Comment on Open thread weekend by Vague Genie

December 1, 2012, 9:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist

$

0

0

Wow Joshua. I can’t believe you just posted that link:

Here -

Have another:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

That is quite possibly the worst opinion piece published in the Washington Post all year. I remember when it was first published, I literally laughed at loud time after time. I could write an essay on how bad that article is (though it’d probably go at least fifteen pages). I mean, the authors even go so far as to say:

Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views.

The authors tell the press, which is undoubtedly biased against the Republican party, not to be even-handed. If the the authors don’t think the press is already biased, how biased does it have to be before they see the obvious?

Only the most biased or ignorant of people could read it and think it was a fair-minded article.

---

Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

December 1, 2012, 9:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Vague Genie

$

0

0

Dude –

5th graders who believe in the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny? Really? Where do you live?

Funny story – my nephew (same one who just got his Ph. D in physics from Berkeley) told a bunch of kids in his (maybe his 2nd grade?) class that he figured out that there was no such thing as Santa Claus. My brother and sister-in-law got angry phone calls that night from a bunch of his classmates’ parents.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

December 1, 2012, 9:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

$

0

0

Chief Hydro never sees the irony of his own remarks.

True that. He’s the master of unintentional irony.

Not sure which is my favorite: (1) When he whines about people insulting him or (2), When he complains about other people not accurately representing uncertainty.

Got to be one of those two, though.

Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

December 1, 2012, 9:42 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Vague Genie

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

$

0

0

Gates Said, “Probably it will be the warmest “cool down” mode on record. ” Yep. Since we are currently at the peak of the precession cycle and since there is a 4.3ka precession related recurrent decay pattern in the southern ocean paleo data (and tropical oceans) that appears to stimulate the “Bond Events”, it should be historic.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Vague Genie

December 1, 2012, 9:47 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

$

0

0

By the way, this is supposed to be a joke account for making vague responses to people who have said something that doesn’t deserve a real response. The fact I’m breaking from that should tell you how much contempt I have for that article. It is simply too ridiculous to respond to with silliness. No amount of absurdity I could come up with would do it justice.

Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

December 1, 2012, 9:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Vague Genie

$

0

0

Joshua, “5th graders who believe in the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny? Really? Where do you live?”

Born and raise in the backward south. Land of ignorant rednecks. In fact I just had a consultation phone call from a relative wanting to know how to build a home still. They had some confusion about methanol and foreshots.

BTW, in the south, kids do not deny the existence of anything that delivers gifts :) I guess northern kids are smarter.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

December 1, 2012, 9:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

$

0

0

Vague -

Read up on the history of Ornstein.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang

December 1, 2012, 9:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

$

0

0

The Skeptical Warmist
You said:

there is no room for facts

But why didn’t you point out that the statement that started this is highly misleading:

Your cool mode was the warmest decade on record.

The statement refers to the instrumental record. But that spans a blink of an eye in terms of Earth history.

The fact is that polar ice caps have existed for only about 25% of the time multi-cell life has thrived on Earth (about 550 million years). Much of that 25% was probably warmer than now. So Chief is correct to say we are in a cool phase. At a rough guess, for the past half billion years, the planet may have been warmer than now for 80% to 90% of the time and cooler than now for just 10% to 20% of the time. On that basis we are in a cool phase, as Chief correctly stated.

The planet has been cooling for the past 50 million years. And it continues in a long-term cooling trend. That is dangerous (perhaps even catastrophic) for life as we know it, eventually. Why don’t we give more attention to this fact? Could it be because, as you so correctly pointed out:

there is no room for facts

?

---

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

December 1, 2012, 10:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Joshua – you complain about a left loony remark and then froth at the mouth and fling creationism quotes about the place. Just seems to prove my point really.

‘If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades.’ S&T09

There is actually some science to be considered – not just handwaving about hottest La Ninas or hottest decades. One the one hand we have NASA and on the other gatesy and Jim D. Please – if yu have some actual science that says it isn’t happening – let someone know. Please – it is so pathetic it is laughable.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

December 1, 2012, 10:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Vague Genie

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

Add another unintentional irony to the list.

Mr. Spittle- flecked screen himself says I’m frothing at the mouth.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Vague Genie

December 1, 2012, 10:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

$

0

0

Joshua –

You first. Bob could teach you a lot. Like how to think.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

December 1, 2012, 10:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Vague Genie

$

0

0

CH, you only have to look at the last cool mode 60 years ago, and see how much warmer this one is. Global warming is eating the ‘cool mode’s’ lunch and it is only just starting.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon

December 1, 2012, 10:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

$

0

0

Couple days ago 125 signatories to a November 29, 2012 ‘Open Letter’ to H.E. Ban Ki-Moon of the UN brought to the Secretary-General’s attention ”recently released data [U.K. Met Office] showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years,” proving ”models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”

Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

December 1, 2012, 10:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Doug Cotton

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon

$

0

0

“These results point to the need for a more systematic exploration of the impact of forcing uncertainties on simulations of historical climate change.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

Hmmm? historical climate change. I guess something is out of tune?

