97% of politically-funded climate science have conclusions that bolster political expansionism.
That’s their job.
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Punksta
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
Nick
In examining old sea ice records DMI commonly concluded at August 31 thereby giving a false impression of the final sea melt as peak loss often occurred some weeks later than the end of August as can be seen here
—— ——–
This link leads directly to ‘Arctic Ice’ by N.N.Zubov.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/70835248/90/Section-155-Seasonal-Fluctuations
Page 396 describes 10/10 ice concentration, yet further north very little ice-these extensive leads may not have been taken into account in ice charts where the prime means of observation was by ship. Figure 178, also table 118 on Page 458, concludes that the ice in the Russian sector is hugely variable year by year. In section 162 entitled ‘Warming of the arctic’ Dr Ahlman is mentioned once again.”
“Thus, for example, a vessel which attempted to traverse the Northern Sea Route at any cost in August 1936 would have gotten the impression that the route was completely impassable due to ice. On the contrary, a through passage of the Northern Sea Route in the second half of September of that year did not present particular difficulties. “
(Authors note; this illustrates the potential problems in relying on DMI sea ice charts which usually terminated in August)
—— ——
The above taken from my recent article
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
Re emergent models/ atmosphere or merely generally.
For 2 years after 2000 I studied and sold high powered CO2 flowing gas slab lasers mainly used to cut steel plate up to 1 inch thick.
There are many accounts on the Web about how CO2 lasers work. The allowed energy transitions between molecular states of CO2 are important.
Here is a brief description —
“The CO2 laser is a 3-level system. The primary pumping mechanism is that the electrical discharge excites the nitrogen molecules. These then collide with the CO2 molecules. The energy levels just happen to match such that the energy of an excited N2 molecule is the energy needed to raise a CO2 molecule from the ground state (level 1) to level 3, while the N2 molecule relaxes to the ground state. Stimulated emission occurs between levels 3 and 2.
The metastable vibrational level (level 2) has a lifetime of about 2 milliseconds at a gas pressure of a few Torr. The strongest and most common lasing wavelength is 10.6 um but depending on the specific set of energy levels, the lasing wavelength can also be at 9.6 um (which is also quite strong) and at a number of other lines between 9 and 11 um – but these are rarely exploited in commercial CO2 lasers.
Here are some of the more subtle details. (Skip this paragraph if you just want the basics.) As well as the 3 energy levels of CO2 I referred to, there is actually a 4th involved, about midway between the ground state and level 2. After emitting, the CO2 molecules transition from level 2 down to this 4th level, and from there to the ground state (because a direct transition from level 2 to the ground state is forbidden by quantum rules). Level 2 is actually a pair of levels close together, which is why there are 2 separate frequency bands that a CO2 laser can operate on, centred around 9.4 um and 10.4 um (i.e., just above and just below 30 THz). Each of these bands is actually composed of about 40 different vibration/rotation transitions with frequencies spaced about 40 GHz apart. The strongest transition is the one called 10P(20), which is about 10.6 um, so a CO2 laser with no tuning facilities normally operates at this wavelength. It is possible to select a particular transition (and hence frequency) using a diffraction grating instead of one of the mirrors. The exact transition frequencies were known to an accuracy of about +/-50 kHz back in 1980.
The helium in the mixture serves 2 purposes: (1) He atoms collide with CO2 molecules at level 2, helping them relax to the ground state; (2) it improves the thermal conductivity of the gas mixture. This is important because if the CO2 gets hot, the natural population in level 2 increases, negating the population inversion. ”
from http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/laserco2.htm#co2fgl
Those having trouble believing some parts of the science of CO2 in the atmosphere might benefit from reading a few items about CO2 lasers. One cannot take all of these processes to happen in the atmosphere, but some do have overlap, especially the behaviour of CO2.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
Tony, yr link ‘ Arctic Ice’ has been deleted.
bts
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Davies
Hello Geoff. After reading a couple of your comments it would seem that CO2 has indeed many properties that are relevant to the current AGW paradigm of CO2 forcing causing global average temps to rise over the past 2-3 decades. Would you care to comment on more specifically whether CO2 levels on their own would serve to increase global average temps or would there need to be other catalysts needed for this to happen?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by wijnand2015
+1
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Obama’s Mountain Sized Climate Denial - Dr. Rich Swier
[…] and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writesthat when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over […]
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by aplanningengineer
Here’s one academics self description of their own impact. I suspect this is a well meaning, responsible, capable person whose activist inclinations resulted in a skewed perspective being taught to her students. Judge for yourself whether the current perspective offered her students is more balanced.
… I’ve been teaching college undergraduates about the environment for 20 years. Like many others, I focus on how humans are changing the earth system through pollution, deforestation, resource exploitation and climate change. I school them on the inadequacies of environmental policy and try to shock them out of complacency and into action.
Problem was, it wasn’t working. Many students left my class feeling despondent and powerless. As one wrote to me, “what you have taught me makes me desperately sad, clinging to the last memories we will have of the planet as the world chooses material comfort over breathing fresh air.”…
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
hmmm
Thru April
Appears to be current.
