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

April 8, 2012, 1:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Peter Lang

$

0

0

“No, I don’t: the whole point of the greenhouse effect is that the CO2 reduces emissions from the earth in the IR, so that, in order to balance the radiation input, the earth must heat up so as to punch more IR through the CO2.

Simple enough, and pretty obviously valid from a physics perspective.”

Dave, it’s too simple (simpletone) and not valid from a physics perspective. CO2 may reduce emmisions from Earth in the IR, but there’s evaporation/convection to balance the radiation input, at least to a degree. Furthermore, if CO2 absorbs, it emits too and enhances the atmospheric radiation to space. The atmosphere cools exclusively by radiation, as all agree. The surface cools multi-modally, again as all agree.

---

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

April 8, 2012, 1:19 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Edim

$

0

0

When I hear the words quantitative easing I reach for my gun – damned I left it in my other pants.

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

April 8, 2012, 1:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by maksimovich

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

$

0

0

maksimovich | April 8, 2012 at 4:10 am |

Whatever happened to the good old days before the whole world depended on America for everything?

Oh. Yeah. That would’ve been two centuries ago.

The USA is in the midst of complete political paralysis. Get used to it. If you’re American and smart, you’re likely already ignoring anything to do with the government as much as you can. If you’re not smart, not too soon to start.

If you’re not American, it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to ignore America for the next decade or so while things work themselves out. Learn to stand up on your own two feet. It’ll do you good.

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

April 8, 2012, 1:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

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

$

0

0

The problem is the currency imbalances,having only two reserve currencies the euro and us dollar.The significant imbalances by fixed currencies are entraining the problem.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

The IMF requires Aus/nz to provide around 0.8 b$ for the euro bailout ,will they require more.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

April 8, 2012, 1:43 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by maksimovich

$

0

0

There are lots of things to be understood by data and for which simple radiative concepts are not useful. My statement was in the context of understanding climate and not just ‘first principles’.

‘The global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits a wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical, biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of temporal and spatial variability.’ Hurrell et al 2009

I suggested elsewhere that Kirschoff was not the correct approach for a body not in equilibrium – as we can see the Earth is not from the 1st Law of thermodynamics.

At top of atmosphere -

Energy in – Energy out = d(S)/dt – where d(S)/dt is change in the global energy content. The latter obviously changes and therefore the planet is not in equilibrium.

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

April 8, 2012, 1:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Aerosols and Atlantic aberrations by Eric Ollivet

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

$

0

0

*sigh*

I hate talking about foreigners’ internal problems.

Always messed up in the most banal ways when looked into at any level of detail, and generally can be traced back to too much cheese.

Henry Ergas whose wikipedia entry says as an expert witness – In the 2005 Qantas-Air New Zealand case, Ergas was criticised by the Australian Competition Tribunal for uncritically pushing a party line, avoiding challenging questions and seeking to obscure the real issues in contention. Additionally, in 2006 a Federal Court judge dismissed much of Ergas’s evidence in the Queensland Rail-Pacific National case, stating “In my view, Mr Ergas’s argument is pure economic theory unsupported by the facts of the case.”[2] The Australian Financial Review suggested that economists and lawyers are now questioning whether any litigant would risk calling Ergas again.[3]?

It looks like a typical wikipedia hatchet-job, perhaps by someone who didn’t like this guy’s take on Net Neutrality, until you follow up on the sources and it looks like Henry Ergas does turn out to be the sort of Economic theorist who has no interest in facts, nor time for unimportant little people like judges, so long as he gets his consulting fee.

Why are you quoting this guy outside of Australia, again? Hasn’t Mel Gibson done enough for your image abroad?

Ergas’ math as reported is a bogus construction that would not fly in any competent discussion of actual Economics above the sophomore level.

Thankfully, most links I can find to the writings of this loon are blocked from the USA, sparing me the need to wade through his bilious meanderings.

Comment on Aerosols and Atlantic aberrations by Eric Ollivet

April 8, 2012, 1:59 am

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

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

$

0

0

Evidence of correlation between T° variations and Solar Activity variations : <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/mean:37/derivative/mean:37/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1910/mean:37/derivative/mean:37/normalise" rel="nofollow">plots here</a> Evidence of correlation between T° variations and AMO variations : <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/mean:37/derivative/mean:37/normalise/plot/esrl-amo/from:1910/mean:37/derivative/mean:37/normalise" rel="nofollow">plots here</a> All in 1 : <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/mean:37/derivative/mean:37/normalise/plot/esrl-amo/from:1910/mean:37/derivative/mean:37/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1910/mean:37/derivative/mean:37/normalise" rel="nofollow">plots here</a>

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

April 8, 2012, 2:10 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Aerosols and Atlantic aberrations by Eric Ollivet

$

0

0

jerseykid | April 8, 2012 at 3:06 am |

Can’t get the helium out of a balloon to make your voice all squeaky without opening a hole in it.

