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

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

0
0

‘Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. Once heated, the ocean surface becomes warmer than the atmosphere above, and because of this heat flows from the warm ocean to the cool atmosphere above.’ op.cit.

Webby – ya got it arse around as usual as we say in Oz. Ya take something simple like the 2nd law of thermodynamics and totally misapply it to the real world in the service of a warminista agenda. You have still got it wrong misunderstanding skepticalscience in this very simple thing.

We have a couple of options:

a) you don’t understand English;
b) you are just hopeless at simple physics;
c) you are lying and indulging in pointless schoolgirl debates.

Best regards
Captain Kangaroo


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

0
0

Oh – and the ‘cliché’. I wasn’t talking to you but past you.

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

0
0

Edim wrote to me:
>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.

Yes, I know that, and so does everyone else. Yes, the first-order effect from CO2 does indeed produce various second-order effects — convection, increased water vapor in the atmosphere, etc. Everyone agrees those feedback loops matter, and as I have said many times, my “gut feeling” is that the negative feedback loops predominate. As I have also said, I do not consider my gut to be scientific proof.

You said you have some background in engineering: in that case, you should know that negative feedbacks normally reduce the magnitude of a disturbance, but do not actually reverse its sign.

That’s *all* I am saying: the initial effect of the increased CO2 is to warm the planet slightly, the feedbacks kick in, and then it gets really messy. Probably, you still get some warming — maybe very little, maybe a fair amount.

Dave

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

0
0

David Springer wrote to me:
>I’m not sure what the proof is, Dave. All I know is that if the mean temperature of the earth cannot exceed 6C with a 1366W/m2 solar constant without violating Kirchoff’s Law.

Well, you have not succeeded in convincing people who know a great deal more physics than you do that this follows from Kirchoff’s law.

And, as you say, you have no proof. Perhaps, if you actually tried to prove your conclusion, using a careful formulation of Kirchhoff’s law, you will discover why your conclusion is not true.

All I can say is that you seem unable to convey to competent scientists why you think your conclusion follows from Kirchhoff’s law.

Until then, it is just your personal belief, without anything supporting it.

Good luck.

Dave

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Fred Moolten

0
0

Sorry for being curt, but your first paragraphi is completely wrong.

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

0
0

Fred, what I describe is just thermo. If you add more energy to a system than is lost by work or entropy, the energy accumulates. If you release more energy than is input, the energy of the system approaches zero.

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

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Fred Moolten

0
0

Actually, the first two sentences.


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

0
0

According to the IPCC, last years GMT of 0.34 deg C should have been 0.65 deg C, 0.3 deg C higher (wrong by half the warming of the 20th century!)

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Fred Moolten

0
0

You should read the Pierrehumbert article. He disagrees with your figure of 393.6 K and instead cites a value of 800,000 K (after a billion years).

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

0
0

What heats the Earth, after it’s reached the Sun’s temperature?

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

0
0

mattstat – That’s a pretty nebulous explanation at best how CO2 affects water vapor.

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

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

0
0

Beth

I have a sister who lives in Adelaide. That could explain a lot.

As regards bringing your own drinks, by all means do so but there is a (large) corkage charge :)

tonyb

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

0
0

Paging Erl Happ.
========


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

0
0

He might want to check his model :) Even the most massive stars at the origin of the universe are only estimated at 120,000 C. With a perfectly insulated atmosphere, entropy, the escape of highly energetic molecules would limit the maximum temperature.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Fred Moolten

0
0

Edim – In order to make a point, Pierrehumbert is hypothesizing a scenario contrary to fact – the possibility of perfect insulation against escape of radiation combined with some transparency to incoming radiation.That isn’t possible, but if it were, his figure of 800,000 is the temperature the Earth would acquire.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Fred Moolten

0
0

I don’t want to belabor the point, but it’s important to realize that with a potent greenhouse effect, it is possible for radiative equilibrium to be associated with surface radiation far in excess of the wattage of absorbed solar radiation, and a correspondingly much higher temperature, all without violating any laws of physics. If someone doesn’t understand why this is so, he or she doesn’t understand the greenhouse effect. I do think the Pierrehumbert article is helpful in this regard. For anyone desiring a more sophisticated understanding, his 600+ page book is an excellent source.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by blueice2hotsea

0
0

OMG! Help Bart R!

Or please pass the goose sauce. :)

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

0
0

Bart said

‘The oceans are vast and have room to contain many truths.’

Yes, surely that is so. Having spent quite a few hours in my rowing boat over several months on the ocean 200 yards from my house taking SST samples in connection with my article on SST’s here, and the resulting conversation with Dr John Kennedy of the Met office,

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/27/unknown-and-uncertain-sea-surface-temperatures/

it is apparent that at these latitudes (south coast of Britain)

1 The sea is warmer than the air during the winter for some of the time. A couple of weeks ago the air was 10C warmer than the ocean, two weeks prior to that the air was 10C cooler.The ocean temperature itself of course during the winter changed very little but the air did.
2 The sea will warm from around 8C in a normal winter to around 16/17C in a normal summer. Both will vary by a couple of degrees in more extreme seasons.
3 The top few metres of water is very poorly mixed with distinct bands of warm/cold water adjacent to each other on the surface and at vertical bands
4 Sea surface temperatures will warm very rapidly in warm sunshine and drop several degrees overnight at the shoulder months, but less so at night in the summer when nights are warmer
5 The number of times when the air and surface water temperatures are the same is limited.
6 Putting water in a bucket to measure it -as practised for 100 years- is daft unless there are substantial safeguards.Water in a bucket will rise in temperature very rapidly in left in the sun and cool if left in the shade (if the water ambient was higher than the shade ambient. As a result bucket temperatures for much of the year shoud be taken within a few seconds of the sample being taken.
7 One patch of water can be at a substantially different temp to another immediately adjacent. Depth makes a huge difference to water temperature. Mixing is best in stormy weather

My observations were practical and not scientific but did have some general validity.It is difficult to see the value of an ‘average’ global temperature especially historic ones.
tonyb

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images