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Michael
100% of denialsts have views on cimate science that conform to their political outlook.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Michael
“many” = 1 ?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by verytallguy
An “interesting” selection. This caught my eye:
In the news… …NOAA: “Absolute Global Sea Level Rise Is Believed To Be 1.7 – 1.8 Millimeters/Year”
Let’s pay due diligence. Click on the link, and a rather dull NOAA page comes up:
Global Regional Trends Comparison (4 Main Regions, various subregions)
The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year
This struck me as weird in two ways. Firstly, it’s not news, and secondly, the number quoted is much lower than the currently accepted rate of sea level rise, around 3 mm/yr according to my recollection.
So, being a sceptic, I thought I’d dig a little.
Reading the NOAA text carefully we find ”The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion”
So, the data is presented as informing rates of land motion primarily, rather than sea level per se. Interesting.
Let’s dig some more. The main NOAA sea level page is here.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
It recommends the University of Colorado’s page for a detailed explanation:
The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group compares global sea level rates calculated by different research organizations and provides detailed explanations about the issues involved.
That site references Church and White (2011) as the source of tide data sea level rise:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level
and gives the following figures:
1993-2009: 2.8 mm/yr +/-0.8
1900-2009: 1.7 mm/yr +/-0.2
So it appears that the NOAA site referenced, whilst not explicit, is considering sea level rise over the whole twentieth century, not current sea level rise as implied by Judith’s quote. Also, it appears that the number was provided to inform rates of coastal land subsidence/uplift rather than sea level.
So, now let’s discover why this rather old data is “news”. Googling the quote in Judith’s post brings up this headline at a site I was unfamiliar with, “NoTricksZone”
Sea Level Rise Alarm Turned Off? NOAA: “Absolute Global Sea Level Rise Is Believed To Be 1.7 – 1.8 Millimeters/Year
That post is a paranoid conspiracy theory as to the manipulation of data:
So many among us have severely criticized the various institutes for hyper-hyping the dubious, and some even say manipulated, satellite data showing a rise of over 3 – while tide gauges as the NOAA writes above indicate no such thing.
Expect this site to get wiped out.
The NoTricksZone post is then referenced by several other science denying websites.
So. It turns out that this isn’t news, it’s not true and its originated from a science denying conspiracy theory website then spread around the blogosphere. Yet here it is, promoted without comment by Judith.
Judith, you took great umbrage at being labelled a “disinformer”
Advice: If you don’t want to be labelled a “disinformer”, don’t disinform.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Michael
“Judith, you took great umbrage at being labelled a “disinformer”
Advice: If you don’t want to be labelled a “disinformer”, don’t disinform.” – vtg
And you’re surprised….. why?
This is Judith’s MO – scepticism and critical thinking switched off for anything that appears to support the anti-IPCC dogma.
↧
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
AK,
“Thompson and Moseley-Thompson say of this data:
Decadally averaged δ18O histories demonstrate that the current warming at high elevations in mid- to low-latitudes is unprecedented for at least the last two millennia.
The U-word again. But is there any evidence of this from the Bona-Churchill δ18O history showing unprecedented warming? I can’t see any. Maybe you need to be a dendrochronologist to see it. Again, please note that the question here is not whether there is or isn’t “unprecedented” warming, but whether the Bona-Churchill δ18O history provides any evidence of unprecedented warming? I think not.”
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
Interesting post, but overly judgemental. You might have observed that every week Judith posts links without comment. Below the links is a comment section where anyone can, as you did, comment.
Judith linked to a NOAA site, that currently is getting some attention, providing an avenue for discussion here. You provided some perspective on it. Seems like a win win. Is any information linked to by disreputible people supposed to be off the table for discussion as irrevocably tainted?
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Arch Stanton
That is just what I have been pointing out. It will help that it is coming from you, Michael.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/04/week-in-review-science-edition-20/#comment-729191" rel="nofollow">the tree paper was actually the biggest climate science news this past week. I only included one article discussing it.</a>
?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
I’m confused. I appreciate it when Judith post’s a link to some fashionable nonsense that is getting a bit of coverage especially when no one yet has spoken to correct the misinformation At times when this has happened, I’ve addressed the issue being misrepresented, not critiqued Judith for bringing it up. I would think that when a pseudo issue is getting a lot of attention the “best” thing for her to do (when counter arguments have not yet surfaced) is to provide limited links on the topic and open the discussion. I don’t know why this troubles VeryTallGuy.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
Nick
If there are ten times more trees than expected, but many more have been cut down in the past, doesn’t that all have an impact on the carbon budget as sinks become sources and on a larger scale both ways than hitherto realised?
tonyb
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by AK
Such assertions would be more worth paying attention to if backed up by data.
After all, given the way CAGW alarmism supports the socialist agenda, why would any socialist make a fuss about it, no matter how skeptical they were of the science?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
