We are waiting for the hockeyputz to show us quotes from the scientists who maintain that it is the so-called gravito-thermal effect that is responsible for the earth’s climate being considerably warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. Actually, we are not waiting. We ain’t that foolish.
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by hockeyschtick
“Some people assert that CO2 can only absorb EMR of specific wavelengths. Some people, particularly people with physics degrees, should know better.”
Oh lordy MF! You really ought to take some remedial ed courses on very basic science. You’ve embarrassed yourself here as much or even more than even Donnie spamboy’s fizzikx.
In the thermal radiation spectrum of Earth from ~10-25 microns or so, the ONE AND ONLY FIXED absorption AND emission band of CO2 is at ~15 microns, due to the FIXED molecular structure of the CO2 triatomic bending transitions. That CANNOT change!
CO2 is by no means a TRUE blackbody; it is a FIXED ~15um line-emitter without a Planck curve of a TRUE blackbody. Even if CO2 was a TRUE blackbody, the 15 micron absorption/emission band would correspond to a blackbody emitting temperature of 193K, far colder than the entire atmosphere all the way from the surface to space.
A blackbody at 193K CANNOT warm a blackbody at 255K (atmosphere) or at 288K (surface), no matter what you or Donnie spamboy thinks.
↧
Comment on Informed Consent for Climate Policy by AUIP (@AUIPConservatve)
It just gets better and better, doesn’t it?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/the-worlds-leading-expert-takes-a-dive/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151102143735.htm
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Mike Flynn
Correction to apparently misleading statement. By implicitly stating that CO2 can “absorb” EMR of various wavelengths, I might have raised a few hackles. However I cannot think of a more suitable common English word.
Absorption may result in momentum being imparted to the molecule, or other effects.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by climatereason
Eli
You always seem to forget the follow up paper ‘Uncertainties in early Central England temperatures’ by David Parker from 2009.
I discussed this paper with David at the Met office a year or so ago.
Putting natural variability into their context is assisted by looking at the paper from Phil Jones in 2006.
Unusual Climate in Northwest Europe During the Period 1730 to 1745 Based on Instrumental and Documentary Data
P. D. Jones , K. R. Briffa
“This study focuses on one of the most interesting times of the early instrumental period in northwest Europe (from 1730–1745) attempting to place the extremely cold year of 1740 and the unusual warmth of the 1730s decade in a longer context. The similarity of the features in the few long (and independent) instrumental records together with extensive documentary evidence clearly indicates that remarkable climatic changes occurred rapidly in this period
….Apart from evidence of a reduction in the number of explosive volcanic eruptions following the 1690s, it is difficult to explain the changes in terms of our knowledge of the possible factors that have influenced this region during the 19th and 20th centuries. The study, therefore, highlights how estimates of natural climatic variability in this region based on more recent data may not fully encompass the possible known range.”
Natural variability is considerable and well documented in early CET and other studies, including the Paris series. However I always bear in mind the comment from Hubert Lamb that ‘we can understand the (temperature tendency but not the precision..’
Good advice, even for well documented and much examined CET. Even better advice when considering Historic global average data sets
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by climatereason
rebelronin
The castle design of that period is also interesting due to the structural openess of the design. Might be partially to do with limited availability of glass as well as a milder climate.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by eli rabett (@EthonRaptor)
CO2 also absorbs at 4.25 microns, the asymmetric stretch. This is not so much of an issue for the greenhouse effect because the relative emission of a ~300 K blackbody @ 4.25 microns (temperature of the Earth;s surface) is relatively small as compared to that at 15 microns.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by PA
“National USHCN monthly temperature updates have been discontinued. The official CONUS temperature record is now based upon nClimDiv. USHCN data for January 1895 to August 2014 will remain available for historical comparison.”
Mr. Heller needs to repeat his work with nClimDiv.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by eli rabett (@EthonRaptor)
Suggest you read up on the absorption and emission spectra of gas phase atoms and molecules, not lumps of clods.
