Well, I stopped before then ( at the break). However, I have skipped to that point in Sapolsky’s lecture to try to answer your question. Perhaps the editors of those journals were just being nice to Sapolsky by complimenting him on his study, but thought (a) it was not the kind of thing their audience wanted, (b) it would cause waves, or (c) it wasn’t really very good.
I’m not sure what you have in mind on “citations.”
Where’s my checkbook ! If the UN irks radical right-wimgers, I want to contribute to that organization.
Better yet, I would contribute to a fund encouraging right-wing radicals to leave the U.S. permanently. Give em’ free one-way fares to any country that would have ‘em. America would be a better place without those whiners.
That’s why I maintain the Climate Clown guide and why Robert has the IdiotTracker going. As some famous blogger once said — Document the Atrocities!.
Peter Lang,
Just to continue my argument, as above, it would seem that as a ‘left-progressive’ I should concentrate my efforts on arguing the case for nuclear energy with those of similar views. I realised , some time ago, that it was impossible to change rightwing-libertarians views on the science of climate change.
But, maybe not for you though. You do seem to have impeccable right-wing credentials. You could do it.
WebHubTelescope | August 19, 2012 at 10:24 am |
“Way I look at it, CO2 doesn’t have much effect upon temperature.”
Well, the way you look at something doesn’t have any effect on the actual situation.
…..
“But to get to your misconception, CO2 actually has a significant effect on temperature. If it wasn’t for the non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, the earth would be frozen over, with a high reflecting albedo as the ice accumulates. Once CO2 is available to heat through the GHE then the condensing H20 will kick in by outgassing and contribute to raising the average temperature by around 33C.”
Webbie gives example illustrating:
“It *seems* to me that the warmers tend believe CO2 has considerably more warming than I think it does, and I don’t see anywhere in science papers that much warming is assigned to CO2.”
To rephrase, webbie seems to think the CO2 is necessary to cause water to melt on earth.
Our tropics are about 26 C average temperature- currently.
But a block of ice on the Moon or Mars, and it will evaporate- which saying nothing because ice will evaporate at -150 C. So on Moon the block of ice evaporate fairly rapidly until this evaporation cool the block ice down to -150 C. Of course in sunlight it isn’t going to cool to -150 C. Kinda explains why the Moon is so dry. Mars is also kinda dry- and though it’s thin atmosphere allow liquid water to be somewhat stable just above it’s freezing point- the block of ice or bucket of cold water will evaporate, as long as it’s above -150 C.
The point one should getting is earth as long as it’s high temperature, or average temperature is above -150 C, and has plenty of water, it will have water vapor in it’s atmosphere. Maybe not a lot water vapor, at least some.
Now, Mars is pretty cold place, but has surface temperature in daylight reaching as around 80 F. If one had solar pond or greenhouse on Mars one could close to having liquid water from passive heating. If just liquid water during daytime [and froze at nite] that require pretty simple greenhouse or solar pond- all you mainly need to do prevent heat loss from evaporation. No has found nor is likely the find small lake of water on Mars- this because Mars is so dry. A natural lake over even short period [decades] will evaporate. Though if had enough water on Mars you would have bodies of waters, which would at least melt on the surface in some daylight conditions.
Now if had Mars at earth distance, the surface will warm much hotter than 80 F- probably around 212 F. And of course it’s average temperature will much higher than it’s current average temperature of
“Average temperature: ~210 K (-63 C)”
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Of course Mars has massive amount CO2 in it’s atmosphere as compared how much CO2 Earth has in it atmosphere. But addition, if Mars average temperature were to increase, CO2 would no longer freeze out it’s poles. So, as wild guess you double it’s current the amount CO2 in it’s atmosphere. But another major element which would occur is Mars dry frozen soil would evaporate more water into the atmosphere- so might add 10 or 100 times more water vapor than Mars currently has.
So Mars at Earth’s orbit could have about 50 times more CO2 than Earth and could have around 1/2 amount water vapor which is Earth’s atmosphere. Though put water on Mars it could has much water vapor as Earth has.
Let’s look at webbie’s reference:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/gavin-schmidt-takes-the-measure-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html
“If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 ”
So he counting the water vapor and clouds to get the 20 W/m2- otherwise it’s 4 W/m2- a small amount.
This adds Bayesian evidence to the idea that lurker-comma-boy is likely the commenter formerly known as “hunter”
No one could kiss-up quite like hunter.
Hey gbaikie, You are so incomprehensible as to not even warrant a listing on the Climate Clown report. And to Edim, knee-jerk contrarianism is not a theory. Maybe if I put you two together, I could get an equivalent clown.
