Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by stefanthedenier

$
0
0

gbaikie | November 28, 2012 at 9:09 pm said: ” So the factor of energy needed to warm the ocean significant, allows us to toss out the idea of extreme increases of global warming within a century of time. And by extreme, I mean anything over, say 2 or 3 C increase. And such things as 5 C”

What a political ”back-door” crap!!! oceans are NOT saving the planet from any phony GLOBAL warmings!!!! Oceans are only shock absorbers; they make cooler days / warmer nights. NOTHING MORE!!! Without oceans – days would be much warmer / nights much cooler = OVERALL same temperature!!! That’s why: collecting ONLY the temp for the ”hottest minute” in 24h, is mother of all con! If you take the temp for every minute in 24h, combined on same latitude; would be same in the extreme hot desert – and in rainforest, or pacific island. grow up!!!

Where is water = upper atmosphere is warmer / on the ground cooler /// in desert, on the ground hotter days – but cooler upper atmosphere. Nobody takes that in consideration / for the Organized Crime – upper atmosphere doesn’t belong to this planet == is same as: calculating the number of people killed ONLY on the second floor in the Trade Center, by the other maniacs; and ignoring the victims on all other floors…?!?!?!

As soon as part / parts of ocean / oceans get warmer, FOR ANY REASON > evaporation increases /evaporation is ”cooling process”
b] higher evaporation = more clouds / clouds reflect lots of sunlight = less comes to the ground == clouds intercept some sunlight; where cooling is much more efficient = less heat on the ground === clouds bring rain from high up, to cool land and the sea!!! gbaikie, GLOBAL warming is complete crap – becoming ”semi-honest” is = smaller criminal. Cut the crap!!! Don’t create a ”backdoor exit” Seating on the truth / constipating – it will stink much more… after!!!


Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by stefanthedenier

$
0
0
Peter Davies | November 28, 2012 at 9:50 pm said: ''It seems that climate science has been segmented to the extent that few people seem aware of what has been happening in all areas of research. Our Judith is one of these people'' Peter, Peter, why don't you go and find something very heavy, and drop on your foot, to heart yourself?!!!!!!.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

The role of clouds would be more readily understood now — and might have been understood years ago — if the reseach started from an acknowledgment of the fact there has essentially been no global warming to speak of for decades and that MBH 98/99/08 (the ‘hockey stick’ graph) is a fraud.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

For example…

Let us clarify the issue from a historical perspective. In 1998 and 1999 Mann et al. [6] published the first reconstruction of global temperature over the last 1000 years. This paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction is known as the Hockey Stick (Figure 5). This graph suggests that before 1900 the temperature of the planet was almost constant and since 1900 an abnormal warming has occurred. From the Medieval Warm Period (1000-1300) and the Little Ice Age (1500-1750) this reconstruction predicts a cooling of less than 0.2 oC. This graph surprised many, including historians and geologists who have consistently argued that the early centuries of the millennium were quite warm (the Medieval Warm Period) while the period from 1500 to 1800 was quite cold (the Little Ice Age).6 ~Nicola Scafetta

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

Nominally, it’s the sun, stupid. Why are the oceans cooling?

■1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity (LSA) – i.e., Sporer minimum
■1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity (HSA)
■1610-1700 cold – (LSA) – i.e., Maunder minimum
■1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
■1810-1900 cold – (LSA) i.e., Dalton minimum
■1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
■2010+ Possibly 3-7 decades of global cooling

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

Well then, they should get another Nobel.

Comment on Open thread weekend by newclimatechangetheory

$
0
0
Yes Wagathon. I first wrote about climate cycles in 2010 on my first website and started reading Scafetta's papers around that time. He has produced some good stuff. David Springer is making assertive statements about the "warm end" of the temperature gradient established by the adiabatic lapse rate. He has no evidence to support such. He is also not up-to-date with what Stephen Wilde is now writing.such as in <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-66554" rel="nofollow">this comment</a> where he refers to my comments as being correct. David has yet to explain how less than 3 W/m^2 at the surface of Venus heats the base of its atmosphere by 500 K. gbaikie agrees with me that the oceans have a major effect on climate. I wrote about the overall stabilising effect on <a href="http://www.climate-change-theory.com/explanation.html" rel="nofollow">this page</a> over a year ago. But that is all it is. They did not initially warm the base of the atmosphere and set its temperature - the adiabatic lapse rate and the mean Solar insolation did that, as Stephen Wilde also explains in the above linked comment.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Peter Davies

$
0
0

Stefan your advice is noted but I don’t think that my heart is in any need of this type of stimulus! Your point?


Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

You have hit upon the real question: Global Warming or Western Fraud?

Posted on 2012/11/28

Is humanity destroying Earth? Is a tinfoil hat Leftists’ modern version of Noah’s ark?

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

The physics are incomplete.
to simulate it you need actual equations, not arm waving.
You are welcomed to try.
go get cosmic ray data. it exists. write the equations governing cloud formation. test the model.collect your nobel. easy peasy.
gunna be hard since you cant even find clouds effects in the data that are even roughly correlated to cosmic ray counts.

and spare me the citations to the usual incomplete treatments.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Steven Mosher

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

Understanding cloud formation will, I imagine remain elusive, for as long is it remains difficult to predict rain.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Doug Cotton

$
0
0
  Yes, clouds will form "humps" in the atmospheric temperature plot due to release of latent heat and some additional back radiation. But energy also enters the atmosphere by a variety of other processes illustrated <a href="http://www.earth-climate.com/energybudget.jpg" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Latent heat plays a significant role, but not a dominating one. In fact much of the energy originally in the oceans returns there in precipitation. Rain can be nearly as warm as the ocean just before it strikes it. The natural process which established the adiabatic lapse rate based on gravity continues to act by smoothing out the irregularities which arise from the somewhat random depositing of energy at various levels by all these processes. I am saying that this must happen by gravity acting on individual molecules dragging then downwards, whilst pressure offsets this with an upward push. At equilibrium there is a temperature gradient, even in a closed cylinder of air in a laboratory. This can be the only possible explanation for the observed temperatures in the Venus atmosphere, where less than 3 W/m^2 appears at the surface from both above and below it, yet it is 500 degrees hotter than the expected radiating temperature.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Max_OK

$
0
0

Judith, thank you for bringing attention to these interesting articles.

Comment on Open thread weekend by newclimatechangetheory

$
0
0

The Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to entropy. It says entropy cannot decrease without some change applied to the system.

So. whenever a molecule moves between collision,s entropy cannot decrease. Likewise when two molecules collide, entropy cannot decrease. Nor can it increase.

So, in a perfectly insulated tall sealed cylinder of air, when equilibrium is reached, diffusion processes ensure that entropy in every small region is the same.

Hence PE + KE = constant for every region, and so KE (and thus temperature) is greater at the bottom and less at the top.

Hence the surface gets warmed because of this temperature gradient and no other “reason” is applicable.

As Graeff wrote Late in the 19th century J. Loschmidt believed that a vertical column of gas or a solid in an isolated system would show a temperature gradient under the influence of gravity, being cold at the top and warm at the bottom. L. Boltzmann and J. C. Maxwell disagreed.

Loschmidt was right and Maxwell and Boltzmann were wrong.

The greenhouse is shattered.


Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by DocMartyn

$
0
0

The paleo data shows different correlations between temperature and CO2 in warming vs. cooling. Moreover, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, whereas changes in dust levels precede changes in temperature and log(dust) is far better at tracking temperature than CO2.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Utter nonsense. The ocean heat content follows toa net radiative flux changes which is largely – over decades of the satellite record – driven by cloud.

It actually doesn’t matter what causes the radiative imbalance – but the larger factor by far is clouds.

Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Terry Oldberg

$
0
0

Your post is misleading in several respects. That the sun warms the earth is not a fact but rather is a theory. Also, that increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration warms (increases the surface temperature of) the earth is not a fact but rather is a theory. This theory is what we call “AGM.”

The latter theory lacks the earmarks of a scientific theory as it is insusceptible to being tested. It is insusceptible because there is no underlying statistical population.

Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Terry Oldberg

$
0
0

In my previous post, please strike “AGM” and replace it with “AGW.”

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

Any study with 50 authors drawn from Western academia is less that worthless–more filing cabinets full of junk scischitt.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images