↧
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Vaughan Pratt
@SoF: He found that adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network USHCN temperature data has a near perfect linear correlation with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Yes, as I’ve pointed out in previous posts, ln(1 + x) is very close to x for x in the interval [-0.14, 0.16]. Observe that ln(1.16) = 0.1484 while ln(0.86) = -0.1508. Since 1.16/0.86 = 1.349, and 400/300 = 1.333, it follows that over the range 300 to 400 ppm we can treat ln(1 + x) as very close to linear in x, certainly to within the noise in Heller’s data.
That approximation is not so great when CO2 ranges out to 1000 ppmv.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Mike Flynn
hockeyschtick,
Unfortunately, you are wrong. CO2 at -50 C radiates a different spread of frequencies to CO2 at 150 C. CO2 in the flame of CO combustion, yet more different frequencies.
Solid CO2 can have different temperatures. Even liquid CO2, at various pressures and temperatures, cannot be distinguished from liquid H2O on the basis of temperature alone.
Another easily seen example of the difference between the types of EMR, is that of sodium vapour in street lamps. Until excited, the sodium emits none of its characteristic emission spectrum. You might say it does, but it doesn’t. It emits the same frequencies as the container, the light pole, the wiring and all the rest.
All at the same temperature. Thank goodness!
Still no gravito thermal effect. Not at the bottom of the atmosphere. Not at the bottom of the ocean. None, not a sausage!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by jim2
Thanks for the post, VP.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by richard verney
Dr Curry;
“The purpose of this post is to focus attention on the 70-year period 1880-1950”
///
How do we know precisely what happened during this period since the thermometer record covering this period uses different station data during the entirety of the 70 year period such that we are not, at any time during the time series, comparing apples with apples.
The 1950 anomaly is not that made up from a comparison with the 1880 station data!
If you wanted to do this task, one would first have to identify which stations were used in compiling the 1880 temperature set, and then use these and only these stations to construct the anomaly trend through to 1950.
The matter would be further complicated by the fact obviously some of the stations that were used in 1880 may not have continuous records throughout the entire period running through to 1950. That being the case, one would have to check which stations had extant records covering the entire period between 1880 and 1950 and use these and only these to construct a record of temperature anomalies running from 1880 through to 1950.
My understanding is that there were only about 300 to 500 stations reporting data in 1880 and these were mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. I recall reading something that suggested that there were less than a couple of dozen stations in the Southern Hemisphere.
Apart from that, I agree with the general premise that it is important to know and consider what happened prior to 1950, and use this to form a view on natural variation, and possibly natural climate cycles.
↧
↧
Comment on Informed Consent for Climate Policy by Willis Eschenbach
Well thought out, well written, and well played, Mr. Bergkamp. Congratulations.
And as always, Dr. Judith, thanks for your great site. Always interesting.
w.
↧
Comment on Informed Consent for Climate Policy by catweazle666
If, on the other hand, the part of the population that does not buy into the narrative becomes too large, the ‘neutralizing’ strategies lose their effectiveness and politicians have a problem on their hands.
Here is the 2015 ‘United Nations My World’ global survey on causes for concern currently covering 8,581,385 respondents.
Note that “action on climate change” comes flat last, sixteenth out of sixteen causes for concern.
So politicians have a problem on their hands – probably caused by their richly deserved utter lack of credibility.
↧
Comment on Informed Consent for Climate Policy by kim
Well, the herd immunity conferred by the native infection of viral CRD is immensely valuable. The proposed vaccine is unnecessary and has terrifying, destructive, even lethal side effects.
Choose wisely my friends.
==================
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Mike Flynn
eli rabbet,
You may know more than the chap who wrote this –
“If a gas is heated to the point where it glows, the resulting spectrum has light at discrete wavelengths . . . ”
Or maybe not. Try to measure the emission spectrum of CO2 at 20 C in a dark room at 20 C. Let me know your results. No heating of the gas, mind!
Cheers.
↧
↧
Comment on Informed Consent for Climate Policy by kim
Endemic prosperity, if you want it.
================
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by matthewrmarler
Eli Rabett: <i>Don’t care whom it is from, it is cherry picking end points, </i>
OK, <i>which</i> argument is it that you claim disappears
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by richard verney
There is little solar input into Jupiter’s atmosphere, but even after some 4.5 billion years, it has not cooled to 3K (the approximate background temperature of space).
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
