Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Willis Eschenbach

April 11, 2012, 1:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Girma

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

$

0

0

My favorite line in the article?

Kareiva is also a giant among conservation biologists. Inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences with Al Gore and Spike Lee …

Were it not for the fact that it’s posted here, I would have stopped reading right there. But I still wasn’t all that impressed.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s great that someone important like him finally noticed that orangutangs were dying, not because of the loss of the forests, but because they are being hunted for bushmeat. Full points for the conclusion.

But my goodness, to just notice that in 2012? For shame. Anyone but the leader of a major conservation organization noticed that decades ago.

I don’t mind some idiot coming late to the party. I do object when he wants to take credit for having invented the party … what he describes as great breakthroughs, like animals being killed for bushmeat, he of all people should have seen decades ago.

So yeah, it’s good he’s saying it, but its depressing that it has taken so long …

w.

---

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Girma

April 11, 2012, 1:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Edim

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Willis Eschenbach

$

0

0

Willis

What do you think of my empirical GMT model => http://bit.ly/HRvReF

I believe it can be used to predict the GMT band at least for the next couple of decades.

Do you agree?

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Edim

April 11, 2012, 1:47 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Girma

$

0

0

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley

April 11, 2012, 2:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by adamsa99

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Edim

$

0

0

Hi Bryan, there is a big difference between being “obsessed by” and being “interested in”. I am very puzzled as to why Ken Coffman, of Stairways Press, who was responsible for donating that £10,000 in prize money, is so reluctant to clarify why Piers only received £1,000 and what happened to the outstanding £9000. The PSI blog claims that transparency is very important to the group yet the group has demonstrate a great reluctance to be transparent about the original plans that John O’Sullivan had for it.

As I told you on 14th Dec. a year earlier John O’Sullivan considered that taking legal action against powerful government agencies like “ .. NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. ” was “ . the only game in town .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-149933). He then held out the begging bowl to try to set up PSI as a limited company (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse) when it would have required a measly £417 each from his “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ”.

Doesn’t that sound rather odd to you? It seems as though it sounded odd to those who saw that gofundme appeal because apart from the initial £350 donated in the first hour (by a member of John’s family) there has been little enthusiasm for further donations – £50 a few weeks later then Doug Cottons donation recently.

Have a read of my comment of 20th Nov. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-140824 Para 4 on).

I was somewhat taken aback on 15th Dec. when Andrew said of you “ .. It’s clear Bryan is a blind idiot .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-150389) but perhaps he wasn’t being unkind after all.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by adamsa99

April 11, 2012, 2:23 pm

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley

$

0

0

Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: “I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon
magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later – probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.”

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by John S.

April 11, 2012, 2:49 pm

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by adamsa99

$

0

0

UHI and its impact on urban temperature records is a matter of physics, not mathematics. The effect is so stark that it registers clearly even on car thermometers when driving from the open countryside into the city and vice versa. Detailed scientific studies to quantify the effect have been
performed, inter alia, in Winnipeg, Melbourne and Tehran.

That there are several “qualified” people who think that UHI has negligible
effect on yearly average temperatures over climatic time-scales may be
true, but their thoughts are irrelevant to the scientific question. There
are tons of people who hold forth on matters quite beyond their field of
competence–especially so in “climate science.” Wedded to ad hoc methods
of constructing anomaly series from scraps of data, they seem unaware of
direct, apples-to-apples comparisons beween validated century-long records
from urban and neighboring small-town stations. It is only by making
measurement location a fixed, rather than uncontrolled, variable that truly
scientific determinations of UHI discrepancies can be made.

Unfortunately, there is such a dearth of valid, century-long, small-town
records outside the USA, that truly indicative comparisons cannot be
made on a geographically representative basis. That’s what opens the field
to unphysical, statistical speculation wherein the properties of the
inadequate data base are conflated with those of the real world. Urban
signaturesd are spread thereby to vast unmeasured areas by kriging.

Some months ago a perceptiver commentator on WUWT posted the results of a
bona fide compilation of discrepancies between a geographically
representative samples of urban and non-urban annual averages in the USA.
It is the first latest graph found here:

s1188.photobucket.com/skygram

These results are corroborated by my own work (which goes considerably beyond simple comparisons that I will not get into here). Before plunging further ahead, I’d urge you to become acquainted with the only posting I’ve seen on the web that presents physically meaningful results on UHI on a quasi-continental scale. BEST deserves
disparagement for avoiding meaningful comparisons

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Dan Hughes

April 11, 2012, 2:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley

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

$

0

0

Deep in this post Arctic Sea Ice Volume: PIOMAS, Prediction, and the Perils of Extrapolation at RealClimate we see

Model calibration is of course necessary. We need to determine parameters that are not well known, deal with inadequately modeled physics, and address significant biases in the forcing fields.

