Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Girma

November 8, 2012, 1:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

The Walker Circulation refers to an east-west circulation of the atmosphere above the tropical Pacific, with air rising above warmer ocean regions (normally in the west), and descending over the cooler ocean areas (normally in the east). Its strength fluctuates with that of the Southern Oscillation.

The easterly trade winds are part of the low-level component of the Walker Circulation. Typically, the trades bring warm moist air towards the Indonesian region. Here, moving over normally very warm seas, moist air rises to high levels of the atmosphere. The air then travels eastward before sinking over the eastern Pacific Ocean. The rising air is associated with a region of low air pressure, towering cumulonimbus clouds and rain. High pressure and dry conditions accompany the sinking air. The wide variations in patterns and strength of the Walker Circulation from year to year are shown in the diagram below.

During El Niño events the Walker Circulation weakens and may even reverse in the more intense episodes. In this instance westerly winds are observed over parts of the equatorial western and central Pacific where normally easterly (trade) winds would be expected. Oceans around Australia cool, and slackened trade winds feed less moisture into the region.

---

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

November 8, 2012, 1:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Girma

$

0

0

Global warming is the torch song of the pissant progressive. As Erlich demonstrates again – it is ballad of limits, of negative economic growth, of a more miserly and miserable future and a sadly diminihed America. They have no response that has a snowballs chance of success in the real world. They are 6% extremists in a world where most people just want to make a buck and leave economies more prosperous for their children. They are all singing the same profoundly unscientific lyric in the latest manifestation of millennialist groupthink.

With all that they remain utterly convinced of their cause and their intellectual and moral superiority. They have vaunting ambitions for Obama but complain like Erlich that he is the tweedledum to the Republican tweedleee of American politics. They loom large in the blogosphere because their natural environment is empty rhetoric, misdirection, distraction, lies and fraud. They are worth watching. Another generation it seems and another battle for the future of humanity is joined – against neo green/socialist proto-fascists this time.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

November 8, 2012, 1:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

That particular factor of two is an error in your model. You just drop the other half erroneously. The factor of two is restored, when you correct the error in your own thinking. You can do that keeping to your choice of looking at net energy transfers only rather than gross transfers.

All correct results can be derived also by the “one-stream” model but that gets unnecessarily cumbersome (and increases perhaps also the potential for making errors like missing that factor of two that you have made).

Scientists prefer the two-stream approach, because it’s much more practical and also physically more complete when the situation is considered without fixation to the 19th century (and older) formulation of classical thermodynamics. Classical thermodynamics remains valid but its language is really confusing on these issues as it contradicts natural everyday thinking and as it’s based on the outdated idea that the inner workings of heat transfer can never be observed. For radiative heat transfer the photon fluxes in each direction can be measured and are real. There’s no reason to forbid considering them separately.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

November 8, 2012, 1:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend. by Doug Cotton

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

Yes Chief, the torch song of the pissant progressives
is a blues ballad of limits.

Comment on Open thread weekend. by Doug Cotton

November 8, 2012, 1:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by andrew adams

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

$

0

0

You say “O+N as perfect insulators are slowing cooling.” But they also slow warming by the direct Sunlight. Otherwise we would get to about 100 deg C as happens on the Moon.

By what process do you say they are slowing cooling?”

Because you give no explanation of what you think the physics is, I don’t feel you understand. Suppose, as is usual, there is a step down of say 2 degrees between the surface and the adjoining air – oxygen and nitrogen only if you like.

Q.1 How does this cooler air slow the cooling of the surface?

Q.2 Is the radiative cooling slowed and/or the non-radiative cooling?

The latter is a very critical question that I have answered, but I don’t feel you even understand why it has to be answered – and answered correctly.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by andrew adams

November 8, 2012, 2:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by tempterrain

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend. by Doug Cotton

$

0

0

Actually, only a fairly small proportion of the price rises in recent years (about £75 out of an average £455 rise between 2004 and 2010) is due to Labour’s “green” policies and a large part of that was to pay for giving assistance to people to make their homes more energy efficient and so reducing their fuel bills. The same legislation also obliged energy companies to give assistance to their poorest customers. So the notion that Labour’s energy policies have impoverished large numbers of people is simply not true.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by tempterrain

November 8, 2012, 2:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by andrew adams

$

0

0

I always though ‘socialism’ was word to be avoided in the USA but it seems that as many as 20% of people there say they favour it over capitalism. That rises to 30% in the younger age groups.

I would argue that all western societies are based on a mixture of socialism and capitalism and, the usual political debate is about deciding what the balance should be, rather than choosing one or the other.

But it’s an interesting finding nevertheless and might explain why the “socialist” label doesn’t seem to have harmed Barrack Obama.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/09/poll-finds-americans-prefer-ca

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

November 8, 2012, 2:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by tempterrain

$

0

0

manacker

Alleging fakery in GAT data is pure conspiracy theory. That you actually attempt to differ does you no credit and much harm. You should be putting as much ground between your supposed scepticism and this kind of paranoid crackpottery as you can. Or you will be dismissed along with the nutters.

---

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

November 8, 2012, 2:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by andrew adams

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

$

0

0

Bad Andrew

Or one could just conclude that the temperature data is flawed or not informational enough to jusitfy the Global Warming scaremongering that follows it.

On what basis? References?

It’s true that the surface temperature record is not the best place to look for early evidence of GW. So, what about the increase in global OHC since the mid-C20th (Levitus et al. 2012)? Why is energy accumulating in the climate system?

