The reason the scientists who question ”climate change’ tend to be older is simple and obvious. Near or past retirement age, they no longer have to worry about getting fired, or losiing grant money, or otherwise taking a torch to their careers by failing to fall into line.
Comment on Open thread weekend by pokerguy
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist
newclimatechangetheory says:
“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.”
____
You’re getting closer. Follow this thought through. Greenhouse gases serve to make the thermal gradient less steep between surface and space, thus slowing the rate of cooling of the surface and raising the equilibrium temperature. Venus’ surface temperature is a direct reflection of the thermal gradient between surface and space. The energy or heat at Venus’ surface is from a combination of atmospheric pressure and solar energy making it down to the surface. If you replaced the CO2 with a non-greenhouse gas, even if you had the same exact pressure at the surface and the same solar energy reaching the surface, you would have a lower surface temperature because the thermal gradient between surface and space would become more steep and the surface would lose energy faster and thus have a lower equilibrium temperature.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
‘A prankster surprises someone of rank and authority by
surreptitiously sliding a thin feather up his nose during a
moment of relaxation. ( Black Swan Ch 3)
Hmm … the seriously self – assured expert hit with a totally
unexpected event :)
Sometimes I think we, the labelled ‘non – progressives’ of the
climate – debate ‘non – consensus,’ have an advantage. For
whatever personal achievements some non – consensusites
may have acquired in their professional lives, here is healthful
medicine reminding us not to take ourselves too seriously.
Jest sayin …)
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist
One additional point– there is no doubt that atmospheric pressure plays some small role in supplying a small amount of the thermal energy at Earth’s surface, but it is no where near the amount supplied by incoming solar. Venus and Earth may be exactly opposite in this regard, given the density of the Venusian atmosphere and the smaller amount of solar energy reaching the surface. But just like Venus, the rate of flow of that thermal energy from surface back to space will be dictated by the overall thermal gradient between surface and space. Thus, just like Venus, as you increase GHG’s, you make the thermal gradient less steep and energy flows slower from surface to space, raising the equilibrium temperature of the surface.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon
Much as Members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union destroyed Hostess Brands, Inc., is it any Wonder self-defeating schoolteachers and their government union Ding Dongs are beating the Ho Hos out of America and running off Twinkie production to China where businesses are not penalized for polluting the air with the smell of baking bread?
“The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition” —Vincent Gray
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
Further on feathers,swans, turkeys and now
grebes. ‘Dance of the Grebes.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbRrxw-H6xA grebes.
We view with delight the flight of birds
Aerial acrobatics on high. Closest we get
To it Is hang gliding or bungee jumping
Off cliffs. But birds aren’t limited to
Flight display or rites of passage epic
Journeys across oceans. Sometimes,
On land, they dance, sometimes even
Walk on water.
Grebes meeting on a lake, rippling
Water rings inter-act and over-lap
As they begin the ancient ritual of attraction
Tentative courtship, circling and departing
Over days.The gift of pond weed by the male,
‘I’m good for providing, take these weeds! ‘
And if she does, the dance steps up,
Necks arch and inter-twine in sync, beaks
Cross like twin swords, uncross and cross again,
And suddenly in a flurry of silver spray
They’re off, running on water,
Heads and slender necks tilted towards
Each other, Oh, it’s a dance like no other,
Defying gravity,
Defying imagination!
There’s a scene in a sixties’ movie where
Romeo and Juliet meet for the first time
In a formal dance.
Arm extends to arm, glancing gesture of attraction,
Hands touch, palm to palm, feet move
In patterned sync to reedy music.
Social mores of the time, however,
Preclude the gravity defying
Ecstatic finale.
No running on water.
BC
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by newclimatechangetheory
It is not pressure which raises the temperature at the base of any atmosphere. Pressure forces more molecules into a given space, but it does not generate energy and impart more kinetic energy to each molecule. Gravity converts PE to KE. The temperature you measure is based on mean kinetic energy of the molecules in the region. All this is basic physics, so you've blundered from the outset!