Not only was the Arctic ice free, but countries like Greenland had a much warmer summer climate. The Romans used to cultivate grapes there!
I’m glad to know you are OK. I’m sorry my observation seemed like criticism.
Oliver K, M., Wagathon, Beth C, jebmack -
Thanks to all (again) for all your cogent comments on the AGW fraud and its perpetrators.
I frankly don’t care if some dishonest crimiinal-reactionary-leftist politician posing as a scientist loses his livelihood behind his false statements. That is only the just deserts for the liars and thieves and tyranny advocates these people are. I hope it happens to all of them, and the sooner the better.
I myself left academia decades ago because I found the academic establishment’s view of free speech to exclude anything they didn’t agree with. Because I didn’t buy into the obsession of the historian community with Thomas Jefferson’s sex life, and because I had good things to say in my writings about American institutions, I was unable to publish my scholarship (I hold a PhD in American History) and therefore had no chance oif ever attaining tenure. Hence, back to school for an MBA – and at least some sanity in the business world. The @#$%&*!!’s that would have denied me tenure were constantly saying how much more humane and efficient the Soviet system was, than ours in the US – some truly astonishing ignorance for such (supposedly) highly educated people.
I suspect that the same disconnect from reality that I observed while teaching at university obtains for the AGW crowd, and for many of the same reasons. You think you know everything, and the end justifies all means including lying, stealing and intimidation, and you’re getting paid lots of stolen money to crank out your @#$%&*!!, so why not go AGW?
I agree the IPCC is a destructive force with only political and no genuinely scientific objectives. It obviously exists only to provide protection for disseminators of disinformation and a way for them to steal more of our taxpayer dollars to finance their comfy lifestyles – with Al Gore as their role model. Ir’s high time there was a thorough criminal investigation of the IPCC and its membership for making false statements on applications for government grant money, using taxpayer money to conduct and finance a political campaign, and other likely offenses.
And yes, jebmack, thermodymanics is another nail in the AGW coffin – let’s hope so.
The mendacity and effrontery and sociopathy of the AGW crowd are truly breathtaking.
Jim Cripwell,
You say “And for that, I can find no explanation.” I suspect that you don’t really want an explanation.
If you do the Judith herself has written a paper on the topic and has written:
“The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/09/1003336107.abstract
So, if I can find it, why can’t you?
Tempterrain
I think the article you cited on southern ocean temperatures was the first time I had come across Judith and I remember roundly criticising the paper as the southern ocean has even fewer readings than many other remote parts of the world. It may or may not be warming but the amount of data available makes it difficult to compare any historic periods and come to any conclusions
Tonyb
Manacker,
I agree. This point is continually avoided by the CAGW alarmists:
I have not seen a proper, objective, impartial analyses of the probability that the proposed mitigation strategies (like CO2 tax and ETS) will have the desired effect on climate or sea levels.
The ideologically Left, elites, ‘Progressives’, greenies are conflicted.
On one hand they argue they want to the world to cut GHG emissions.
On the other hand they oppose all rational polices to do so,
Instead they insist on economically irrational policies that have no chance of working or being accepted in the real world. Examples are:
• Carbon pricing (making energy less available to the poorest people, keeping them in poverty longer)
• EU ETS and the Australian carbon tax and Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
• Renewable energy, despite being totally uneconomic, is mandated and heavily subsidised.
jim2
agree – not sure why this wouldn’t be an obvious first step before doing what is proposed in the article, in order to vastly increase the CO2 concentration. if the amine or similar treating would work at temperatures and pressures akin to what is going on in the Antarctic.
jim2 -
The uncertainty monster is on hold on line #2.
He’s angry and wants to speak to someone in customer service, but Judith won’t pick up his call.
Maybe you’d like to give it a shot?
You could just run the amine loop, spraying the solution through a huge volume until enough CO2 was captured. The fire up the rest of the system to extract the CO2 from the amine.
right, but you wouldn’t want to have to pre-heat the air to get it warm enough for the first reaction to proceed at a reasonable rate. would you have to? that would sort of defeat the point. as I understand it
Fan, Please take a step back from your advocacy of a political thesis and position and look to a restrained evaluation of the data. Tonyb tries to put you on the path time and again but your persistent myoptic bias keeps you veering to an obnoxious pattern of belief blather. Lots of science on this blog and one can learn a lot by not filling up the space with silly faces and ad nauseum arguments. The earth abides and has been changing the climate for a long time. This is complex modeling problems but data and comparison of data to models has to drive the evaluations. Ice ages seem to be driven by orbital changes and we may be overdue for one of them.
oops meant that as a reply. threading usually works for me even when it’s not working for others oh well.
