Pekka
Let’s say (since we are unable to measure it) the “null” hypothesis is that the TOA imbalance = “null” (zero).
Happy with that?
Max
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by manacker
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer
Big talk from an anonymous coward. If do a google scholar on my name it comes up with hundreds of citations to the work. Obviously webhubcolonoscope doesn’t. I’d bet your real name, whatever that is, doesn’t come up either. Yet you lecture me on how to improve my name recognition. Incredible.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer
Same applies to you Mosher except, since you aren’t anonymous, I already know you’re a zero.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer
What, no response from Eschenbach after I linked to a whole damn article he wrote on WUWT in an apoplectic fit over me mentioning in one of “his” (actually one of Tony Watts’) threads that downwelling longwave has little effect on ocean temperature. Amazing. Amazingly senile and juvenile at the same time. That’s old Willis for ya.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by manacker
Joe’s World
The US Government is spending $16 billion per year on “global warming”, so it’s no wonder that the money trail leads back to the government.
Let’s say there are 100 million US taxpayers who actually paid taxes :
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080213184926AAnOeUH
And let’s say that 42% of the US revenues comes from individual income taxes:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
(with 40% payroll taxes, 9% corporate taxes, 9% other sources)
So the 100 million US individual taxpayers “footed” 42% of the $16 billion “gumment” global warming bill, or $6.8 billion.
That’s $68 per taxpayer.
Did you get your money’s worth?
If not, discuss with your congressman/woman and senator.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä
That would certainly been an alternative for those drawings. The imbalance could be forced to zero and what’s known about it’s size discussed separately.
It’s clear that many people do think that those papers contain analysis that tells something new about the size of the imbalance while they actually just pick the value from some other source like Trenberth et al from a climate model based analysis of Hansen et al (2005).
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer
I’ve seen how long it takes and the slim odds of success at the end of the road to get a contrarian pal reviewed article published. If it promised a payday of some sort I might be interested but it doesn’t. Nor am I even the first.
What needs to be done is a well controlled real experiment in a lab not more academic woolgathering math in trade rags. That kind of academic sloth is what made climate science the mess it is today. I described the experiment to undertake and linked to the tunable 2-14 micrometer infrared lasers that can demonstrate the response of a body of water to DWLIR. Someone who stands to benefit will get around to doing it. In the meantime I’m not really interested in more than being able to point back into internet archives someday and say “Told ya so”.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by beesaman
I guess that’s a perfect example of being “wedded to a theory!”
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä
What would you expect to learn from such an experiment? Most of the uncertainties are due to real world factors that cannot be brought to laboratory. The impression that I get from your few words is that very little new could be learned from that.
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer
The radiative release to space is generally from the surface of clouds not the surface of the earth or ocean. Cloud tops get warmer in response to increased GHGs above them but who the f*ck cares unless you live in the clouds? I mean literally live in the clouds not just figuratively. I understand many people just like you do figuratively live in the clouds.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Latimer Alder
@AFOTBS
Relative vs Absolute
Consider the difference between ‘tomorrow’ (relative) and ’7th November 2012 (+4,500 million +/- 500 million years)’ (absolute)
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | November 5, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
2. It does matter how the energy re-arranges itself. If the surface and lower troposphere are hardly affected at all, then AGW does not matter, even if it occurs.
———————————————————————————
Bingo! Someone give Matt Marler a cigar please.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer
My pleasure, gentlemen.
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer
R.Gates
Ultimately it must be a zero sum game. Conservation of energy (1st law of thermodynamics) stipulates that the earth radiate the same amount of energy it receives from the sun (discounting very small other sources like gravitational friction, radioactive decay, residual heat of formation, and so forth). CO2 does not create energy nor does it destroy energy. It is therefore essentially a zero sum game.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by nc
Lets s see, C02 has increased around 100 PPM since man has been pumping plant food into the atmosphere, right. Is that 100 PPM caused by man or about 3% or 3PPM? If 97 % is natural then why are we worried about mans paltry 3%. So if C02 raises the temperature and it rains in Spain, can we we really pick out mans contribution.
↧
Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist
Peruvian fisherman discovered ENSO some 400 years ago. But here is a high resolution 1000 year proxy from the Law Ice Dome – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg
More salt is La Nina and less El Nino.
Here is an 11,000 year proxy from a South American lake – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=ENSO11000.gif
More red shift is El Nino. If you look really carefully you can see the drying of the Sahel about 5000 years ago and the demise of the Minoan civilisation about 3500 years ago. Cool hey?
Reliable goes without saying. Technology needs to work and have backups.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend. by Doug Cotton
You still indicate by your statements that you don’t understand my poinst in my paper. You don’t have to believe them if you so choose, but until you understand them there can be no constructive discussion. I have read the sort of comments you make over and over again, years ago.
I invited you to argue with Scafetta about cycles. I find his statistical analysis quite compelling and in harmony with my own analysis. I don’t know whether you’ve done any analysis at all yourself, or whether you are just taking a dogmatic stand because you don’t believe planets could affect anything. This is not astrology my friend. It’s science.
Your discussion of the Moon is way off. For a start, it also gets much hotter. Its days are about 4 weeks, so it’s not a good comparison for a start. Oxygen and Nitrogen don’t absorb or radiate much at atmospheric temperatures, so if there were an atmosphere made up only of such, the main effect would be through the adiabatic lapse rate, and, that being a function of gravity, would be very different on the Moon.
In that it is implied by “greenhouse” that there is a feedback mechanism sending energy back into the warmer surface, then no gas can cause any greenhouse effect whatsoever.
I explained why in my paper written back in March. But you don’t appear to understand my explanation, or the writings of Prof Claes Johnson. Why not submit your own paper for peer-review at PSI?. At least most of the 120 members there present a unified approach – and support what Claes and I have said on the subject of radiative heat transfer. If you become a member you can join in on the internal email discussion, where I believe you’d learn quite a lot – if you’re open to such learning, that is.
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper
What country wants a professional hate monger, Max_OK?
Given yr recent comments you are in a position ter judge.
↧
Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by andrew adams
Steven,
Yeah, but the president has good practical reasons for seeking consensus and trying to work with his opponents. Blog commenters, not so much.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä
John S,
The water molecules at the surface do not have any special property that would make them interact essentially more strongly with the photons that hit the surface than molecules inside water do. As any layer of molecules absorbs only a tiny fraction of incoming photons (about 1/1000 of thermal IR, less than 1/1000000 of solar) the energy transfer from photons to molecules cannot explain significant part of the evaporation. The rate of evaporation is about 20% of incoming radiation in terms of energy, i.e. hundreds of times more than what IR photons can induce directly and perhaps a million times the direct influence of solar radiation.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
