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

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by More Observational Support For Lindzen’s Iris Hypothesis | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

0
0

[…] Full post […]


Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by ristvan

0
0

Jim2, as I understand Lindzen the iris effect is primarily over tropical oceans where afternoon/evening thunderstorms are practically a daily occurance. Not sure the effect would extend as much over land to influence desertification.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Tony Banton

0
0

Mike,

Mike, you must remember that radiative exchange occurs both day and night so IR is back-radiated from Ci all the time, it is just that during the day it’s not measurable (on a RST thermo) due direct SW absorption. I did not directly measure or estimate Ci thickness, as I said, it takes relatively little to produce the effect (see stars through it).
Tropical convection over ocean proceeds round the clock, though deep convection tends to get a “kick” often at night as the cloud top cools to space, this making the overall cloud parcel more unstable, and convection more vigorous. BTW: I found no ref to day/night in his abstract.

Lindzen found a reduction of Cu with SST increase. This happens over land too. When vigorous convection occurs (more likely over higher surface temps) Cb will create anvil Ci, this has a “dampening” effect on Cu (what goes up must come down) and the Ci also reduces TSI at the ground, reducing convection. If Lindzen analysed his Sat pics via the vis channel then he would still “see” Cu beneath thin Ci … but when switching to an IR channel you would not – therefore the emissivety of the Cb Ci is STILL at work and the increased ocean open to space in reality does not exist.

Sorry I have no ref for you re radiative opacity at 300mb.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by AK

0
0

What a confused argument, to a conclusion that doesn’t follow.

Deep convection is dominatd by Cb not Cu.

Where are you talking about?

Cb reaches the Tropopause and spreads moisture laturally under it (any meteorologist will tell you of the massive Cb anvils formed and in such convection.
It is this that moistens the upper Trop and NOT Cu build/decay.

Even if true, it says nothing of the effect of changes. Gray is talking about the effect of changes

Our observation analysis finds that increases in cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud intensity and frequency brings about a decrease in upper tropospheric water-vapor, not an upper tropospheric moistening as the model simulations show. [my bold]

The deeper and/or the more intense Cb clouds become the higher is their rainfall efficiency. Cb clouds rain out most of their moisture as they overshoot from the top of their positive buoyancy layer near 300 mb (~ 10 km) and penetrate higher into the stabilizing upper troposphere where they became weaker and terminate their upward motion. The Cbs weakening upward vertical motion at these high levels leave little upper-level moisture as they die. Their updrafts deposit their saturated but miniscule moisture content air and liquid cirrus clouds high in the troposphere. These are the heights where the vertical gradients of saturation air is, percentage-wise, very large. Any subsidence of this cold upper-level saturated air parcels to lower and warmer levels causes an especially large reduction of the sinking air’s RH. [my bold]

Note that I’m not saying Gray is right, just that your attack on his thesis is dominated by straw men.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by Wind Turbines – Unaffordable, Unreliable, Novelty Energy! |"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

0
0

[…] True costs of wind electricity Planning Engineer and Rud Istvan 12 May 2015 Climate Etc.  […]

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Wind Turbines – Unaffordable, Unreliable, Novelty Energy! |"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

0
0

[…] simply having mismatched loads and generation of conventional plants may be needed to maintain grid reliability. Under “constraint payments” generators are paid for not injecting power into the grid. Under […]

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Bad Andrew

0
0

“the planet is getting warmer”

Except for when the line squiggles downward.

That’s means it’s getting colder.

Andrew

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Hifast

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="https://gwfenimore.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/observational-support-for-lindzens-iris-hypothesis/" rel="nofollow">gwfenimore</a>.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jhborn

0
0

“Unlike medical and social science, data fabrication does not seem to be a factor in climate science – there is more than enough scope for data cherry picking and statistical methods to pretty much produce any ‘desired’ result. So while we may not see actual research misconduct in climate science, bias in climate research is a major problem IMO.”