The atmosphere is hotter at the base because of the propensity for molecules with greater KE and less PE to accumulate there, whilst molecules with less KE and more PE get diffused into upper layers of the atmosphere. This is a physical diffusion process which has nothing to do with radiation. It happens in any closed room in your house when, for example, you temporarily heat a corner of the room, turn off the heater and observe the uniform temperature which develops at any given level, but which is about 0.02 degree warmer at the floor level than at the ceiling if you could measure it and the room were perfectly insulated. It has been measured in sophisticated lab experiments by Graeff, and the WUWT attempted rebuttal was flawed because it also happens in solids..
That's what Jelbring and Miatello (as well as some who are not members of PSI) are on about. It is a fact which is generally agreed upon by the membership of <i>Principia Scientific International</i>, which is now close to 150 and includes people such as <a href="http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html" rel="nofollow">these</a>, one being a Nobel Prize nominee for example. All of us give of our time (for no financial reward) because we are annoyed at the propagation of the fraud of AGW and the money and lives it is costing.
Now, if backradiation has no effect on Venus, then it's very interesting that you have to invent a totally different kind of greenhouse effect up there for Venus. Nature must be rather inconsistent.
You are blatantly wrong in assuming carbon dioxide has any significant effect on the lapse rate. It is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate" rel="nofollow">function of the acceleration due to gravity (<i>g</i>) and the specific heat</a>, according to standard physics. That's why Miatello could explain both Earth and Venus surface temperatures with the same formula. (See Section 8 <a href="http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> and take your time to read all three pages.)
So, taking a different gas like nitrogen would not make much difference on Venus, and any difference would only be due to a slight difference in specific heat. Radiation properties play no part in the equation.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist
This post by the way, is excellent and is far more detailed than my simplified explanation:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/07/23/how-the-greenhouse-effect-works-a-guest-post-and-discussion/
And this quote is one worth remembering:
“In the end, it does not matter what the cause of resistance to heat transfer is. The total energy balance and thermal heat transfer resistance defines the process.”
“Thermal heat transfer resistance” aka Thermal Gradient.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D
always interesting to get Noam Chomsky’s view on things. Here is a post-election interview. It is not what you might think from the title.
http://videosift.com/video/noam-chomsky-how-climate-change-became-a-liberal-hoax
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Edim
Webby,
Liberal is as liberal does. The AGW is the verbiage of the rich, big oil, big banks… The poor are just mislead.
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day. Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes. One dollar can save a life — the opposite must also be true. Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels. Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.”
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by newclimatechangetheory
Skeptical Warmist wrote “Greenhouse gases serve to make the thermal gradient less steep between surface and space, thus slowing the rate of cooling of the surface and raising the equilibrium temperature.”
(a) Such gases don’t make the natural adiabatic lapse rate less, because that rate is proportional to the force of gravity and inversely proportional to the specific heat – nothing else. The specific heat of carbon dioxide at around 500 K is about 4% less than that of nitrogen and so, since it is in the denominator, the adiabatic lapse rate for carbon dioxide is about 4% greater than that for nitrogen.
(b) How does the energy “trapped” in the less hot atmosphere of Venus get back to the hotter surface? It can’t, because there is a law in physics called the Second Law of Thermodynamics about which you should read.
(c) I told you, correctly, that the only effect that is physically possible would be a slowing of the rate of radiative cooling of the surface if and only if (iff) the surface were first heated somehow above the temperature of the radiating region of the atmosphere. That is correct physics. And even if the radiative component were slowed, the non-radiative cooling by conduction would simply speed up, or last longer into the Venus night and thus compensate and nullify any effect. In other words, the overall rate of surface cooling would not be affected, as happens on Earth.
