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

Comment on Open thread by Dr Alex Hamilton

0
0
No it doesn't. Go back to <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/04/open-thread-22/#comment-654319" rel="nofollow">this</a> comment.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by anng

0
0

“The satellites (to my knowledge) don’t correct for UHI so the satellite data should be on the high side. The land sets would have to completely remove UHI to give an honest representation since it has nothing to do with CO2 warming.”

Surely the surface temperature should include man-made heat from fires, factories, machines, traffic, russian-ice-breakers, aeroplanes, cutting-down-forests, etc.? Has anyone calculated what proportion of the Earth’s infra-red output comes from human activity?

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by JWhite

0
0

If one year (potentially 2014) doesn’t end a faux pause, it’s not clear to me why one year (1998) should start one. When I look at the graph included in the posting, and visually remove 1998, it looks like a pretty consistent, and steady, upwards trend,

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by R. Gates

0
0

While appropriate in terms of models being able to predict their exact paths, the dust particle/climate system analogy should not be taken too far. Yes, climate systems have feedbacks- both positive and negative, and these can represent additional reasons why models will vary from reality.

Comment on Open thread by Dr Alex Hamilton

0
0

(continued)

So if there were no new thermal energy from a radiating Sun then indeed the atmosphere would only be 29.4Km high. Of course this is approximate because the specific heat varies with temperature (and thus the gradient also varies) and, more importantly, in the real world the Sun is supplying new thermal energy (especially in the stratosphere) which then spreads out, some of it into the upper troposphere. The new energy provides the molecules up there with more KE that would let them reach greater heights, as indeed they do until they reach the exosphere and some escape to space because centrifugal force outweighs gravitational force. That centrifugal force, by the way, reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient as it works against gravity. Intermolecular radiation in an atmosphere with radiating molecules also reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient, and thus increases the potential height of the atmosphere.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by R. Gates

0
0

JWhite,

Your point is a good one and has been made by many others. But the “pause” was a real event– there was a flattening to the rise in tropospheric temperatures. This natural variability tells us little about the efficacy GHG warming, as the system as a whole continued to gain energy quite robustly during this “pause”.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

P-N,
It’s difficult to tell, what happens out of equilibrium in situations that cannot be described by thermodynamics, which assumes local thermodynamic equilibrium. Reaching firm conclusions requires careful analysis as some simplifying approximations are usually necessary. The risk is large that the simplifications lead to spurious results that have nothing to do with the correct physics.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by Edim


Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

Dr Alex Hamilton,

Why are you using Cp rather than Cv? Cp give you the correct formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate, though for the wrong reason, since it’s unrelated to the variation in gravitational potential energy of the air parcels (but rather to the internal energy variation of expanding or contracting air parcels owing to work on the surrounding). Furthermore, through using Cp — the heat capacity at constant pressure — the internal energy gained by the descending air parcels wouldn’t correspond to the *all* the potential gravitational energy variation — which you wrongly conceive as an energy input to the parcel — but rather subtract from it the work done on the surrounding while adiabatically expanding at constant pressure. But the descending parcel doesn’t expand. It contracts.

So, what you did calculate corresponds to the dry adiabatic lapse rate, for the wrong reasons, but it doesn’t correspond to your requirement that PE+KE is invariant with height. You would have to use Cv for this, since in that case *all* the alleged energy input (from the variation in gravitational potential energy) would be converted to internal energy, and there would be no loss to the surrounding through expansion work W = PdV, as the use of Cp entails. This is not what you want in order to satisfy your requirement.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by aaron

0
0

PA, the satellite data is comprehensive in area and covers a significant depth of the atmosphere, so I don’t think the urban heat island would be significant. The urban heat island disipates with altitude. I’m not sure it’s something we would want to correct for, but it would be good to compare temp changes in land to changes in truly rural areas distant to any developement.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

Yes, I guess that’s right, since the speed distributions aren’t isotropic, even the precise definition of temperature is elusive. The Joule-Thomson case is more clear cut because all the thermodynamic variables (including enthalpy) are well defined on both sides of the slowly sliding plug, and we don’t care much what happens in the plug. So, the generalization that I attempted to ‘gaseous porous plugs’ is tricky.

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by David Springer

0
0

Gravity is a force that demonstrably decreases entropy in otherwise closed systems.

