Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Rhetoric and rafts by Myrrh

$
0
0

David Springer – you’ve been pointed in the right direction to investigate for yourself so stop avoiding my question.. It is your claim that visible light heats matter, prove it. Show and tell. Because, if you can’t, then you have no weather on your Earth. And if you have no weather what the heck do you know about climate?

What you claiming this all and singular consistently fail to appreciate is you don’t even have a junior school level sense of the physical world around us. You don’t know the differences between solids, liquids and gases and certainly don’t have any sense of the differences in scale between a gamma ray and radio wave, a particle of visible light and a photon of heat or the difference in their effects on meeting matter; between Light giving sight in the conversion of visible light to nerve impulses and photosynthesis in the creation of sugars in the conversion to chemical energy and the effects of actual heat energy, thermal infrared which physically moves the whole molecules of matter into vibration heating it.

You’ve been drip fed the line that visible light/shortwave is a great energy macro powerful and you believe it because you have had no reason to doubt it, until now. Now, I’m asking you to relate your beliefs to the actual physical world around us. Tell me how visible light from the Sun physically heats water and land which is what it needs to do to get our weather, without which we would have no winds which first come about from the intense heating of land and ocean at the equator.

This is your claim and I am trying to point out that your (generic) concepts of our actual physical world around are impossible in practice. Put your hand into a fire and feel the HEAT. That’s the energy it takes to HEAT matter, to put matter into vibrational states, kinetic, to raise matter’s temperature, to cook your dinner, to raise the temperature of ocean and land, to create our massive winds and weather systems. Show and tell how shortwave from the Sun heats matter, heats the molecules of water of the ocean and the rocks and soil of the land you’re standing on to achieve this.

In the real world what I am telling you is bog standard basic physics, but none of you can understand the difference between http://infraredheaters2.tripod.com/ and http://www.littlegreenhouse.com/guide3.shtml

You say the second does the work of the first in your claim “shortwave in longwave out”.

You have given the properties and processes of thermal energy, heat, to light.

You have to tell me the physics of your “shortwave in” heating the Earth.

For pity’s sake.., ask those who taught you, ask each other. Don’t ignore this, don’t avoid it.


Comment on Rhetoric and rafts by Mark B (number 2)

$
0
0

Basically, if light heated up matter, they wouldn’t put lights in fridges.

“You know that little light stays on”

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by manacker

$
0
0

Beth, as always you put it more eloquently than I ever could (yew shore c’n talk purty!), but in doing so, you raise a good point.

It is obvious from the video clip and the past record of over 40 years what NASA does very well – precise engineering/applied science related to outer space exploration.

It can arguably be said that what NASA does NOT do so well is “climate science”.

There is too much emphasis on making the case for catastrophic AGW (and, most recently, even for advocating policy solutions to the postulated “climate problem”), whether by computer simulations based on theoretical deliberations, questionable sea level projections or dicey measurements of ocean and atmospheric surface temperatures.

“Tipping point” and “coal death train” pronouncements by James E. Hansen, a senior NASA official, do not help NASA’s reputation.

But these shortcomings should in no way detract from what NASA was originally set up to do – and does very well.

And it should give us all hope that human ingenuity will continue to improve the life expectancy and quality of life of humanity, despite the negativism of the doomsayers.

Max

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by manacker

$
0
0

Eli

Fer Chrissake drop the HIV/AIDs CAGW analogy.

It’s contrived and doesn’t wash.

Max

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by manacker

$
0
0

Joshua writes (September 5, 2012, 8:34pm):

“skeptics” are not monolithic”

AMEN!

Only dogmatists are “monolithic”.

Max

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by SamNC

$
0
0

Vaughan Pratt,
Smart in spotting mispelling, jestering in climate modeling.

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by Michael

$
0
0

The point is, that some won’t change there positions no matter what evidence is presented.

Or if you prefer – science advances one funeral at a time.

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by tempterrain

$
0
0

Max,

“Creationist Mom” might disagree with with your “completely deranged and delusional” assessment, but I suspect you’re right, for once, in her case.

If you’re both “taken away”, and end up in the same institution, she’ll have lots of time to explain why it’s quite consistent to be both a creationist and AGW denier.


Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by tempterrain

$
0
0

“I think UHI is AGW”

We in the world AGW conspiracy don’t want you to think that of course, so we’re all very busy in the Arctic at this time of the year melting as much ice as we can with our flame throwers generously paid for by George Soros.

It’s hard work but we’ve melted a record amount this year, all so we can say that there is more to AGW than the UHI effect.

We all been promised a big cut of the Australian carbon tax so it should be worth it in the end.

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by tempterrain

$
0
0

Agnostic,

Normally when someone makes an accusation of “missing the point” they really mean they’d like to redefine the point.
The point is that engineers don’t ever concede the point that the onus is on to them prove that any particular course of action is likely to be unsafe. Whole fleets of airliners are grounded if engineers just suspect there may be a problem.
No-one is grounding the entire world economy just yet, and if action is taken early enough there should be no need for it. However, this sitaution may well change if delay after delay is incurred.

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by tempterrain

$
0
0

“The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.”

” the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 °C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by tempterrain

$
0
0

SamNC,

Sorry for the dual posting but this ended up in the wrong place firat time.

“The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.”

” the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 °C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by tempterrain

$
0
0

GaryM,

The history of the Democratic and Republican parties in the USA is a peculiar story. One seems to have moved leftwards the other rightwards to such an extent that they seem to have completely swapped sides over the years. This is far from typical in terms of world politics, more probably quite unique, although I know Americans do tend to be often of the belief that the world and America are synonymous.

To support this contention, I’d just point out that Marx famously wrote a letter of congratulations, on behalf of the International Working Men’s Association, to Abraham Lincoln starting with:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

It’s hard to imagine anyone on the left congratulating Mitt Romney , were he to win in November.

Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by Robert

$
0
0

I’m a little surprised this post is so popular. The article in question is just an argument from assertion, and the argument itself asks us to seek scientific truth via subjective evaluations of people’s character — which is a regression to pre-scientific, even pre-rational ideal. Not only would “Philosophers . . . cringe at the lack of rigor in such a chain of reasoning,” so would anyone who believes in the scientific method at all.

There’s no data here — at least not in the parts Hill quotes. There’s no objective criteria for measuring the personal qualities of the scientists involved or the vigor of their disagreements, even if one were convinced that that was a valid method of analysis.

Just not much “there” there to be excited about, as far as I can see.

Comment on Climate change and U.S. presidential politics by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

Your fingers, not mine, of course.

I do not have the chance to be a non-aggressive libertarian Sicilian.


Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by kim

$
0
0

Yesterday, it seems so far away.
========

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by Herman Alexander Pope

$
0
0

The vapor pressure of methane does go up and down with temperature just like CO2 and all gases that are dissolved in water. If you are not playing Hockey, it is best to not use the stick.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by kim

$
0
0

Nature overrules the Court’s objection.
====================

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by kim

$
0
0

Early in the War to End All Wars, the Tsar of Rooosia attempted prohibition, in order to tune up his polis and his military for the emergent conflict; he rowed back as soon as he realized what a large chunk of his revenoooos were from taxes on vodka, a third or so if my soluble memory resists.
=============

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

My interpretation of TV/radio weather forecasts assumes that when the guy says ’30% chance of rain’, he means that 30% of the viewing area will experience rain, but makes NO prediction as to WHICH 30%.

With that in mind, watching the Sterling weather radar at random intervals gives me the impression (no attempt to actually check in detail) that the DC area forecasters and NWS actually do pretty well.

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images