Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Republican(?) brain by jim

0
0

hunter,

intellect vs morphology. I make fun of ideas, all of our ideas stand on their own merit.

What we each look like is irrelevant.

And: No condemnation on my part. Eminent domain or otherwise. I don’t Kelo.


Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by peterdavies252

0
0

A good exposition Bart. It seems that Lindzen has only won one round so far and is heading for an overall point loss. The weaknesses shown by both fighters would make a knockout result highly unlikely.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by jim

0
0

Judith,

I hope you need me to ask this, but; would you ever care what they think?

so nothing squared equals nothing

Comment on Republican(?) brain by jim

0
0

need = don’t need

dyslexia strikes deep

Comment on Republican(?) brain by jim

0
0

+1

Also, “The Vision of the Anointed” by Sowell

Comment on Authority(?) in political debates involving science by WebHubTelescope

0
0

You two have clinically insane perspectives on the physics. Both of you plainly don’t understand a thing about photonics, and especially are clueless on how Bose-Einstein statistical mechanics describes how electromagnetic radiation gets dispersed across an energy spectrum.
It’s a very straightforward concept that greenhouse gases have a scattering cross-section that can partially reflect specific bands of photon frequencies until they redistribute to maintain an energy balance. Nature will always juggle and redistribute the state space densities to conserve energy. This is analogous to how a black-body spectrum exists in the first place, as its all about redistribution of energies within a state space to maximize entropy.

I took the time out to run the Modtran code with two cases which I superimposed.

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2450/spectralenergybalance.gif

One curve has the nominal GHG atmospheric concentration such that the ground temperature sits at 300K. That is the jagged curve.
The other curve has all the GHG removed (CO2, H2O, CH4), and I had to lower the ground temperature by about 30 degrees before the areas under the two curves started to match.
For those that don’t understand calculus, the area under the curves is the integral of the spectral energy density, which is the energy that must be balanced for the two cases. I highlighted by yellow and green the areas where the two areas have to compensate each other. It is a bit lopsided on the topside because the tails also contain a differential on the bottomside, and those tails are not shown on this plot.

It is possible that discrepancies do indeed exist and that’s what constitutes the uncertainty in AGW. The uncertainty is not in the bulk of the GHG effect which clearly generates the largest fraction of the energy imbalance and the corresponding shift in temperature. Those spectral curves are real and they have been measured by satellite instruments. Hard to see how anyone can dispute that. Also hard to dispute is that there are only 4 known fundamental forces, electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. The only way that energy can balance in the earth’s case is by the electromagnetic photons and their interaction with GHG’s and albedo. No amount of convection, lapse rate, condensation, evaporation, etc can change all that as those are internally conserved energy quantities. Sure, second-order effects play a role, but then again that is where the uncertainty lies, not in the bulk of the 33 degree shift.

Bottomline, I am not making anything up, just using the standard spectral absorption model that has been maintained for years. If you guys think the Modtran code is wrong, go develop your own version. If you think it was all pseudoscience that generated Modtran, then certainly all it will take is a bit of your “proper science” to clean it up. Ha Ha.

I have no stake in the AGW arena, contrary to my position on fossil fuel depletion, where I am putting it on the line. I just hate to see how crackpots and wackos can make a mess out of the physics.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by jim

0
0

what we each look like is irrelevant, and ridicule of appearances is much more hurtful than any joust of ideas.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by jim

0
0

pointlessly hurtful


Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by jim

0
0

No, the other judges may have scored it differently…

Comment on Pseudoscience (?) by WebHubTelescope

0
0

Dave, You and me both. That interest spurred Michale Schermer to title one of his books “Why do people believe in weird things?”
Schermer would have a field day on this blog.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Pythagoras

0
0

I personally don’t share Lindzen’s belief that a reliable cost benefit analysis can be constructed that justifies a do nothing approach.

It seems like no one is considering that just as there might be a range of outcomes due to the sensitivity of climate forcing, there may also be a range as to what the opportunity costs might be for taking no action at all.

Both Curry and Lindzen have a good understanding of the strengths and shortcomings of climate science. But they seem to discount the expertise of Nordhaus whose specialty is how to evaluate the economic impacts.

Comment on Meteorological March Madness by WebHubTelescope

0
0

“Tell me why potential energy differences don’t decrease. Of course I don’t mean ALWAYS. Tell me why a warmer world automatically means more extremes.”

You have got to be kidding me. No natural phenomenon is known to exist whereby energy gaps or potential wells increase with temperature. The nature of temperature is to increase the statistical energy of an ensemble. That fluctuation of energy allows for the greater likelihood of extremes being encountered.

Let me put it this way: If you can find a natural phenomena whereby an energy well gets deeper with increasing temperature, you will have found a new phase of matter. Or that man has artificially created a device with some sort of contrived feedback. But that doesn’t count because climate doesn’t possess a brain.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by HAS

0
0

Actually if we aren’t allowed to dispute his book then he loses here with an “own goal”. From the 2007 version:

“We cannot rule out the potential for catastrophic impacts that might overwhelm the billions and trillions of dollars of impacts and abatement costs. But fears about low-probability outcomes in the distant future – which
are unlikely to be verified or refuted in the near future – should not impede our taking constructive steps to deal with the high-probability dangers that are upon us today. We should start with the clear-and-present dangers, after which we can turn to the unclear-and-distant threats.”

So in his book he directs us to put aside “Abrupt and Catastrophic Climate Change”, and by so doing Lindzen et al hoist him on his own petard. When you do that the cost benefit analysis suggest little to favour action over inaction.

Comment on Authority(?) in political debates involving science by WebHubTelescope

0
0

“The diffusion concept is incorrect. There are multple sources and multiple sinks. So it is a problem that is different in kind to a simple atmospheric source and sink idea.”

Captain #2 doesn’t understand that the concept of diffusion is exactly a dispersion of flows working in various directions and at various rates. That is what a random walk entails, and why master diffusion equations (such as Fokker-Planck and Navier-Stokes) model this phenomenon so well.

What I have done in my modeling is add another level of uncertainty and dispersion to the diffusion coefficient, and what this does is simplify the analytic form.

You swung and missed badly.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by vukcevic


Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Bart R

0
0

jim | April 5, 2012 at 4:07 am |

While I’m not so old as Oscar Wilde, I did intentionally misword the quote, to avoid deletion, yes.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Willis Eschenbach

0
0

Who the heck is Julio? You need to cite more.

w.

Comment on Authority(?) in political debates involving science by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

“it will be discarded, but the goal will not.”
“Sustainability”, perhaps?

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Willis Eschenbach

0
0

Steven Mosher | April 5, 2012 at 2:44 am | Reply

For something simpler start here
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-simple-analysis-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/

I read that and found it to be cartoonish in its simplicity, and lacking in its understanding. It assumes that conditions at equilibrium are the same as conditions leading up to equilibrium. Why on earth would that be so?

If that’s an example of your arguments (followed by an invocation of the entire IPCC report), I’m not impressed in the slightest.

Folks who cite the entire IPCC report in support of their claims are not scientists.

Sorry,

w.

Comment on Authority(?) in political debates involving science by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

0
0

Web, how did that work out for Oliver? I tend to take most everything I read on the internet with a grain of salt myself.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images