Well, okay, technically helium seeps through balloons fast enough that someone clever, patient and resourceful enough could get the heli…

Anyway, the point is “inside”, and “outside”. Like you learned from Sesame Street.

Out there, where the Sun is and the void of space is, where all that inbound and outgoing radiation are.

In here, from 17 km up right to the core, where all that messy stuff that is pretty much either determined by the temperature the 600 km shell sets given what is outside it, or isn’t deterministic at all.

Anything from Outside (above 617km, give or take solar tide) that makes it to the oceans that will have an effect or be affected will experience it in 12 years of mixing or less, or else it would have happened anyway due dominant decadal flows, due the oceans having orders of magnitude more heat capacity and mass, and also all that surface area and biota, if you want to get really messy.

Reductionist. Insane. Potayto. Potahto. Am I wrong? Prove it.

---

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

April 8, 2012, 2:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

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

$

0

0

Yea, my brain’s in my head, and my feets’ in my shoes. And carts (calks) are in the horses’ shoes.

I don’t blame you for any obsessions; I asked you thus to put you someplace on the map. You defend Nordhaus, resident of an inner circle, but your own proffered place seems farther from… the center. Good by you.

Do we agree on this; conservation for the sake of the plants, animals, and people? I agree with a market price for CO2, for the sake of conservation, so long as there is no distortion of the market.

So maybe we agree on something important, without any climate exercises? (being exercised by climates)(climate exorcisms?) If so, the rest of the blog is a mighty large bunch of angles dancing…

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

April 8, 2012, 2:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Meteorological March Madness by tomf0p

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

$

0

0

So we are all agreed? Greenhouse gas molecules absorb photons and the resulting kinetic energy from bending and stretching bonds heats the atmosphere. More molecules absord more photons and the atmosphere warms. Warmer molecules emit more photons in the IR. There is no ‘notch’ in the emission spectrum for God’s sake. Otherwise we would see it measured directly rather rather than brightness temperature calculated.

Can we move on from the basics? This is an intersting site – http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/abrupt-climate-change – climate change when it happens is abrupt and non-linear.

Comment on Meteorological March Madness by tomf0p

April 8, 2012, 2:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

$

0

0

Come to think of it, if a windmill can’t pay for its keep in Wellington, where on earth can it?

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Peter Lang

April 8, 2012, 2:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

≪ Previous: Comment on Meteorological March Madness by tomf0p

$

0

0

It seems Bart R must have had a few too many Easter bunnies, of forgotten to take his tablets. He sure knows lots of nasty adjectives, and is clearly xenophobic as well. But appear to be innumerate.

The criticism of Professor Henry Ergas is a classic case of ad hominem. Bart R hasn’t bothered to address the substantive issue; instead he’s tried to discredit th person who wrote the article that included the numbers. How pathetic is that?

The NPV Professor Henry Ergas quoted is the cumulative loss of GDP 2012 to 2050 from Treasury estimates. So tell Treasury they are wrong. I expect Treasury is more likely to have underestimated than overestimated the economic damage the ETS will do to Australia. In fact, I believe Treasury have massively underestimated the damage, given the assumptions they’ve used. For example, one of the assumptions is that the USA will have implemented a country wide Cap and Trade scheme by 2016. Furthermore, they assume the world will adopt an economically efficient ETS by 2020. That is totally unrealistic. But there are many other assumptions that are just as unrealistic.

However, anyone even half numerate could see that, even if you halved the Treasury estimate it makes negligible difference to the result. It would change the benefit/cost ration from 0.03 to 0.06.

Anyone with any sense of numbers, or any engineering judgement would see this. Instead, this clown rolls out abuse after abuse and shows he is a half-wit. And a xenophobic one to top it all off.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

April 8, 2012, 2:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on Aerosols and Atlantic aberrations by Paul S

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Scurilious nonsense from a disreputable partisan.

http://henry-ergas.epik.com/bio

Comment on Aerosols and Atlantic aberrations by Paul S

April 8, 2012, 2:55 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Captain Kangaroo

$

0

0

AR4 chapter 7 contains a section which mostly concerns natural sources of aerosols.

