Michael: “much of the ‘critique’, which often mixes charges of ‘socialims’, ‘UN world govt’, ‘big govt’, ‘taxes’ and ‘watermelons’ to what is purported to be a challenge on the science.”
The simple fact is, what purports to be “the science” is indeed funded by big government, and will hence invariably be biased in its favor . The obsession with trying to pretend otherwise – that it is honest and objective – is the root of the whole problem.
So have i got this right Web?
You are taking a peak-oil (energy is running out) approach. Yet you say you don’t have access to what energy companies are saying on reserves because they’re too secretive? …
Webby : Again I score some more punditry points, mucho thanks.
I do wish that beastly Latimer would stop accusing you of self-aggrandizement.
You seem to imply that everyone promotes AGW because the “government” wants it, not simply because the science makes sense.
Well of course they do. The government and its scientists (what you deceptively call “the” science) keep telling them CAGW is true, and the the government is vastly more powerful than everyone else put together (writing “government” (ie with quotes around) is plain ludicrous).
Hello Judith,
To let you know i’ve been moderated again. I am sure there is nothing untoward in my rather long comment.
Regards,
Beth
There is no “conspiracy” – that is just a strawman. Government is simply acting in its own interest. Why do you try and pretend this is a “conspiracy” – its just BAU.
thanks for the laugh gary, do you write for denial depot?
bob droege says
“Sorry Bryan, the flux density is found nowhere in the Wien’s displacement law.”
This is a strange comment since I did not use flux density in my equation!
My equation comes from page 1257 of University Physics by Young and Freedman 9th Edition.
In case you do not have access to physics books here is a Wiki link saying much the same thing
“From this general law, it follows that there is an inverse relationship between the wavelength of the peak of the emission of a black body and its temperature when expressed as a function of wavelength, and this less powerful consequence is often also called Wien’s displacement law in many textbooks.
λmaxT=b ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
I hope you don’t get the impression that I think the KT97 solar intensity value is acceptable.
The division by four method satisfies the first law but violates the second LoT.
If the way you decide to balance the energy contradicts the second law then you end up with the impossible and absurd KT97 diagram.
4 times a 341W/m2 bb distribution does not equal one 1364W/m2 bb distribution.
The second law is about the ‘quality’ of the radiation as much as its quantity.
Once last try to show the difference.
Two cubic containers of volume (one cubic metre) each holding a cubic metre of water.
Water initially at say 20C
For cube A one face is irradiated by 1364W/m2 of radiation.
The other faces are totally insulated.
This cube of water will eventually reach the boiling point of water.
The maximum temperature attainable is 120C so complications beyond 100C.
Cube B is irradiated on 4 sides with 341W/m2.
The other two faces are totally insulated.
This cube of water will actually drop in temperature down to about 5C as it will radiate out more than it absorbs.
@webbie
‘The density of the solar energy on a patch of prairie is essentially infinite when integrated over time … as long as the sun keeps shining.’
Think you need to go away and study some basic stuff about energy, power, area and time. Come back when you’ve clearly grasped these concepts.
Most O level physics textbooks will be able to give you the theoretical grounding you need.
‘
@webbie
Please show references to the ‘good reviews’ you so modestly claim to have received. I know it will be hard for one whose natural tendency is to shrink away from the limelight and shrug off all praise with ‘shucks it was nothing’, but c’mon – you can do it for your adoring fans. Pretty please?
You are all being very horrible to my little Webster.
He is ever so clever and got a gold star at elementary school for his facility in math. So there.
Oh well, while I’m waiting on moderation, guess I’ll repost theis, it seems to fit anywhere…
My reminiscences on black swans and other birds.
The future just ain’t what it used to be,
Nor history our clearest dreams’ reality.
The turkey thinks the farmer is his friend,
Perhaps the farmer’s wife as well.
Maybe she is, maybe she ain’t …
It’s hard to tell. Black swans’ beating wings
Refract the light, we can’t quite see.
It’s tough making predictions,
Especially about the future.
H/t Yogi Berra for a coupla lines.
Mrs WHT, I know I shouldn’t laugh 
So you’re basically telling Curry, “Doctor, heal thyself” ?
Good one.
Here is how a nice democrat congressman talks to skeptics and builds consensus:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats_rip_gop_energy_package-215455-1.html?pos=hftxt
So according to the nice democrats, Republicans are out to literally kill people with their environmental policies.
Bad, bad republicans. Why can’t they agree the Henry’s and Bob’s of the world and just do as they are told?
The warministas need therapy. Not just the once a week session with a physchologist but in Vienna with an around the clock team of therapists for however long it takes.
This is likely to be much cheaper and less disruptive than massive mitigation – aka people are a plague on the world, degrowth, suspension of democracy etc.
One more:
““I reserve the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing this issue (CEI comes immediately to mind). Skeptics that are doing analysis and publishing their research (in journals or the blogosphere) deserve to be called skeptics, even if their analyses and research provides fuel for the deniers. It is the failure of the many in the climate community to draw this distinction between deniers and skeptics that has resulted in this problem.”
Oh damn and schadenfreude.
tt, please date the latter two quotations. My perception is that Dr. Curry has both become sensitized to language issues over time and also has gained a measured of respect for (some) “deniers” over time. Without dating and context, there seems to be a (so far unjustified) insinuation of inconsistency at best and, at worst, the “H” word.
