Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Why It's Not CO2

$
0
0

“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. … if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
—Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

Until all readers recognize that all forms of energy (including gravitational potential energy) play a role in entropy and thus in determining the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (which the Second Law tells us will evolve) then you are barking up the wrong tree with radiative heat transfer theory as your only concept in your beliefs about temperatures on all planets and satellite moons.


Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort

$
0
0

This is really getting tedious. Neither Mann nor the terrorists are going to destroy our free society. Has Mann stopped Steyn from talking? Has he Stopped Judith from talking? Has he stopped pokerguy from talking? Get back to us in the unlikely event he wins his lawsuit and we will discuss the likelihood that his victory will destroy our free society. Well, they start small and the next thing you know the free society is destroyed. I am planning to worry about that, every Tuesday from noon to about 1:30.

Now for some totally unrelated news; the terrorists are actually killing people. But they ain’t supermen. They have been after Salmon Rushdie for decades. He is still talking. They blew up some of our biggest buildings and killed thousands of people. We now have a lot more buildings and a lot more people. We are still saying and doing things the terrorist just can’t stand. We are not going to let some terrorists destroy our free society. Believe it or not, some very good people are working on this problem. Don’t panic.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Michael

$
0
0

” I and others that are talking about these issues are honoring their memory arguably more than those who are respectfully silent.” – Judith

Yeah, “honouring” by hijacking the tradegy to discuss some unrelated pettty trivia.

Nice work.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by PA

$
0
0

“Let the waters teem with countless living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of heaven.’”

The people promoting more life and abundance should be trying to crank up the CO2.

http://time.com/3297045/california-blue-whales/

California blue whales are near historic levels. There are signs that CO2 is doing some good.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/8255922/Tags-created-to-help-penguins-could-be-killing-them.html

The problem with some of the endangered animal monitoring efforts is there are some signs the doodads they put on the animals are killing them – which distorts the estimates.

Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$
0
0

eadler2,

Probably been increasing for 300+ years. Or are you a fan of the Mann?

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by timg56

$
0
0

Same here.

I have repeatedly asked of certain commentors to be specific on what I’m suppossedly denying.

Response is either a change of subject or crickets.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Willard

$
0
0

I’m just glad we can finally seek a level of consistency with our values that applies to different situations, Don. Now that we can consistenly point out the alarmists among us, we prevent them to violate our ability to discuss and think.

These cartoonists and policemen will not have died in vain.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Michael

$
0
0

Could be related to this;

“No, they come across as Mannian partisanship rather than dealing with the meta issues of the situation.” – Judith


Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Willard

$
0
0

> Wrong.

Read again what I wrote.

Nice try.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by rls

$
0
0

Willard

Lived through one semester of law school, had fun. My criminal law professor was highly skilled in the Socratic method, and perhaps you too are such a professor. Assured that you would not infringe upon my liberty, less assured that you would not warp my brain.

Regards,

Richard

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Michael

$
0
0

rls,

I think it started with stuff like this;
“comparable with his claim to have invented the Internet.”

Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by angech2014

$
0
0

eadler2 January 11, 2015 Sorry for being so snarky.
You said ” on average the flux reaching the surface is about 320W/M2 in the daytime”
No. Solar constant From Wikipedia,
“The average incoming solar radiation, taking that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m²)”.
The average you quoted which is spread over the whole globe and is for 24 hours [ie 12 hours of no sunshine].
The actual heat at the equator is closer to the direct solar radiance so up to 4 times hotter.
“The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July”
This massive amount of heat is why the atmosphere can heat up 20 degrees in 6 hours at the equator in summer

“What relevance to a 5% change in CO2, which at equilibrium would make a change in temperature of about .0.21C at equilibrium based on a clmate sensitivity of 3C for doubling.”

Relevance is that the atmosphere at the equator regularly heats up 20 degrees C in 6 hours which equates to that whole mass of air heating up 0.21 degrees C in 3.6 minutes. This strongly suggests that the air adapts to the temperature that the GHG theory specifies almost instantly with a constant heat source. ie that there should be no possible delay in a CO2 increase producing a temperature increase.

