What has some snarky emails containing competitive trash-talk have to to with psychovisual image processing? Nothing.
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by WebHubTelescope
↧
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by Bart R
captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4 | September 16, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
When I was five years old, I was enrolled in art classes. Theory at the time being if you introduce people too young to ideas they have no way to appreciate, you’re somehow giving them the gift of culture or some such.
My approach was to imitate the art that looked easiest. A single line of paint on the canvas. Splatters. Things like that. The issue was the class was being taught techniques of light and shadow. Which, being five, I had no real interest in. The only shadow in a five-year-old’s world has the approximate dimensions of an imaginary friend, or hiding place for a bogeyman.
Finally, the art teacher explained that I was attempting advanced techniques, and before I could do advanced art techniques, I had to first master the basics. He even showed me a folio of the works of the painters I was imitating, with their earlier paintings having a practically photographic quality of realism.
So I gotta draw on that lesson in this circumstance to advise, it appears you are attempting advanced techniques without the proper grounding or evidence you are competent to handle the basics. Your results look a bit childish, and seem to lack an appreciation of the underlying Science.
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by manacker
David Springer
There’s a good reason why Andrew Dessler in’t concerned about the recent cooling trend.
He lives and works in College Station, TX
[Now if he lived in Minneapolis, that would be a different story.]
Max
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by WebHubTelescope
You are just shoveling sht Springer.
I don’t make value judgements with the scientific analysis, as that apparently is your job when you end up having to rationalize everything.
“The science is wrong, but if it is right it doesn’t matter anyways.”. Spoken like a true 5-year old.
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by Latimer Alder
@wht
On further study I see that the hard work was actually done by somebody else at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
You just added ‘the trick’.
↧
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by Tom
I must say Bart R, that you surprise me with your comment that you are a professional painter. I had no idea.
↧
Comment on BS detectors by Bart R
WebHubTelescope | September 16, 2012 at 2:11 am |
I know this is going to come off as pot-kettling, but what is with the ad homs?
I have zero objection to a catalogue of the ideas and the failings of the ideas — or of identifying the crackpottery of the ideas — of people who publicly correspond on Science, and you perform a useful function by compiling it.
However, some balance is in order.
Claes, in particular, ought be recognized as a mathematical and scientific scholar. That he holds fast to an obsolete paradigm of Science is hardly more eccentric than that you hold fast to peak oil, or that I hold fast to Capitalism. The difference is, you and I don’t abandon perspective and let our ideologies and biases color our logic or perception of evidence.
Postma’s vain attempts have produced at least one useful diagram. It could be, with some adjustments, a good tool for analysis and communication of issues related to incidence.
Even that non-lawyer-claims-to-be-a-legal-genius guy performs the useful service of reminding us why we should be skeptical of assertions and claims, regardless of their source. That’s gotta count for something.
Oh, and Joachim Seifert’s thesis appears to have more to do with orbital excursions than with solar variation. Which isn’t an uninteresting minor topic in astronomy; http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/27/wise-finds-the-very-first-earth-trojan-asteroid/
↧
Comment on A modest proposal for sequestration of CO2 in the Antarctic by Mark B (number 2)
Thanks Ernie for replying to the criticism. Some of my own comments were to harsh, and I apologize for those.
However, I can still see some snags:
For instance if we are only working in the 6 warmer months, the temperature will be around 250K. Now the carbon dioxide snow will be at 133K. A temperature difference of 117 degrees. Just imagine trying to compress normal snow in an environment with an air temperature of 117 C (not F), and then trying to burying it in landfills. My guess is that it would melt/evaporate before you could do it.
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by plazaeme
BBD:
Where did I say it is *not* going to have significant effects on the NH climate? As far as I know I showed a possible significant effect. And, the fact that it is a good one does not imply there cannot be some bad ones. You didn’t address your faulty logic problem, but you add one. Be my guest.
↧
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by Latimer Alder
@BBD
I’ll leave your remark as a testament to your attitude to this blog.
And like the Climategate e-mails it is so much more authentic when it comes from your own hand.
Toodle pip, my little ray of sunshine and bonhomie. A bientot!
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by Girma
How is AGW created?
By claiming the multidecadal oscillation does not exist and claiming the warming due to this natural warming from 1970-2000 is man made.
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by Spartacusisfree
So, you looked something up to make yourself appear clever but appear not to understanding practical heat transfer, plus having a foul mouth when someone refuses to accept your ill-educated diktat
Climate science uses a trick to make it appear that the Earth emits 6.2 times as much IR as reality, According to the 2009 Energy Budget, 40% of the incident SW energy is emitted as IR, and that seems high.
