Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$
0
0

Steven Mosher, Funny. Remember that the abstract states:, “The water vapor delivered to the atmosphere via evaporation represents a store of potential energy available to accelerate air and thus drive winds. Our estimates suggest that the global mean power at which this potential energy is released by condensation is around one per cent of the global solar power – this is similar to the known stationary dissipative power of general atmospheric circulation. We conclude that condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics.”

1% approximately 4Wm-2. As Dave would say, “Write that down.”


Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by GaryM

$
0
0

Translation – You can’t falsify CAGW. We have spent years being condescending to, and impugning the integrity of, anyone who disagreed with us. Our egos could not take the hit of being so wrong on what we have made the most politically important scientific issue of our day. Therefore there is nothing that could convince us we were wrong…I mean falsify CAGW.

Simples.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Why is webby hiding in the back posts casting aspersions?

http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/01/another-hockey-stick/#comment-293992

One reason is a simple and and relates to a quite mild correction I made. That the difference between figures being quoted on crude oil was the inclusion in one of natural gas liquids and not in the other. Webby insisted that the difference was biofuels – which didn’t figure in either. A simple point and so began the usual song and dance of obfuscation and misdirection. Webby complains that I am a larrikin – anti authoritarian. I am sure that if he had any I would defer. But as I have explained – the larrikin hero is our most sacred ideal of nationhood. It is an ideal of honesty, fair play, respect for women and care for children, a lack of pretence and an unflinching egalitarianism. The Aussie larrikin has only contempt for obfuscation and prevarication.

Odd as well – this repetitive sockpuppet plaint. Everyone knows who I am – i was made clear up front. Biosketch. Robert styles himself in the blogosphere as a Chief Hydrologist. ‘Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.’

Of late I have dropped the handle to see if the level of civility from such as the webnutcolonoscope improved. Unfortunately not in my dealing with webby in particular – so I have slipped back into the old and comfortable sockpuppet. I have said this to him. How often do I need to say these things to avoid the idiotic repetition of pointless complaints? Btw – I can neither confirm or deny that I am Captain Kangaroo – it is a closely guarded secret of the climate war privy only to a few on a need to know basis – and cowgirls with lassos.

The complaint about the simple energy equation is odd indeed. Because we are talking differentials energy is obviously in units of Joules per second – or unit energy. There is a similar hydrological equation of storage.

dS/dt = I – Q

Where dS/dt is the change in storage in a reach, I is inflow and Q is outflow. I and Q are expressed in terms of m3/s and not m3 – it doesn’t any sense at all unless you have time varying quantities on both sides of the equation. Does this need to be stated explicitly in such a simple formulation? I don’t think so – it is obvious that we are dealing with time varying quantities because it is a differential equation.

Having studied both engineering – with a major in hydrology – and environmental science. You may assume that I am familiar with dimensional analysis. So we have several pointless and repetitive quibbles, and lies and prevarication – all of which I find contemptible for a lack of manly virtues. Which being Australian and egalitarian we apply to women as well. A larrikin girl is a force of nature.

Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by tempterrain

$
0
0

Dave Springer,

“discount the author as making special pleading for some case he cannot justify in the real world. ….”

They are known as thought experiments , Dave. We know the real atmosphere can never be isothermal because , as you say it cools from the top ( and the bottom too) and is heated from the bottom.

But its instructive to imagine what the atmosphere would be like if the GH effect didn’t exist. It helps us understand the real one better. I agree with Prof Roy Spencer that it would be isothermal, or at least much more isothermal than it is. Therefore, the fact that it is cooler at altitude shows the existence of the GH effect. That’s an important point to establish, and that’s why many climate deniers are at pains to say otherwise.

Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by tempterrain

Comment on Open thread weekend by Paul Vaughan

$
0
0

AAM = atmospheric angular momentum
This is primarily about the midlatitude westerly wind belts — oscillations of intensity & mean latitude — decadal waves washing poleward from the equator, accumulating in multidecadal aggregate.