I find this characterization to be somewhat in contrast to this characterization

The models encapsulate our understanding of the basic science of the climate system, including for example, Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics and the quantum theory of radiation.

For more info on Newton’s Laws relative to fluid motions, check this out. Sir Isaac dealt almost exclusively with point mass situations and actions outside, on the boundaries of, the materials of interest. He was successful in analyses of the interactions between two point masses, and failed for three. Decades of additional work were required to bring to fruition concepts relating to actions, and consequent deformations, within the materials of interest. Some of those who contributed to this work included mainly Euler and the Bernoulli boys, and additionally Lagrange, D’Alembert, Leibniz. The Navier-Stokes equations, generally accepted to be a good description of fluids having a linear relationship between rate of strain and the associated stresses, were not formulated until the nineteenth century, almost 150 years following Newton’s Laws.

Hydrostatics, by way of Archimedes, pre-dates Newton’s Laws by several centuries: almost 20. The first edition of his Principia was published in 1687: Archimedes lived until c. 212 BCE. Stevin, somewhat later in the early seventeenth century, also made contributions that pre-date Sir Isaac.

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley

April 11, 2012, 2:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Jim2

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

$

0

0

Hi Bryan, I forgot to provide this link to a picture of John O’Sullivan in meeting room #10 at the Houses of Parliament on 27th Oct. 2010 proudly presenting that enormous Stairways Press cheque for £10,000 payable to Piers Corbyn (http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/CFD%205.jpg). That happy smile on Piers’s face didn’t last for long though – getting only £1000 must have been so very disappointing for him.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

---

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Jim2

April 11, 2012, 3:28 pm

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley

$

0

0

OK, adamsa99, it appears you are right about the 40 years, but Hansen is still full of it. His prediction still isn’t coming true. He is still a drama queen.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

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

April 12, 2012, 4:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by peeke

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Jim2

$

0

0

“Webby you are as wacky as anyone on the internet. Energy can can enter the ocean only in the short wave. So your diffusion concept is physically impossible, absurdly conceived of and ridiculously argued. So you are stupid as well as being abusive and bullying. “

Capatain Kangaroo, You are a lying manipulator, a poseur when it comes to real science. You make up this narrative to suit your own agenda, which appears to be some Australian pasttime of trolling.

This is what I said earlier on in the thread:

Heat flows from regions of high concentration to regions of low concentration. The specific scenario is the slow diffusive movement of thermal energy into the ocean. This takes place from the surface layer on down. The sun’s rays of course will heat the surface layer, and if the air is warmer than the surface, which is typical, a gradient will get set up which will also heat the water to some extent.

Note the bolded part, you jerkwad. I said the air will heat the surface to some extent, because it will, as that is the direction of the gradient, when the air warms before the water warms. Your problem likely is that civils are not really taught mathematical physics that well and don’t probably think in terms of gradients.

Heat flows in the direction of the gradient, from regions of high thermal energy (high temperature) to regions of low thermal energy (high temperature) . Do you understand this, Captain Kangaroo? This is not hard to understand in one dimension, and one can add other terms due to convection effects, but thermal vibrational energy by itself can only flow by diffusion :

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by peeke

April 12, 2012, 4:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Peter317

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

$

0

0

I’d like to add that nature indeed is resilient, and that is exactly why one should buy land. Old cut-over peat bogs looked like dead plains. But when they were bought, they could be rewetted and lo and behold: The system restarted itself. This is exactly how one should think. On could imagine buying logged rainforest grounds, and let the forest regrow.

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Peter317

April 12, 2012, 4:56 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by peeke

$

0

0

The sun’s rays of course will heat the surface layer, and if the air is warmer than the surface, which is typical, a gradient will get set up which will also heat the water to some extent

Just as a burning candle placed in the corner of a room will heat the room to some extent

Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Jinan Cao

April 12, 2012, 5:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Andrew Skolnick

≪ Previous: Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Peter317

$

0

0

Bart R
Let me answer your question from bottom back to top. Yes, we can draw many layers of onion in the atmosphere, with equal optical thickness (99% absorption). But how much IR leaves the onion is determined only by the outmost layer, which is the “surface” and the rest are “inside”.

All the CO2 molecules emit 15 um IR as long as the temperature is not 0 K. In other words, every CO2 molecule is a radiation source for the 15 um IR. Therefore, wherever within the onion, there is the 15 um IR radiation, “scattering and backradiating over and over again.”