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by andrew adams

November 8, 2012, 2:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

$

0

0

Dave Springer quotes Benjamin Franklin’s views on Democracy above.

I am reminded of a similar quote which I have occasionally seen cited by libertarian types -

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Is is generally attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler.

The problem here is that both Franklin and Tytler lived more than 200 years ago, during which time Democracy has proved to be the most successful form of government in human history.

Of course there is always the danger of a “tyranny of the majority”, which is why democratic systems generally have systems of checks and balances and such things as a constitution and/or bill of rights in order to limit the power of government. Of course these things do not always work perfectly, most democracies have flaws and could be improved, but Churchill got it about right wehen he said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

November 8, 2012, 2:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by andrew adams

$

0

0

timg56

beesaman is proposing a conspiracy theory. You cannot deny this, so I have no idea why you commented. You should *disavow* crackpottery, not defend it, or you will be dismissed along with the loons. Presumably you do not want that to happen.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer

November 8, 2012, 2:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by BBD

$

0

0

Steven Mosher | November 7, 2012 at 12:41 am |

“Since we have a negative lapse rate this means the earth is radiating from a higher and colder place. fundamental physics tells you that a colder object radiates more slowly than a hotter object. By shifting the ERL up, then GHGs slow the rate at which energy leaves earths system.”

Unfortunately for your fairy tale the lapse rate isn’t fixed. Water vapor modifies it. The effective emission altitude is higher (about 100 meters per CO2 doubling) but not colder because the increased water vapor in the atmosphere lowers the environmental lapse rate.

I’ve said the lapse rate changes about a million times. Stephens confirmed it by saying there’s far more evaporation and precipitation than modeled:

Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.

Got that, Mosher? It’s observed not modeled. The models you so love are wrong. I described the fault at least a year ago. Stephens 2012 confirms I’m right. Deal with it.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by manacker

November 8, 2012, 2:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by David Springer

$

0

0

BBD

I am not saying anything about the global surface temp record that is not already known.

- There is an unquantified (upward) UHI distortion, which BEST was unable to quantify.

- There is an unquantified (upward) distortion from land use changes..

- There is an unquantified (upward) distortion from the elimination of two-thirds of the reporting stations in the 1990s (mostly in higher latitudes).

- There is an unquantified (upward) distortion from poor weather station siting (next to airport runways, AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots, etc.)

These combine to result in a faster warming rate at the surface than in the troposphere, although GH theory tells us the opposite should be true.

In addition, the SST data (until quite recently) were doubtful and sparse.

And, worst of all, the past record keeps getting adjusted, corrected and manipulated ex post facto (always in the direction of making recent warming look larger) and the “keepers of the records” (Hansen, Jones, etc.) are all avowed supporters of the CAGW premise, even having “predicted” rapid GH warming beforehand.

So I am not saying that there is “falsifying” of the data, simply that it does not require a “conspiracy” for the record to have intentional or overlooked errors working in the direction of exaggerating warming.

It is YOU who evoke the “conspiracy” theory – not me.

Max

Max

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by David Wojick

November 8, 2012, 2:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by manacker

$

0

0

The statistical validity of Levitus is orders of magnitude lower than that of the surface statistical models, which are themselves no good. He is claiming to know the average temp of a volume, as opposed to a surface, with far less and poorer data. There is no reason to accept those numbers.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

November 8, 2012, 11:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Edim

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by David Wojick

$

0

0

No Joshua – it applies equally to the white underclass. Of which I have some experience. I come from a long line of poor white trash. Generations of Australians on welfare, generations of Americans, Canadians, Europeans. It is a culture of dependency and defeat that is so insidiously destructive and recognised as such globally. Throwing money at it for decades has so failed to succeed in breaking the poverty trap that new approaches are demanded out of common humanity.

I just love the pissant progressive pundits advising the GOP. No mainstream party is anything but middle of the road – because on that road is where most people live.

---

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Edim

November 8, 2012, 11:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

Web, I agreed with you. Since ~90% of the terrestrial longwave cooling rate is atmospheric radiation (direct surface radiation only ~10%), it’s the so-called GHGs (and clouds) that cool.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by WebHubTelescope

November 9, 2012, 12:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by John DeFayette

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Edim

$

0

0

Not really, you are making claims with no scientific basis whatsoever and instead playing word games. You are like a little toddler that walks around saying “No” to everything. The thing about toddlers is that they eventually grow out of this stage. It’s frankly embarrassing to witness an adult acting out like you are.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by John DeFayette

November 9, 2012, 12:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Thanks for the laugh, Judy!

The man is “obviously” in need of a padded cell. That he should be whisked away by the nice men in white coats “…is both nearly impossible but absolutely essential.” Is it any wonder this image keep popping into my head while reading Ehrlich’s comedy piece?

And since I support energy converters being “…allowed to burn all they have and can economically obtain…” then I guess that makes me one of “…their army of intellectual prostitutes….” Yep, this Lady is a Tramp.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

November 9, 2012, 12:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by John DeFayette

$

0

0

I read a few chapters of 50 shades of grey, but found it,
je ne sais quoi … lacking. Jest too boringly, tediously,
impersonally… well, grey, lol.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by WebHubTelescope

November 9, 2012, 12:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

$

0

0

Edim, statistically you are a flicker of noise. What are there, almost 7 billion people on the planet? And why should it be any surprise that one person out of that 7 billion decides to live out the fantasy of discovering scientific truth by the principles of rhetorical hand-waving?