Have you EVER thought why the proportion of the heat radiated from a surface in an atmosphere is much less than the S-B equation predicts? And have you EVER thought why you get radiative equilibrium?
GHGs reduce the Earth’s surface emissivity in their wavelength interval because that emitted radiation by definition [Poynting's theorem] offsets surface emission. There is also coupled convection and evaporation from the same activated sites.
A good example is the UHI which, by reducing convection, increases temperature therefore the proportion of the incoming SW energy that is lost by radiation. The GHE is the temperature increase needed to overcome higher thermal impedance plus some atmospheric warming.
By shifting a higher proportion of the IR towards the atmospheric window, less is absorbed in the atmosphere and that has to be primarily water vapour side-bands. No discipline can get away with a perpetual motion machine, not even Hansenkoism……
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by Omniloxos
To summarize,
Reliable Antarctic sea ice data indicates that we will have another Catastrophic Ice Age this winter. Skeptics have barely ttime to raise the alarm and inform their congressmen that Global Cooling is coming and demand governments around the world do absolutely nothing.
The Arctic
In contrast nothing remarkable is happening in the Arctic. There’s been some melting this summer but that’s expected. Arctic Sea Ice melts all the time, it’s perfectly normal. Graduates of better Texan oceanography homeschools will recall that in the year 1421, Viking Warmists surfaced a longboat at the North Pole and fought a pitched battle with the Imperial Navy of Ming the Merciless, who lost the laser-eyed cat battle because there is no such thing as back radiation.
Details at :
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-ice-age-is-coming.html
↧
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by plazaeme
Bart R:
The dairying article from Nature asserted a green Sahara that need have been no more green than it is today for its thesis or its evidence to be true.
I thought we were talking about something widely known. As easy as Wikipedia:
—
The Neolithic Subpluvial — sometimes called the Holocene Wet Phase — was an extended period (from about 7500-7000 BCE to about 3500-3000 BCE) of wet and rainy conditions in the climatehistory of northern Africa. It was both preceded and followed by much drier periods.
The Neolithic Subpluvial began during the 7th millennium BC and was strong for about 2,000 years; it waned over time and ended after the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BCE). Then the drier conditions that prevailed prior to the Neolithic Subpluvial returned; desertification advanced, and the Sahara desert formed (or re-formed). Arid conditions have continued through to the present day.
North Africa enjoyed a fertile climate during the subpluvial era; what is now the Sahara supported a savanna type of ecosystem, with elephant,giraffe, and other grassland and woodland animals now typical of the Sahel region south of the desert, along with some now extinct megafauna such as Sivatherium and Pelorovis. Historian and Africanist Roland Oliver has described the scene as follows:
In the highlands of the central Sahara beyond the Libyan desert,… in the great massifs of the Tibesti and the Hoggar, the mountaintops, today bare rock, were covered at this period with forests of oak and walnut, lime, alder and elm. The lower slopes, together with those of the supporting bastions — the Tassili and the Acacus to the north, Ennedi and Air to the south — carried olive,juniper and Aleppo pine. In the valleys, perennially flowing rivers teemed with fish and were bordered by seed-bearing grasslands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sahara#Date_ranges
—
And what is this obsession with prehistoric things? Do you wish you were a caveman? Do you long nostalgically for a simpler era?
If you were not obsessed in biting something, you would have understand:
1) Did it have terrible impacts?
2) I showed one possible impact. Possible, due to the same conditions with Arcitc ice, if it does matter.
3) Of course, it doesn’t exclude other impacts.
It’s just a curiosity to remember. But you are running around, mad for hunting, and you don’t see what you have in front of your eyes.
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by andrew adams
Before 1940 anthropogenic global warming of 0.45C did occur but then it stopped, either because the degrees of freedom of the CO2 molecule had all been used, or the quantum of heat necessary to excite the next level was insufficient to do so.
Only a very small proportion of the warming pre-1940 was anthropogenic – the largest factor is believed to be solar, with volcanoes also playing a role.
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Latimer Alder
@Max_OK
And – as a famous U-boat Captain once said – ‘your name will also go on the list’
For FS – you cannot even be relied upon to report a five word remark accurately.
I did not say that they had ‘lied’. I said that they were ‘totally untrustworthy and barely competent’. They are not the same.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/18/skeptics-make-your-best-case-part-ii/#comment-242081
If getting this simple stuff right is beyond you (you could have used copy and paste if you found the speling to dificult), is it any wonder that I find it very hard to give credence to anything else you say?