Your onion model may be useful to help explanation. The inner most layer absorbs the IR from the bottom by the earth ground surface, and the IR from the top by the inner 2nd most layer. The inner 2nd most layer absorbs the IR from the inner most and the inner 3rd, and so on and so forth until the outmost layer.

There is no countable CO2 absorption in the thermosphere. Therefore for the 15 um IR, the outmost layer of the onion starts somewhere below the thermosphere downwards.

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Andrew Skolnick

April 12, 2012, 5:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by hunter

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

$

0

0

Bryan — descending like the Mercury from Mt. Olympus — now comes to inform us what we think. He says Pete and I “think that without [our] digging the dirt [everyone] would all be in danger of being brainwashed by Doug Cotton and John O’Sullivan.”

Using his godly powers to see into the minds of mortal men, he informs us that Chris Ho Ho Ho Stuart “spoke for all decent readers of these blogs.” And finally declares “Stick to the science if you can!”

Hey Bryan, try sticking to reality. You’re not the messenger god. Except in the dark recesses of your delusional mind, NO one appointed you mesenger for the gods of Olympus — or for all the readers of this blog.

What an arrogant maroon.

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by hunter

April 12, 2012, 5:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Andrew Skolnick

≪ Previous: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Andrew Skolnick

$

0

0

peeke,
You have lifted a rock with an ugly reality under it. The big envirocrat NGOs are not doing squat for the environment. They are poorly veiled political pressure and political shakedown organizations.

---

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Andrew Skolnick

April 12, 2012, 5:31 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by hunter

$

0

0

And speaking of delusional Bryan, I’m still waiting for you to respond to my demand that you identify ANY credential in my resume that is bogus, as you implied if not outright claimed. So let me tell you what I ACTUALLY think: You’re a shameless liar.

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

April 12, 2012, 5:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Tom

≪ Previous: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Andrew Skolnick

$

0

0

“Just as a burning candle placed in the corner of a room will heat the room to some extent”

Here is an experiment. Take a slab of water, insulated on all sides by a perfect vacuum, and start heating it by strong sunlight. Watch how slowly that water will cool down once the solar is removed.

That’s right, it only cools relatively slowly because I have just artificially created a thermos bottle. In a vacuum, the slab can only dissipate thermal energy by infrared radiation, and this is a sllow process for lukewarm temperatures.

The fact is that water can warm and cool by a number of mechanisms, and if one wants to be complete about it, then you have to consider all the pathways for dissipation, whether it be radiation, convection, evaporatiom/condensation, melting/freezing, dilution, or thermal conduction/diffusion.

What Hansen did was remove all the exchange mechanisms that are conserving (such as phase changes) and treated the general convection problem as a random walk (i.e. convection can go either way). This then creates a modeling scenario that involves a radiation forcing term, an interface between two volumes, and a diffusional mechanism. The result is the general Fickian response (i.e. uptake is square root with time) that shows up in the thermal response curves from Hansen’s papers published in the early 1980′s.

Does everyone now understand what this is all about? Probably not, because faux skeptics don’t want to understand.

BTW, this turns the scenario into a planar diffusion problem, one of those problems that for me, as a semiconductor physicist, I can solve in my sleep. Diffusion is diffusion and the master equations are similar in construction.

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Tom

April 12, 2012, 5:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Michael

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

$

0

0

Even when we all went, ‘boldly go where no man has gone before’… there was Capt. kirk & Nurse chapel. Don’t leave home without them. Talking about warp factors on the boob-tube from the old days. Wow.

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Michael

April 12, 2012, 5:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Tom

$

0

0

What a fantastic idea!!!……..oh wait, they already do.

“The 32.7 hectares of land surrounding Sekania beach was purchased by WWF Greece in 1994 as part of the ACNAT E.U./WWF-Greece Integrated Ionian Project. The 600 million drachmas (approx. 1.5 million euros) for the land purchase came from both this project and funds raised through a three-year Pan-European campaign run by WWF Greece. The aim of the land purchase was to secure the conservation status of the area through the aversion of tourist development and the implementation of management measures…….”

Try to keep up.

Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Jim2

April 12, 2012, 5:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Michael

$

0

0

Even after the bogus glacial isostatic adjustment, the sea level still won’t cooperate and display a global warming signal. (After all, the chart was intended to plot sea level, not global warming.) Warmists are now having to eat the crow WRT to the predictions of their models. See? It isn’t a communications problem, it’s a problem of nothing to communicate. I would like to see Judith open a topic on the cause and effect relationship between delta-CO2 and delta-H2O vapor.