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

Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevenreincarnated

0
0

When I see the ocean heat content of the North Atlantic stop dropping I’ll wonder if the Arctic will recover. So far it has been dropping right along with the drop in ocean heat transport and it is just a matter of time. If you go by history it take energy to melt ice and the energy has to be where the ice is.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0


Just saying the obvious.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevenreincarnated

0
0

Large tipping points or no variability at all? I think you are being a bit extreme. There has been a lot of variability measured in the AMOC in just the short period of time we have had reasonably accurate measurements for it and Greenland is still covered with ice.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar

0
0

Where is the water vapor attribution in the graphics? This raises to me an interesting question. Water vapor levels without CO2 should be enough to run a GCM reasonably accurately as they are most of the effect.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevenreincarnated

0
0

I don’t think there is any doubt it is caused by melt water from greenland. You can follow the drop in pH from greenland to the cold spot. The rest of the paper is pretty questionable. All other reconstructions that I am aware of show ocean heat transport increasing up until very recently.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

Water vapor is part of the feedback, not the forcing. It will respond whether it is CO2 or the sun doing the forcing.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by dynam01

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="https://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/the-beyond-two-degree-inferno/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a>.

Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by dynam01

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="https://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/new-research-on-atmospheric-radiative-transfer/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a>.

Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by dynam01

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="https://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/is-the-epas-clean-power-plan-legal-lawyers-and-law-professors-disagree/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a>.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

steven, you seem to have a slight prejudice when it comes to plausible tipping points in the ocean circulation. Not surprising to me that the ocean heat transport is increasing when the global SST and heat content is rising.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

0
0

That picture of CO2 levels looks wonderful to me. Perhaps we should raise the CO2 level more – after all the deserts aren’t completely green yet.

Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Danny Thomas

0
0

GaryM,

I don’t think it’s a fair discussion to state that progressives are soley of issue. With your statement :”Progressive lawyers, like progressive scientists, are progressives first, and everything else second.” Would it not be applied equally to state that “Conservative lawyers, like conservative scientists, are conservative first, and everything else second?”

There are, for this observer, no clean hands on one side of the discussion and only clean hands on the other. Bias is imputed on all sides, if one is fair in the evaluations. If nothing else, as a way to offset the bias’ of the “other side”.

Not intending to indicate one side is more correct than another, just that the divide is indicated in courts/jurisdictions up and down the line.

I’ve stated many times to the CAGW/AGW side of the discussion that this “fight” was brought about from the left but this perception does not alleviate that the right is soley “in the right”.

If one believes/perceives that money influences the science one can certainly believe money influences the attorney’s on both sides who argue the detail. I’d speculate that Rud could provide much greater insight.

Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by verdeviewer

0
0

…a lot of really evil people out there and sometimes our government is the only thing standing between us and their greed or ignorance.

That’s very funny. Historically, the “really evil people” are those who use expanded power of government to satisfy the greed of their most generous benefactors. And they rely on the credulity of “us” to do so.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

100% less glaciers too. What’s not to like?


Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by hockeyschtick

0
0

angech2014 says, “HS, you said something way back about 2 scenarios for the 33 degree rise in temp and said one or the other has to be correct.
Could it not be that both theories are mutually compatible and just different ways of expressing the same 33 C?”

Wish that was true, but it isn’t, and if it was true the GHE from the ERL to surface would be 66C instead of 33C. The 3 greatest physicists in history on the topics of heat & radiation Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot all showed that the atmospheric temperatures are a function of mass/pressure/gravity/ratio of heat capacities/adiabatic processes, & none of which are a function of GHG back-radiation.

For example, here are excerpts from Maxwell’s 1872 book Theory of Heat, all of which was subsequently proven to be absolutely correct not only for Earth, but all planets in our solar system with thick atmospheres, and proves overwhelming evidence that the gravito-thermal GHE is correct.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/maxwell-established-that-gravity.html

The Arrhenius GHE confuses the cause with the effect. Radiation from GHGs is the effect, not the cause of the GHE. Arrhenius, who was quite an inferior physicist, completely “forgot” or simply didn’t understand that convection dominates atmospheric radiative-convective equilibrium and falsely claimed surface temperature was only a function of GHG back-radiation. It is not, and the ‘greenhouse equation’, Chilingar et al, The US and International Standard Atmospheres, Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot, etc. etc., provide overwhelming evidence the gravito-thermal GHE is correct.

Nobody on the last thread could answer my question on why the base of the troposphere on Uranus is +35C warmer than the base of the troposphere on Earth, despite Uranus only receiving ~2W/m2 solar insolation. Absolutely impossible for the Arrhenius radiative GHE to explain this, but piece of cake for the gravito-thermal GHE to fully explain.

“The “laws of physics” may also be the “laws of GHG” just like you can do a geometric and an algebraic solution.”

Yes, the gravito-thermal GHE is really quite simple to derive from pure mathematics only using basic physical chemistry & physics known since the 1800s. Compare that to all the contortions the ‘experts’ go through here & elsewhere, and still cannot even agree with each other, or provide any mathematical derivations to support their opinions!

“Perhaps you and Pekka could reach some common ground.”

Well, let’s hope, that would be great. But if this thread continues to have absolutely false claims about the HS greenhouse equation, US Std Atm, Chilingar et al, and just consists of non-rebuttals containing absolutely no evidence/mathematics/references/etc to refute all of the evidence/mathematics/references I’ve provided, just “you’re wrong” with nothing whatsoever to back up such claims, I’ve got better things to do.

Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by Jim D

0
0

It was especially easy for Chilingar because he added 288 K as a surface temperature as an input parameter. QED right there.

Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by matthewrmarler

Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Danny Thomas

Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Danny Thomas

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images