GaryM,
Given it’s previous use, where’s the earth-shattering news?
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Michael
↧
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by gbaikie
“Edim | June 25, 2012 at 3:43 am |
Well, it’s just as odd as the consensus heat trapping, if not less. The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) gains energy from the surface by convection/evaporation plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs’. This energy of the bulk cannot be transfered to space – it can only be transfered to ‘GHGs’, which radiate it to space. So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat. More CO2/H2O, less trapping.”
The difference is greenhouse gas are referring to gases which absorb and radiation a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.
There are different types of energy. Heat is the motion of matter.
The storage or trapping of heat is something we do all the time.
Insulation for a home is to trap heat which generated in furnace, and can also keep cool air inside the house in warm weather. Insulating your with fiberglass insulation is most about prevent convection and conduction of heat- fiber insulation is porous, filled pockets of air. So it’s the trapped air in the fiberglass which prevents conduction and convection of heat.
Or also use thermo bottles to store hot beverages. Or dewar flask to store something like cryogenic liquid nitrogen. Or brick walls for kiln are used to contain extreme heat. The type of material [lack of material in case a vacuum] and the temperature difference are element which can control the conduction, convection, and radiation of heat. generally the most heat can transfer with conduction and metals generally conduct heat well. Convection is related to gravity- hotter liquids or gases are less dense and are buoyant. I.e putting hand above a stove element will heat your hand, whereas same distance horizontal to heating element is not as hot. The heat when horizontal to a hot element would be mostly radiant heat. Or a electric space heater will radiating heat, and if has some sort fan it helps spread it’s heat via convection.
Whereas storing any electromagnetic energy is not something commonly done. One could say laser sort does this, with mirrors it can bounce the radiation back and forth [but this delaying the energy for some fraction of a millisecond.
Any electromagnet radiation is traveling at speed of light- the atmosphere could not hold this energy for any significant amount time and I have never any adequate explanation of exactly how this kind of energy is supposed to be “trapped” nor any attempt to quantify the amount energy which can transferred. I assume the delay and the amount energy transferable is somewhat insignificant.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Pekka Pirilä
The nature of data is essential, because some types of data cannot be distributed as easily as others. The data is often almost meaningless without a lot of metadata, Interpreting the data as it has been stored for the use in the original work may be practically impossible for outsiders and providing sufficient guidance may be very cumbersome and not the best way of using limited resources.
What you write about the use of scientific knowledge is exactly what people behind the concept of post-normal science have been pondering about.
Certain requirements are optimal for the progress of science. They are not the same that should be used in applying the results of science. The distinction is important when the results are new and still likely to change to a practically significant degree.
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Pekka Pirilä
</b><blockquote>
Well, it’s just as odd as the consensus heat trapping, if not less. The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) gains energy from the surface by convection/evaporation plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs’. This energy of the bulk cannot be transfered to space – it can only be transfered to ‘GHGs’, which radiate it to space. So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat.
</blockquote>
All the above is correct (although there is some freedom of interpretation and all interpretations are not right)
<blockquote>
More CO2/H2O, less trapping.
</blockquote>
This is not correct. CO2 and H2O can actually trap a little more both in rotational and in vibrational degrees of freedom than the same amount of N2 or O2. It's true that more CO2 means that a specific volume will also radiate more, but the difference between absorption and emission does not change much. For the atmosphere as whole more CO2 means that trapping radiation extends to higher altitudes and lower temperatures making it more difficult for the atmosphere to radiate to space.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Girma
<blockquote>Unfortunately, Dr Forest reports that the raw model data is now lost.</blockquote>
What a big joke!
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Gil R.
It’s by no means limited to climatology — I was recently speaking with a very good astrophysicist (one of those time/space theoreticians) who said that he often doesn’t check the math, let alone the raw data, when doing peer review, and knows that others don’t, either. Basically, they read through the article to see if it all makes sense, and if nothing suggests a calculation error they don’t investigate. (Also, I’m told that journal editors often don’t give reviewers sufficient time to really dig into articles, so it’s not merely a matter of laziness.)