In sales there is a phrase ‘you have to earn the right to be heard’. Which means that there is a threshold of minimum credibility that anybody has to pass to be listened to at all. Very few alarmists cross that threshold for me. You do not.
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Girma
…we showed that the rapidity of the warming in the late twentieth century was a result of concurrence of a secular warming trend and the warming phase of a multidecadal (~65-year period) oscillatory variation and we estimated the contribution of the former to be about 0.08 deg C per decade since ~1980.
Wu et al.
On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature
http://bit.ly/PDBWyZ
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Tomas Milanovic
As explained by Kondepudi and Prigogine in their textbook on modern thermodynamics, a high-dimensional non-linear dissipative system, even with constant input, can not be assumed even to have an equilibrium, or a steady state, or even a stationary distribution.
It is not only Prigogine. The whole scientific community of non linear dynamics knows that too.
This insight is one of the most important insights of the last 50 years in physics.
Unfortunately very few people in the climate branche are trained in non linear dynamics.
I know only 3 who published in this direction – R.Pielke, A.Tsonis and Nicolis.
This is a good reason why to be skeptical about WG1. Not about what they say – much is (almost) trivial but about their prediction skills that I consider negligible.
↧
Comment on BS detectors by Myrrh
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
Jim D | September 17, 2012 at 10:04 pm | <i>Myrrh, there are two very simple observations that show that deep oceans absorb 90% of the light.
1. The ocean albedo is 8%, so from satellites it looks dark. Light isn’t coming back from the ocean.
2. Deep down it is very dark (ever seen the deepwater fish with their own light sources or the big lights in the Titanic video?). Light isn’t getting there either.
Where is the light going if it is neither reflected nor transmitted? It is absorbed, of course. I think you are being deliberately dense in this matter.</i>
What don't you understand in "water is a transparent medium for visible light which means it is not absorbed but is transmitted through"
The AGWScienceFiction claim you are regurgitating is "Shortwave from the Sun heats land and oceans and Thermal Infrared from the Sun doesn't get through an invisible barrier (unexplained) so doesn't reach the Earth's surface to heat up land and oceans"
You have given the property of the Sun's thermal energy to shortwave, visible light, and taken out the invisible heat energy of the Sun transferred by radiation, thermal infrared.
This is the opposite of what we know about the physical world around us, basic, elementary physics. We know heat heats matter, we know the heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible thermal infrared and we know that visible light isn't thermal. We still teach this in traditional physics and industries around us use this knowledge to produce stuff that works - we have photovoltaic and thermal panels created to the difference between direct light and direct heat from the Sun. We have thermal infrared saunas and thermal infrared heating systems for buildings. Where are the LED saunas and heating systems? We have grow lights in real greenhouses to optimise visible light for photosynthesis and minimise thermal infrared so the heat doesn't cook the plants..
Photosynthesis is not the conversion of visible light to heat, it is the conversion to chemical energy in the creation of sugars from carbon dioxide and water. So, your AGWSF fictional fisics meme that "all electromagetic energy is the same and creates heat on being absorbed" is a big, and very silly, science fib. We know what we do in science because science is about exploring the differences in matter/energy, the physical world around us.
Perhaps because you have no weather or winds in your imaginary AGW world, you're failing to appreciate the scale of my question?
<i>Myrrh – argon laser light is a single, pure frequency of blue-green. It can scorch wood even though it is far from infrared. The onus is on you to explain how that happens.</i>
No, the onus is always on you to first explain your AGW fisics. The Sun is not a laser. It's up to you to find the difference. What you, you, have to show is how visible light energy <i>from the Sun</i> heats land and oceans which is your, your, claim.
You have to show how visible light energy <i>from the Sun</i> raises the temperature of matter.
You have to show this because you have changed traditional science teaching which says it the beam heat, direct downwelling from the Sun, which does this.
<i><b>You have to show this because you have changed traditional science teaching which says that water is a transparent medium for visible light and is not aborbed but transmitted, so visible light from the Sun cannot heat it.</b></i>
AGWScienceFiction fisics is a deliberate con created by tweaking basic physics. So it is for <i>you</i> to prove visible light <i>from the Sun</i> can do what you says it does.
Fetch.
<i><b>This is a challenge to your AGW fisics claim.</b></i>
Fetch.
↧
Comment on BS detectors by Myrrh
Jim D – I’ve posted a reply to you September 20, 2012 at 6:18 am : http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/15/bs-detectors/#comment-242133
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
