Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by newclimatechangetheory

0
0

Yes, well my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” has been published since 12 March 2012 here: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf

In that time, to my knowledge, there has been no valid refutation of Sections 1 to 5 therein, nor of Prof Claes Johnson’s work upon which it was built.

Now Joseph Postma has picked up on it, following numerous emails among the ever growing number of scientists joining Principia Scientific International – all with a common goal of exposing the fraud and hoax which AGW is.

When you guys begin to argue with physics, rather than mere language, then this discussion may become fruitful – and you will learn why backradiation from carbon dioxide has no net effect on surface temperature, and never can have.

Doug Cotton


Comment on Frankenstorm by Reality check: Who believes Hurricane Sandy is/is not caused by global warming? | Watts Up With That?

0
0

[...] Georgia Tech * [...]

Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

For our context, I prefer Thick as a Brick. Goes well with the Can’t Get Enough Satisfaction algorithm.

Still wondering how to plug in Don’t Stand So Close to Me.

Comment on Frankenstorm by Mike Smith

Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Peter Davies

0
0

Funniest thread I’ve read for a long while, thanks, in no particular order, to David S, Willard, JCH and Heinrich

Comment on Frankenstorm by pokerguy

0
0

Joshua…
I lived in the city as a young fellow, which I enjoyed very much. I always had the feeling that something exciting was about to happen…and it often did. I think my old apartment house on Commonwealth Ave was purchased by B. U. and subsequently converted to dorms.

Currently living in Sharon which is between Boston and Providence off Rt. 95.. My wife and I first lived in Foxboro which is right down the road, until the Patriots decided to build their new stadium just about literally in our back yard. We had a big fight with the town because they had to change the zoning where our house was in order for the stadium to be built. Speaking of selfishness, my argument with the townspeople was that if you could honestly say you’d vote for this change even if it were in *your* back yard, then fine, go ahead. Otherwise such a vote (for the proposed zoning) was hypocritical in the extreme. Of course we got slaughtered at Town Meeting. I think my own brother voted against me, though he’s never quite admitted it. Hah!Taught me quite a bit about human nature, stuff you’d think I’d have already learned by my late 40′s.

I’ve given quite a lot of thought to human selfishness and decided we have to give ourselves a break in that regard. Hell, most of our brain is millions of years old. (Though just between you and me I sometimes think mine is even older..which would explain the cobwebby feeling I sometimes get when trying to think)

Comment on Frankenstorm by Alexander Biggs

0
0

No, I have never made predictions specific of snow. We don’t get much snow in Australia, although more on the highlands than Switzerland. But I recognise its importance: I’ve seen iceburgs floating down the Hull river in Canada. My predictions are all to do with climate and are at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~alexandergbiggs ‘An alternative theory of climate change’ . However I have suggested in comments to this site that the North Atlantic should be warmer because each side has many ‘urban heat islands’ creating a permanent plume of hot air over the N. Atlantic. (No disparagement of your politicians intended).

Comment on Frankenstorm by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

0
0

Steven Mosher: There is heating in the pipeline. …

The frankenstorm is directly tied to global warming.

The only evidence for “heating in the pipeline” is the disparity between the calculated amount of temperature rise we ought have experienced and the estimate of the mean temperature rise that we have experienced. The latter is a subject of some debate, and the former is based on the assumption of an possible equilibrium without any details of how the CO2 affects the mechanisms of heat transport.

Tying a particular recent storm to global warming when the record of the last 100+ years shows no trend toward increased frequency/intensity of the cyclonic storms is a stretch. This storm seems to have possibly broken a record for diameter, but not total energy, storm surge, wind, economic damage (so far), total rainfall or anything else. A non-record in a non-trend is evidence for a non-association with warming.


Comment on Frankenstorm by Jim D

0
0

I think it is true to say that this kind of interaction with a southward extending trough over the US is a late-season phenomenon, and could only be connected with AGW to the extent that more late-season storms may occur, which I am not sure has been proposed, but would not surprise me.

Comment on Frankenstorm by Jim D

0
0

The flip side of this, of course, is that cold fronts also will shift later as the winter gets more delayed under AGW, so it may be a wash.

Comment on Frankenstorm by Climate Weenie

0
0

This phrase is something.

But Pielke would ask ‘Which direction is the pipeline flowing?’

Heat goes in more rapidly than it emerges, then the effect is smoothing over many centuries, this is a moderating effect.

Comment on Frankenstorm by David L. Hagen

0
0

lolwot
It has been warming since the last glaciation, and the Little Ice Age and cooling since the Holocene Climatic Optimum and 1998.
The key issue is what is the magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution, will that be “catastrophic”, and what are all the significant uncertainties involved.

Comment on Frankenstorm by Climate Weenie

0
0

For crying out loud it was a category 1 hurricane that happened in hurricane season!

It hit New England.
Did we forget the Long Island Express?

But it hit New England in October!
So? It’s been happening forever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_hurricanes

The size of this storm was large, but historically,
there is nothing whatsoever remarkable about this storm!

Comment on Frankenstorm by Max™

0
0

Obviously I’m not a climate scientist, just a hobbyist in the field, but I would guess the relationship between colder air and low pressure systems combined with the higher wind velocities up near the stratosphere would be involved in the steering/attracting appearance to the storm pathing.