Only 3% of Solar insolation gets to the surface by any process. The atmosphere cannot magnify this effect and somehow multiply the incident radiation which it absorbs and send more to the surface !!!
There is only 3% getting into the surface. That cannot heat the surface by 500 degrees so that it can then start cooling off and perhaps have its rate of cooling slowed by a mere 2 W/m^2 which is a generous estimate of the maximum possible backradiation. Whatever insolation is absorbed by conduction into the surface during the long Venus day has ample time at night to come back out again, because the rate of conduction into the surface is about the same as the rate of conduction back out again, and the night is about as long as the day – each ~120 Earth days.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D
Are you saying increasing the pressure adiabatically doesn’t cause warming? You can get warming just by increasing the pressure without gravity. It is the pressure that is the fundamental reason for the warmer air being at the base of the well mixed atmosphere. In this case pressure increases downwards due to gravity, and is known as the hydrostatic pressure, but without the pressure difference, there would be no temperature gradient.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Pat Cassen
Doug – Why are cloudy nights warmer than clear nights? I’ve always wondered….
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Davies
OT but what a pleasant diversion!
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Brandon Shollenberger
Joshua:
Say Peter –
Maybe you posted an update but I missed it?
Any news on your theory that Climate Etc. got shut down because the AGW cabal didn’t like one of your posts?
Lol! You write some hilarious posts – but I am quite sure that series of posts was the funniest.
And yet, when WebHubTelescope said this site’s comment section wasn’t indexed at Google because people had decided the commentary here was too low-quality, you… said nothing. Funny how that works out.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4
JimD, Not much on long term clouds since the satellites started providing the newer data. The model tuning of the past was based more on aerosols than clouds. Paleo precipitation shows a lot of regional variability associated with the internal oscillations, but since they are assumed to zero out, that has not been part of the more mainstream research until recently.
Chief might have a few links.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist
Climate is technically a chaotic system. Somewhere here I quoted the TAR to that effect. I can likewise quote The Royal Society and a million other sources. The system is complex and dynamic and shares properties with other dynamic systems. Chief amongst these is ‘slowing down’, ‘noisy bifurcation’ and ‘strange attractors’. Google the terms.
So they are not oscillations – but chaotic bifurcations. The bound is the topology of the phase space of the stable attractors. The conceptualisation is different. Instead of random variations within limits – there is an interaction of system components – negative and positive feedbacks – that in principle is completely deterministic but shows abrupt shifts and emergent behaviour that is as yet unpredictable in practice. Nothing on the scale of the planet in climate is random. Saying that it is random is both incorrect and explains nothing.
Albedo can of course go up or down, greenhouse gases similarly with drying and wetting of the atmosphere. The heat content of the planet changes all the time for any number of reasons that impact on humidity and albedo. It is an utterly different conceptualisation. We are not on the same paradigm. We are not on the same planet. It works as nonlinear responses to control variables through real world feedbacks.
It is simple if you read the journals on nonlinear dynamics.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang
Steve Mosher,
Back to the sand pit and play nicely with the other children.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua
Brandon -
Here – in case you missed it:
Peter Lang wrote:
It may be confidence, but the site was taken down soon after I posted the comment and when I regained access to the thread, my comment had been deleted.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/14/policy-rhetoric-and-public-bewilderment/#comment-267912
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua
But wait, Brandon -
It gets better still:
Peter Lang wrote:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/14/policy-rhetoric-and-public-bewilderment/#comment-267886
Wow. There may be more to this than is first apparant.
[..]
Did my now deleted comment cause Climate Etc to be taken down for a day?
Did Professor Stephen Lewandowski or his legal team lodge a complaint with WordPress about my comment?
What really caused Climate Etc. to be taken down soon after I posted my comment, and why has my comment been deleted?
Will we ever know?
How powerful are the climate orthodoxy’s thought police?
Just another “rational skeptic” eh?
“Will we ever know?”
Oh. My freakin’ sides.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