Comment on Open thread weekend by Doug Cotton

December 2, 2012, 8:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

$

0

0

  Yes, thank you <b>Pat</b> for your linked item which is saying exactly what I am saying, and I quote (my bold) ... <i>Then, the temperature distribution below the cloud layer<b> is determined by a dry adiabatic lapse rate</b> and the temperature near the cloud bottom. The <b>surface temperature</b> in the radiative‐convective equilibrium <b>is strongly affected by the temperature near the cloud bottom</b> in this situation</i> <b>Skeptical Warmist</b> has still not put up a valid physical argument. If only 2.1 W/m^2 reaches the surface, not only is this insignificant, but it is just as easy for the same energy to escape back out of the surface, especially at around 600 K. <b>Such a small trickle of energy (less than 10% of what you feel in the Sun here on Earth) could not keep accumulating in order to build up to 600K</b>. By what process could it possibly do that when it can easily escape as fast as it arrives? In fact, S-B Law says it will do just that. On Earth the IPCC et al incorrectly try to blame it all on backradiation. But backradiation on Venus cannot be more than this 2.1 W/m^2 trickle. That's the dilemma, my friend. That's why it happens as in the above linked paper to which Pat kindly referred. You can't send even a trickle of just 2 W/m^2 of radiation from the Venus surface up to its atmosphere and then back down again and expect it to warm the surface one iota. That would clearly be a decrease in entropy, which just doesn't happen in any such process anywhere in the universe. Start by getting your physics right, at least. <b>No radiation from the Venus atmosphere can transfer heat to the already hotter surface.</b>  

---

Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2

December 2, 2012, 8:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Doug Cotton

$

0

0

But speaking of ice. An ice covered Earth would be insensitive to isolation changes – a low climate sensitivity. One without ice would be more sensitive. One with the Northern hemisphere oriented towards the Sun would be more sensitive. I don’t see how these things CAN’T affect sensitivity.

Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope

December 2, 2012, 8:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2

$

0

0

Mosh said:

“Since its about politics you would have done better to consider the criminal records of those who signed.”

:)

Are leg irons made out of IRON ?

That would be IRONic

(hint, hint)

Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon

December 2, 2012, 8:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

If there was anything to AGW theory its proponents wouldn’t be catastrophists allow be associated with fearmongers, liars, charlatans, Leftist ideologues and monomaniacal schoolteachers with delusions of grandeur about saving humanity from America.

Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist

December 2, 2012, 9:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by newclimatechangetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon

$

0

0

Doug said:

” No radiation from the Venus atmosphere can transfer heat to the already hotter surface.”

_____
Well, at least you’ve got that part right, but everything else in your twisted logic is quite..well…twisted. It is twisted because you are arguing about wrong assumptions regarding “backradiation” and wrong because you seem to think that the 90 bar or so of pressure at the surface of Venus is the only reason that it’s so blistering hot there. Atmospheric pressured alone will not get us to the temperatures seen on the surface. Without the greenhouse properties of the massive amount of CO2 absorbing and emitting and absorbing and emitting the LW near the surface, the heat generated by atmospheric pressure alone would have a much more steep thermal gradient to space and the rate of heat loss from the surface would be faster.

“Backradiation” is a meaningless concept in the context of Venus’ lower atmosphere. One really needs to think in term of thermal gradients. It is all about thermal gradients between the surface and space.You have a dense, hot atmosphere at the surface, warmed by atmospheric pressure and a small amount of sunlight. The flow of that energy to space faces a very flat thermal gradient to space. Remember the flatter the gradient the less quickly the surface will cool. The surface temperature must be a result of the equilibrium being found between heat at the surface and the rate at which that heat can make it to space. The very high CO2 in the lower Venusian atmosphere sets the rate of that flow to space to a mere trickle.

In short, the heat at the surface of Venus may be caused partially by atmospheric pressure partially by sunlight, but the actual equilibrium temperature of the surface is dictated by the thermal gradient between the surface and space and that is dictated by the greenhouse properties of CO2. For example, if you took a different, non-greenhouse gas, such as nitrogen, and replaced it in Venus’ atmosphere for all the CO2 such that the surface pressure was exactly the same as now, the surface equilibrium temperature would be less because the thermal gradient between surface and space would be more steep and energy would flow far more readily from surface to space.

Comment on Open thread weekend by newclimatechangetheory

December 2, 2012, 9:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread weekend by pokerguy

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist

$

0

0

There is a major shortcoming in the 1975 paper of Pollack and Young.

Yes, it includes computations (based on an initial temperature “guess” as they admit) that appear to explain the temperature gradient based on radiation. But, the implicit assumption is that radiation heading downwards will transfer heat to warmer regions of the atmosphere and eventually to the surface. This simply cannot happen without violating the 2nd LoT – which they don’t build into their calculations, and thus completely ignore.

At least they agree roughly with Jelbring who calculated 2.5% of Solar radiation reaches the surface – compared with their 3%. However, I prefer the calculation of Miatello who came up with a mean of 2.1 W/m^2.

Even if I agree on the 3%, as I keep saying, 3% of Solar energy going into the surface means no more than 3% of Solar energy coming out of the surface. Yet they in effect try to get away with claiming that the surface is transferring as much energy to the atmosphere as would a planet in space at 600 K without an atmosphere. Then they say there is a smaller reverse transfer from a less-hot level back to a hotter level. This simply can’t happen, but the whole thing is the epitome of typical false calculations relating to radiation which abound in the AGW literature.

All that radiation from a less hot atmosphere can do would be to slow the rate of radiative cooling of the surface iff it were somehow heated above the temperature of the source of the radiation in the first place. But it can’t be with only 3% of Solar insolation.