Take a jar of water and put some fine sand in it. Shake it up. When the sand is evenly distributed entropy is maximized. In a micro-gravity environment like the International Space Station brownian motion will keep the particles suspended forever but if you do this on the surface of the earth entropy quickly decreases as the force of gravity causes the heavier than water particles to settle out.

So the force of gravity clearly imposes order on otherwise disordered systems at least as far as mass is concerned. A system in a gravity well is thus not isolated with regard to second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy in isolated systems can only increases.

We know that mass and energy are equivalent and the equivalency is defined by the famous equation E = MC^2. We know that gravity influences photons which possess only relativistic mass.

So the question before us regarding the gravito-thermal effect is whether gravity can separate evenly distributed energy into gradients in the same manner it separates evenly distributed masses.

In other words gravity is a candidate force for powering Maxwell’s Demon.

I’m as loathe to accept this as anyone else. To date nature has always revealed practical obstacles to thwart perpetuum mobiles of the second kind. I can’t come up with any practical means of exploiting a gravity demon even if it really does exist. The energy gradient generated is too small and real-world material are too far from ideal. Parasitic losses are simply overwhelming for any practical use to come of it. But I could be wrong.

Food for thought.

Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

” I think you are just having fun making silly statements.”

Nope; dead serious.

By the way, does your ex cathedra declaration that my statements are ‘silly’ make them inaccurate?

I think you may want to revisit your original theory.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by David L. Hagen

0
0
Bob Tisdale quantifies: <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/rss-and-uah-meteorological-annual-mean-december-to-november-global-temperatures-fall-far-short-of-record-highs-in-2014/" / rel="nofollow">"RSS and UAH “Meteorological Annual Mean” (December to November) <b>Global Temperatures Fall Far Short of Record Highs in 2014</b>…"</a> <blockquote>As one might expect, due to the additional volatility of the lower troposphere temperature anomaly products, the “Meteorological Annual Mean” values for 2014 are nowhere close to the record highs for the RSS and UAH global temperature products.</blockquote>

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

Joshua
you keep speaking of tribalism
and name calling
I try to read Sks and RC, which are among the main consensus forums as far as I know
no name calling there (excepting “denier”)
no tribalism (cause skeptics are “deniers”)
censorship disguised as decorum

Judith strikes a good balance
as good as it gets
unilateral disarmament?
your tribe first

if you think Judith is “hiding”
you might not be very good at hide and seek

BTW, you, Mosher, Gates and the other pro voices on CE, are IMO better representatives of the consensus side than what I read on the above mentioned sites … one of the reasons I’m here


Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by Pierre-Normand

0
0

Arguing whether the pause is real or illusory seems to me like mere semantic quibble. In their respective contexts, both claims can be true. People who deny that the pause is real either are stressing that the underlying long term surface temperature trend, and/or the rate of accumulation of energy into the climate system, are unchanged (the latter claim entails the first.) Those who are claiming that the pause is real can be stressing that there are well understood causes of the short term variation in the rate of surface warming (solar, ENSO, etc.)

Hence the ‘pause deniers’, and the ‘pause acknowledgers’ often are agreeing with one another on all issues of substance. The insistence by some that there is an inconsistency between those two attitudes just stems from a failure to acknowledge the proper context and significance of the claims. It can also amount to a rhetorical ploy to make it appear like there is a controversy when there is none.

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

those poor kids in NY
the last snow they will see was 6 feet
and caved in the roof of their house
they’ll miss it so

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by maksimovich

Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by jim2

0
0

This is not nonsense. The radiosonde data agree with the satellite measurements. All the calculations are published.

I think this is just an inconvenient truth for you. You are a D-NI-ER!

Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

DS: “In a micro-gravity environment like the International Space Station brownian motion will keep the particles suspended forever but if you do this on the surface of the earth entropy quickly decreases as the force of gravity causes the heavier than water particles to settle out.”

It also causes some heating of the system as the falling grains of sand gain energy though the work of gravity W = m*g*dz. This energy may be gained by the grain of sands as kinetic energy, at first, but is rapidly dissipated and a new equilibrium is eventually reached. The entropy thereby increases since the additional internal energy is converted to heat. This microscopic disorder more than compensated the little increase in order seen at the macroscopic level.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images