The study described in this post does what you ask to some extent. The model contains an interactive aerosol module so levels of natural aerosols fluctuate according to changing conditions (e.g. Temperature).

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

April 9, 2012, 6:14 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Aerosols and Atlantic aberrations by Paul S

$

0

0

Well, that convection is the relief valve and the jet stream the mixer. In the general scope of things, that limited convection would be meaningless, but since a doubling of co2 is predicted to increase forcing by 3.7Wm-2, it is significant. How often the convection punches through is important.

---

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

April 9, 2012, 6:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

$

0

0

Louise queries the value of modelling the last 100 years and I am inclined to agree. While your enthusiasm is appreciated Girma I cant help feeling the you are out of your depth when you are attempting to use smoothed data for curve fitting.

There simply isn’t enough reliable data to get valid results. You are extrapolating far too much with data which is too limited in scope as a time series. You are doing the same sort of things that Mann and other mainstream climate scientists have been doing for the past 20 years..

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by David Springer

April 9, 2012, 6:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Louise

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

$

0

0

It’s not that scientists aren’t behaving like engineers. You don’t have be an engineer to not behave like third graders at the playground during recess. It definitely helps though! The big enabler is having any occupation in which you are held accountable for your mistakes. A pilot or a cab driver makes a mistake they can crash and die killing themselves and others. An electrician makes a mistake someone gets electrocuted or a house catches fire. A plumber makes a mistake and a house might get flooded. It’s like that. What happens when an academic at university makes a mistake? At most a mistake on one paper is corrected by another paper and no one but a few people in his peer group ever notices. The climate change brouhaha is all about these unaccountable academics creeping out of their unaccountable cloistered lecture halls and trying to dictate public policy with nothing but empty paper claims produced and reviewed in the usual unaccountable way to back them up. Unfortunately for them once they start doing things where the consequences of them being wrong might result in lost blood and treasure then engineers and others accustomed to scrutinizing claims with those kinds of consequences are saying it’s a huge pile of ideological bullsh!t atop a small and inconsequential secondary effect of fossil fuel consumption. The engineer does a cost-benefit analysis and finds no justification whatsoever for the suggested modifications in the manner in which fossil fuels are used to power and grow an infrastructure tasked with keeping 6 billion people housed and fed.

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

April 9, 2012, 6:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by David Springer

$

0

0

Peter – I don’t think of curve fitting as modelling. I think there is value in genuinely modelling the climate of the past 100 years* but not drawing pretty lines through some of the data and claiming it means anything. This is like comparing joining the stars to make pretty pictures (constallations) and thinking that tells us anything about astrophysics.

* i.e. comparing observed data with predictions from models based on physics

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by David Springer

April 9, 2012, 6:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Louise

$

0

0

No, it was a not a malicious lie. It was an inference.

I said (in essence) “the greenhouse is limited to 278K” and you said “it is limited to 5500K”.

This is analgous to me claiming that Venus’ (I know how much you love Venus) orbit is currently limited to 0.7 AU and you saying it’s limited to 200 AU.

How am I supposed to take that? You offered a preposterous limit. A limit which is fact an optical limit not a greenhouse limit. No possible optics can use solar light to heat something hotter 5500K. Given that the earth isn’t at the focal point of a parabolic mirror that stretches out past the moon or at the focal point of a magnifiying glass of the same dimension then without some means of concentration the earth’s mean temperature is limited by having a maximum possible mean power input of 342W/m2 which is about 277K.

I can’t quite figure out WTF is up with you. Did you have some sort of major brain injury since getting your sheepskin from Stanford? I read somewhere you’re a stay-at-home dad homeschooling your children. I can respect that. I made enough money at my chosen profession to leave the rat race and I did the stay-at-home homeschooling dad gig too. But my action was by choice. I wonder if yours is by necessity and your intellectual prowess is now limited to supervising children studying K-12 material. From the content of your comments it would appear that way and I’d question the competence to even do that. Based on what you’ve written I wouldn’t let you teach physical science high school that’s for sure.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Jim2

April 9, 2012, 6:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by David Springer

$

0

0

Bart R | April 5, 2012 at 11:41 am | Reply
“standards of welfare in city states”
Yep, those standards were “You build this wall and we’ll give you a little bread and water, otherwise …”