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Dave Springer
Yer way off in your interpretation of what I wrote. We have people who say that any level of self-organization in a sub-system is possible so long as the net result is increasing entropy in the entire system. So there’s low entropy in the earth sun system. Atom bombs, although complex in and of themselves, increase total entropy when they detonate more than the decrease in entropy by the organization in the unexploded bomb. Therefore according to the maximum entropy pundits an atomic bomb is a natural and unavoidable consequence of the earth/sun system arranging itself in a way that maximizes generation of disorder. There are people that actually believe there’s no limit to self-organization so long as the net result of the self-organization is even more efficient disorganization. So living things are no different than the patterns drainage channels assume to drain most efficiently. Reducio ad absurdum if you ask me.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by JCH
Ca you provide links? I remember an extended discussion on Forster and Gregory. Forster actually made an appearance on this blog.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by theduke
Let’s see: this story has now been covered today at Climate Etc, ClimateAudit, Bishop Hill, and WUWT Somebody is not going to sleep well tonight.
I want to commend Nicholas Lewis for maintaining his composure and scientific demeanor.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Dave Springer
In light of you and Willis subsequently going at each other in comments in this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/
I find your jab at me amusing in an ironic sort of way.
As to you and Willis in that thread, it’s two pompous asses lecturing each other. Conflict is inevitable. It’s like Spy vs. Spy only in this case it’s more like Dumber vs. Dumber. You can thank me for saying Eschenbach is dumber but not by much. Pass the popcorn.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Bart R
Steven Mosher | June 25, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
I’m sure Dr. McKitrick will do his best to accommodate. He himself was in a not dissimilar situation wrt BEST; I admit to mercilessly jabbing at him while he was exposed.
My own bias toward people who audit, look into raw data, do the math for themselves with evenhanded skepticism, review, and make real and meaningful contributions despite the wickedly improvised circumstances of much of the data (as you’ve come across with some aspects of the Canadian weather data, and must appreciate the frustration of more than most) tends to increase my regard for your efforts in this.
My inkling is that reprocessing may even improve McKitrick’s results. After all, the hypothesis he puts forward isn’t completely implausible, at first glance. He could end up thanking you.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by GaryM
Hilarious. I skipped to the end to see if whoever produced this took “credit.” No joy.
But the last clip is claimed to be a cut from a textbook at Bob Jones University. The somber voice over, reading a description of the Ku Klux Klan from the text, intones “In certain communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.” Whereupon the stentorian reading stops. The obvious intent of this cut, like the rest of this Monty Python level piece of investigative journalism, is to paint Bob Jones University.as racist for praising the KKK.
(Un?)fortunately, the genius producers didn’t crop the page properly. So the following continuation of the text can be seen immediately following the portion read: “The 1924 Democratic Nat-….” (Maybe they should have contacted Michael Mann about the proper way of hiding unfortunate data.)
For those oblivious to the real history of racism in the Democrat Party (meaning virtually all progressives, moderates and independents), this is an oblique reference to the fact that the KKK was formed by Democrats, to use terrorism to pursue Democrat Party goals, such as preserving Jim Crow laws, preventing African Americans from voting and other benign progressive policies of the day..
One wonders why the producers decided to do an NBC style edit of the text.
OK, not really.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Lorne50
Sorry Dr. Curry but please let my Rant go You all need to hear it !
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by kim
You wanna laff, read Mencken on the 1948 Progressive Party Convention.
=============
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by kim
Easy, journalism, Doc, but I’d already read it elsewhere. Cap’n Stormfield brought aliens back and they’ve taken over newsrooms, even in Tennessee.
==========
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Steven Mosher
Yes. If the paper was written with sweave for example it would be reproducible. The paper would be an executable document.
There is no reason to have a paper over here and code and data over there. Executable documents.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Steven Mosher
yes, while looking at population growth I did find that it explained some of the variance in temperature trends.. So a finer grid of data may actually help his case. Personally I just like to use the best data and see where the chips fall. Knowing that nothing I could find would overturn radiative physics. arrg. dont get me started on env canada and sunshine, I just regained my peace of mind
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Joshua
Look, if you want to ignore the demographic changes in the Republican and Democratic parties, knock yourself out, I’m not going to waste my time discussing that with you.
But schools receiving state funding for vouchers will be using the A Beka curriculum. If you have information that contradicts that such a curriculum will be used, I’d be interested to see it.
In the mean time, you can duck, but you can’t hide.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by gbaikie
“I just have one question:
What the hell is wrong with you guys?” ”
It never was very good.
One could say it should have improved and it didn’t, and then technology changed the rules.
But technology has always done this.
So they may have got slightly worse because they had monopoly,
and technology allow the monopoly to be weaken, and it will
weaken further.
We are still in the information age, and if this is as good as
it gets, I will be deeply disappointed.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by P.E.
Agreed. That ain’t happening.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