Air moves up and down as well as laterally, and as you move away from the equator, the troposhere isn’t quite as “tall”.

Hurricanes start out brushing up against the stratosphere near the equator and wind up being wedged down into a more cramped portion of the atmosphere, at times it can counteract the forces keeping the storm going, but when everything lines up right I would expect something like a lateral version of waves breaking on a beach. All the energy and mass in the storm system piled up vertically is pushed down and outwards, if it is pushed in the wrong directions it kills the storm, other times it can increase the wind speeds somewhat.

Then you get a situation where an already “cramped” storm is funneled towards an even “shorter” portion of the atmosphere, and the same amount of energy winds up spread over a broader region.

Hurricanes are big grumpy heat engines, changing how tall and thick a tube is would be expected to alter the efficiency, upper level winds steering a storm into a strong low pressure system would rather dramatically alter how tall and thick the tube became, affecting the dispersion of energy from the system accordingly. (Almost wrote accordioningly!)

Comment on Frankenstorm by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

0
0

Louise, I came across this, among much else: He explains the difference between sustained wind speed and gust speed. He gives you the all important sustained wind speed readings. Sandy was a tropical storm not a hurricane.

That does not “ridicule” the storm. It possibly ridicules the AGW hype over the storm.


Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

The best and standard place to put the threshold between SWIR and LWIR is around 3um. Almost all radiation from sun is at wavelengths shorter than this threshold and almost all radiation from surfaces cooler than 100C is at wavelengths longer than this threshold.

Radiative heaters operate at temperatures of several hundred C which makes them radiate strongly at both longer and shorter wavelengths than 3um. Most of the energy is still radiated and wavelengths longer than 3um.

The strongest absorption in air occurs around 15um where CO2 has its absorption peak. At that wavelength most of the IR radiation is absorbed in a couple of meters, but there’s also a lot of radiation from the nearby air.

The absorptivity/emissivity of surfaces may get more clearly less than one at the lower end of the LWIR region, i.e. around 4-5 um but that has very little influence on the energy radiated by Earth surface, because most of the energy is radiated at longer wavelengths anyway.

The heating power of a radiative heater is not affected much by the average emissivity at the temperature of the heating element but a lower emissivity increases a little its temperature when the power is kept the same. That compensates for the lower emissivity. Metal surfaces reflect also IR but less when the wavelength is more than a couple of um. Some well polished surfaces reflect also LWIR but most surfaces do not. Thus many metal surfaces are still rather effective reflectors for radiative heaters which have a high temperature heating element, but less effective when the temperature is lower.

Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

Myrrh,

How could anybody show you anything when you dismiss all arguments including the best and most certainly correct ones?

You have your own ideas. Nobody seems to take you seriously and that includes also all other skeptics as far as I judge. Can you imagine why?

Comment on Frankenstorm by R. Gates

0
0

curryja | October 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Sandy wasn’t unforeseen, which is a key element of black swans

_____
Interesting. I didn’t realize that being “unforeseen” was an such an important element of the definition. Seems like that would mean black swans are “relative” to human technology, rather than based on actual probability based on the internal dynamics of a system. Our satellite and weather forecasting abilities gave us a ability to “foresee” the arrival and potential of Sandy days in advance, though that ability had nothing to do changing the actual probability distribution of the “fat tail” of the system itself. Using the ability to “foresee” an event as a critical part of defining a black swan would also seem to beginning to blur the lines between black swans and dragon kings. Specificaly, I would direct readers to this graph:

http://i47.tinypic.com/14yafpc.jpg

Which was pulled from this artcile that Judith posted quite some time ago.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.4290.pdf

Where we can see the relative distinction between black swans and dragon kings, and the ability to “foresee” seems to have very little to do with the overall definitions, but rather it is a ratio of heterogenity and interaction strength.

At any rate, I’ll have to ponder Judith’s element of the “unforeseen” in black swan events, as it would mean the definition is relative to human technology, rather than expressing some abolute quality of the dynamics inherent in a system such as described in the article above.

Comment on Frankenstorm by Thomas Pagano

0
0

Judy,

Interesting post, there was a Kerry Emanuel post about the quality of the US and European forecasts that I describe here
http://tompagano.blogspot.com/2012/10/today-show-coverage-of-ecmwf-forecasts.html

I also describe some of the National Weather Service’s river forecasts at
http://tompagano.blogspot.com/2012/10/frankenstorms-river-forecasts.html
As usual those forecasts live or die based on how much rain falls, but some of their more experimental products got the overall area right, straight west to Ohio.

Keep up the good work,

Tom

Comment on Frankenstorm by Joshua

0
0

Matt –

Missed the “Frankenstorm downgraded to Frankenfart?”
comment?

Or this:

“I cannot find a photo or video that looks like a major storm surge.”

Or this:

“Wind damage seems all but nonexistent,”

Or this:

I just do not see the major storm that has been hyped for two days.

Or this:

“But if this is an example of Climate Chaos, bring it on!”

Or this:

“This will turn out to be another MSM over-reaction. ”

There are more. In contrast, there are also sensible comments, including one from our good buddy Pokerguy:

Don’t see the purpose of this post except for self-aggrandizement. Whatever it’s precise nature on impact, it was and still remains, a terribly destructive storm. And not just flooding. Wind a major factor as well.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images