But there’s another problem that afflicts “climate science” particularly even when no statistics are involved: it is so interdisciplinary that too many who identify themselves as climate scientists lack the background in a given paper’s underlying basic science and/or math.

Since I’m not a scientist, aspects of most papers I read leave me puzzled while other readers seem to grasp them immediately and comment with apparent authority. On those few occasions when I do take the time to dug into the substance, though, I not infrequently find that in reality neither the authors nor the commenters had a clue.

Now, in a sense, this is just a question of degree; I’ve seen it in narrower disciplines, too. And climate science is not the only area in a paper can be so afflicted with latent ambiguities that nailing its meaning down could take a reviewer more time than it took the authors to write the original paper.

But my experience with narrower disciplines has been that unless litigation is involved a proposition’s author will almost always acknowledge error when the ambiguities have been dispelled and the error is demonstrated to a mathematical certainty. By contrast, many climate-science practitioners’ ignorance of, say, even the relevant mathematics can enable an erroneous proposition’s proponents simply to brazen it out; the error demonstration is comprehensible to few who profess climate-science expertise.

Again, this is in a sense just a question of degree. But the degree seems high to me.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Hifast

0
0

Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
The high road of integrity is lonely and without reward other than the satisfaction of knowing one has done the right thing.
–Anon

No good deed goes unpunished.
–Anon

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Bad Andrew

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by mwgrant

0
0
Mike Flynn <i>"The question should be “who cares?”"</i> No. <i>That</i> definitely should not be the question. <i>'How much?'</i> clearly influences who will care.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by JCH

0
0

In the GIStemp record there are 135 years. 2014 is the warmest year. It held the record for the warmest 12 months for 31 days.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Centinel2012

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="http://centinel2012.com/2015/05/28/science-in-the-doghouse/" rel="nofollow">Centinel2012</a> and commented: Sadly it maybe to little to late COP21 is almost here!

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by David L. Hagen

0
0
<b><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/" / rel="nofollow">Retraction Watch</b></a> documents these increasing failures by scientists. Futhermore <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=A9e6sPYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" rel="nofollow">J.P. Iondis</a> explains <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124" rel="nofollow">Why Most Published Research Findings Are False</a> <blockquote>Simulations show that for <b>most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false </b>than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate <b>measures of the prevailing bias</b>.</blockquote> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15681017780418799273&as_sdt=800005&sciodt=0,15&hl=en" rel="nofollow">Cited by 2792 articles!</a>

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Salvatore del Prete

0
0

No it is not wrong and because the data he has presented is confirming what he has said.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

0
0

“Cherry picking and statistical methods to produce pretty much any ‘desired’ result”

It’s interesting to look at the fallibility inherent in the construct of protocols used in polling and not see the parallels of methodologies for which science is advanced. It’s well known how one can get any answer one wants from polling by managing the construct of human demographics (data input), inclusive of age, gender, region, sampling size, education, how questions are framed, political persuasion, etc.; basically the gerrymandering of information used to support conclusions about a polls focus. It’s no revelation that these are part of the methodologies of politics used to advance “science”, after all, 97% of all scientists believe in the view of AGW.

Based on the varied subjects on this site and the demonstrable evidence described by so many of the politics entrenched in every aspect of not just climate science, but our higher institutions, the question of “is science in the doghouse”, and “the idea that something has gone wrong”, isn’t an idea, it’s a conclusive fact being draped in a tortured lament.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by David L. Hagen

0
0
The greatest fabrication (and statistical mismanagement) by Michael Mann et al. was in the <a href="http://climateaudit.org/?s=hide+decline" rel="nofollow">"Hide the Decline"</a> METHOD as documented in excruciating detail in the <a href="http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/" / rel="nofollow">Hockey Stick Studies</a> by Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick et al. <a href="http://climateaudit.org/" / rel="nofollow">Climate Audit </a>

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Salvatore del Prete

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Salvatore del Prete

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images