence are NOT engaged in ensuring a healthy environment. They are a pseudo-scientific means to a political end. And they are dead serious.

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

0
0

Joe, ” But he extended that beyond its range of applicability. (And he misrepresented a diode’s operation to boot.)”

All analogies (models) have limits so I am not surprised. Most people that wade into the G-T effect are either wanting to prove or disprove G-T which really isn’t the point of physics. Exceptions to the rules are always more interesting.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

So designing a model that eliminates all the fun, just doesn’t appeal to me.

There isn’t anything more dull than thermodynamic equilibrium. That’s the state, where nothing changes any more.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

0
0

I’m familiar with thought experiments. Schrodinger’s Cat and Maxwell’s Demon come immediately to mind. The point I was trying and failing to make with you is that just because we can imagine unicorns in our thought experiments doesn’t mean we should imagine them. The object of the thought experiment is ostensibly to provide insight into what happens in the real world without actually going to the trouble of constructing the experiment in the real world.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by ROM

0
0

Achieving the warmest year on record shouldn’t be that hard.

After all the Australian BOM have been caught, one could say, severely fiddling the figures. Just one blatant example. Homogenising the station Rutherglen, that has a century long record, has never been moved that the BOM can prove despite claims from the BOM. The old hands who took the temperatures in the past verified that the Rutherglen station was were it still is but still the BOM took another 17 stations including Hillston some 300 kms plus straight line distance away to the north in much hotter surrounds and changed the Rutherglen data to fit the homogenised and higher temperatures.
And thats just one such instance. Their new ACORN station data sometimes bears no resemblance to the real world data.

JoNova’s; http://joannenova.com.au/?s=rutherglen

And then we have NIWA in NZ who from their dramatically upward adjusted station data, anybody would think that NZ must have a few big Cat Diesel marine engines installed down at the southern tip all busily engaged in driving NZ north towards the hotter regions of the Equator at a fair rate of knots.

Now why is that important?

Well if you take a good look at a globe of the Earth you will see this immense expanse of water in the South Pacific and the Southern Ocean.
And the land masses in that roughly one quarter of the globe, south of the Equator down to close to Antarctica and between say longitude 80 degrees East, down through the guts of the Indian ocean, on eastwards across the Australian Continent and NZ until the mid Pacific longitude of around 140 degrees west, a span in longitude of about 140 degrees.
The only land masses of any consequence in this vast area of at least one fifth of the entire globe is New Zealand and NZ’s West Island, Australia.

So Australia’s BOM data and NZ’s NIWA data, both “adjusted” out of their cotton picking minds whether needed or not and generally butchered [ and thats being polite,] around with until it bears little relationship with reality accounts for at least one fifth and close to nearly one quarter of the total global land surface temperature data.

So we here in Oz can proudly claim that our temperature data adjustments are worth close to four times your northern hemisphere temperature data adjustments in the global land temperature stakes.

Not hard to get a record global temperature when you have not much data to fiddle but it’s data that has a profound effect because there is no other competing data to compare it with .
So the data stands whether corrupted and severely compromised or not.
And so do the “record” [ !!!? ] global temperatures.
At least until,the next lot of “adjustments” are done.

Comment on Open thread by Dr Alex Hamilton

0
0

You also ignore the fact that we are talking about the mean kinetic energy of individual molecules. They travel at about 500m/sec which would propel an upward moving molecule to at least just into the tropopause region. But anywhere in the upper troposphere there is also new thermal (kinetic) energy being added from incident solar radiation being absorbed. So, as we know, the gases don’t get down to 0°K. Hence there is no region in the troposphere where the gravity-induced temperature gradient cannot form.

I am the first to acknowledge that most of what I am saying comes from the book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” which I reviewed on Amazon over 6 months ago. In that book there is discussion of the troposphere of the planet Uranus. The heat source for that nominal troposphere is not any surface but a layer of methane in the upper atmosphere which absorbs most of the weak Solar radiation and is in radiative balance at about 60°K. So the explanation I gave in my first comment explains why the temperature increases below that altitude, reaching 320°K at the base of the nominal troposphere (350Km down) and about 5,000°K at the small solid core. There is no evidence of long-term cooling, internal energy generation or significant radiative imbalance at TOA. If the gravity-induced gradient were not a reality then it would not be 5,000°K in the core.


Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

“You also ignore the fact that we are talking about the mean kinetic energy of individual molecules.”

I am not ignoring this fact. On the contrary, I have been stressing it since my very first reply to you. I am pointing out that it yields an *inconsistency* with your own energy balance requirement, which you are have now completely ignored for the last four posts or so. According to your own requirement that, at any height, the potential energy of the molecular populations must balance their average kinetic energy, the latter must decrease linearly with height. Isn’t that correct? If a function decreases linearly with height, then there is a finite height where the value is zero. Above that height, your own balance requirement mandates that the *average* kinetic energy must be negative. That’s a logical consequence of your own theory about lapse rates at equilibrium.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by steven

0
0

I don’t see how the dust analogy addresses the principle of feedbacks. If the dust landing on the chair creates more dust and the dust landing on the floor creates less, then it matters if the path of the dust is properly modeled.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by EternalOptimist

0
0

If there is no such thing as correct, why does he keep on correcting everybody ?

Comment on Open thread by Dr Alex Hamilton

0
0
It's quite a simple calculation to get the temperature gradient <i>dT/dH</i> for homogeneous (PE+KE) ... For a non-radiating gas, consider mass, <i>M</i> moving vertically downwards so as to gain kinetic energy and lose equivalent potential energy. The gain in KE can be equated to the energy required to raise its temperature by <i>dT</i> and so, using <i>Cp</i> for specific heat we get <i>-M*g*dH = M*Cp*dT</i> <i>dT/dH = -g/Cp</i> For Earth if the surface is 288°K then, by the time the temperature reached zero (<i>dT</i>=288) an imaginary troposphere of non-radiating gas with specific heat 1.0 would have a temperature gradient of 9.8°/Km and could thus be 288/9.8 = 29.4Km in height. The maximum height of the troposphere (at the Equator) is only about 18Km.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

0
0

What do I make of Graeff using controversial data to make money?

Sounds like he might be taking a page out of climate science.

ROFLMAO

Pierre is thus hoist with his own petard. Classic.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images