“What evidence do you have that the surface of the earth facing the sun is at thermal equilibrium during the daytime”

Some misunderstanding here? Thermal equilibrium is a concept where one can change the heat input to and the composition of a bounded system and it will tend to an equilibrium over time.
No one can say “the surface of the earth facing the sun is at thermal equilibrium during the daytime” when it is rotating . I certainly have not.
What I said was a detectable increase in CO2 will produce an almost instantaneous detectable increase in global temperature due to its GHG effect.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Michael

$
0
0

“The Conversation standing up for free speech while deleting sceptics comments is a laugh.”

That you think that is about free speech is the best laugh.

Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by angech2014

$
0
0

eadler2 | January 11, 2015 “Second, there has been warming of the surface if you include a careful look at areas that are not covered by weather stations, such as the Arctic.”
So if you have a careful look at places where you have no records nor thermometers you can measure the warming.
How can you measure it when you just said there are no measurements being done?
A careful look means measuring.
Not guessing, not modelling.
“There are ghosts if you include areas in the haunted house not covered by cameras” is not proof of ghosts, is it.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by JCH


Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Willard

$
0
0

> What if the killing was legal.

What if we burn 3k quads of coal by 2075?

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Faustino

$
0
0

Matthew, I in no way implied that you wrote that mosomoso “condoned the attack.” You said that he would be “forced to decide” whom he stood with. I was confident that moso would be against the attack, hence my statement; I didn’t think, from what I know of him, that he would ever feel “forced” to choose. But I don’t know that; hence “I suspect not.” That related to mosmoso, it had no implication as to whether or not the jihadists would, as you expect, “force the issue.” My view is that they probably will, given their raison d’etre and modus operandi (multilingual? Moi?!), but I was addressing only your comments on moso.

Matthew, I am not going to say “read harder.” I value your contributions and responses on CE. I thought that my post was clear; you have read into it things that were neither present nor implied. So it goes, historically – probably less now – I expressed myself very precisely, but was often misinterpreted. “Only connect.” Well, sometimes, unfortunately, we don’t.

I agree with Orwell, the O’Neill links I gave supported that view.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

PA claims [bizarrely]  “People promoting more life and abundance should be trying to crank up the CO2.”

Why do `yah suppose, PA, that no professional wildlife-conservation society in the world agrees with your bizarrely unfounded claim?

Killer climate: tens of thousands
of flying foxes dead in a day

A flying fox orphaned after
its parents succumbed to heat stress

“This summer we have seen one of the most dramatic animal die-offs ever recorded in Australia: at least 45,500 flying foxes dead on just one extremely hot day in southeast Queensland, according to our new research.”

———–

Exploring the real causes
of the end-Permian mass extinction

Of the ‘big five’ mass extinction events in the Earth’s history, the end-Permian extinction was the largest.

Song et al. […] show that the selective extinction is best explained by a combination of lethally warm shallow water and anoxic deep water.

Conclusion  James Hansen, Ed Wilson, and Pope Francis — as leaders in planetary science, ecology, and religion — are well-justified to regard anthropogenic global warming as a grave threat to the health of our planet and every living creature on it.

\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 Charlie: Challenging free speech by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$
0
0

Isn’t Freedom of Expression Great !

Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by angech2014

$
0
0

Arno Arrak | January 10, 2015
” For one thing, there is no warming now despite a constant increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.This is impossible according to the Arrhenius theory of greenhouse warning, but it is an observed fact.”
Inconvenient, not impossible, you agree yourself that CO2 should put the temperature up.
You have mentioned a MGT feedback loop of diminishing water vapor as the only thing that explains the hiatus well but it could also occur with increasing water vapor as clouds might reflect more sunlight back restoring the new system to its temperature mean. Multiple causes for the pause are postulated.
“If sensitivity is defined as the increase in temperature when atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled you technically have to wait a century to find its value.”
The IPCC predicted a temperature rise of 0.34 C a decade for the next 100 years based on a CO2 rise , 2.07 ppm per year out of currently 400 ppm ie 5%. 5% is not an insignificant [tiny] amount and 10 years is not ” long periods of time”. The air can changes by 20 degrees centigrade in 6 hours. A 0.2 degree change for a 5% increase in CO2 would take 3.6 minutes at that rate. A 0.2 degree change for a 5% increase in CO2 would take 3.6 minutes at that rate.
In other words the effects of the CO2 rise should be clearly and quickly obvious to all and should be happening now.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images