By the way — a substantial announcement:
I’ve just confirmed and extended this. Gravely serious parties capable of going against the mainstream grain to help correct its fundamental misdirection: you will find clean, painfully beautiful results if you extend this to the semi-annual timescale. (More details as scarce time/resources permit…)

Comment on Open thread weekend by omanuel

$
0
0

Thanks, Wagathon, for summing up the ways various parts of the solar system are connected.

a.) Scientists measured the physical connections;
b.) Religionists could feel the spiritual connections

Both groups were right – http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339 – but unable to cooperate for the benefit of society after vaporization of Hiroshima on 6 July 1945 fused politics and science together as tightly as religion and science had been fused together at the time of Copernicus and Galileo.

Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

This is quite long term and the temperature increase can by no means be all attributed to greenhouse gases. So about 0.5 degrees C seems reasonable. Nothing to worry about then? Actually no – because there will be several climate shifts this century.


Comment on Open thread weekend by Paul Vaughan

$
0
0

I don’t omit things for lack of care. There’s a limit to how much sleep & exercise I will sacrifice for volunteer work. Long-term, sufficient, guaranteed-secure pay & pension is the only thing that could potentially free me of Pareto Principle operations.

Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by tempterrain

Comment on Open thread weekend by ianl8888

$
0
0

“Why is webby hiding in the back posts casting aspersions?”

I don’t know why you bother with him. I stopped trying to read his spittle over a year ago

He’s a shining example of Wankus Interruptus

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Let me – hopefully for the last time – derive this for webby’s benefit.

Let S1 be the energy stored at time t1 – and S2 be the energy stored at t2.

The change in storage is S1 – S2 = ΔS

The change in energy stored by definition is the difference in energy in and energy out in the period by the 1st law.

 ΔS (J) = energy in (J) – energy out (J)

The instantaneous rate of change in ΔS is:

ΔS /Δt (J/s) = energy in/Δt (J/s) – energy out/Δt (J/s)

 dS/dt = average energy in – average energy out

For the more discerning denizens – we can drop the average as implicit in the derivation of this simple formula.

Comment on Open thread weekend by GaryM

$
0
0

tempterrain,

Oh there are definitely those much further left than Gore, Pelosi and Soros. But for progressives like yourself, anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is a conservative. I remember once Tamino described Obama as a Chicago School conservative. Explaining leftism to a progressive is like explaining water to a fish. It’s hard for y’all to get a proper perspective.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Arno Arrak

$
0
0

Joshua | February 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Don’t worry about your technical background, just use your brain. Those phenomena that you are dubious about are experimental observations and they can’t be questioned. You are right to demand an explanation but unfortunately all these high-powered “climate” scientists who are swimming in research money refuse to take notice of what I say. Apparently they think that “denialist” science should not get any kind of publicity, good or bad. The step warming is of course bad for them and not likely to support their theories of warming. They have a huge research effort but it either goes to proving that AGW exists or for circumstantial observations of the effects of their alleged warming. Despite years of these efforts they have yet to come up with a breakthrough that proves AGW. Their research is world wide and is extremely well funded. Hansen of NASA, for example, controls more than a billion dollars that Uncle Sam gives him as research money. I introduced several other important concepts in my book that also should be further investigated. The fact that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties is one example I mentioned before. It goes against Hansen’s claim in 1988 that AGW had started. As I mentioned previously global mean temperature did not change for 18 years. I determined it by putting dots at the midpoints of El Nino peaks and La Nina valleys as I described and then connected the points. This gave me a straight horizontal line. I had previously applied the same technique to GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 temperature curves, both of which show the same peaks and valleys as the satellites do. In both cases, connecting the points gave a straight line sloping up which indicates warming. I knew it was a phony warming but they both were peddling it as fact. Until last fall, that is, when the new issues of GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 datasets became available. As of August 8th for GISTEMP and September 29th for HadCRUT3 their global mean temperature in the eighties and nineties has miraculously become a horizontal straight line, just like the satellites show. There was no announcement and nobody would know it if they did not use my technique of determining the mean that I outlined above. Must be that somebody knew about my book and got cold feet about what they were doing with temperature. Clearly the ability to make such sophisticated changes to the record implies that they did know about it. It is also a cross-ocean coordinated action which widens the scope for the original phony data source. As to showing that step warming is the only possible warming, this is not my claim. I only said that this goes back to the seventies. In the early part of the twentieth century there was a steady period of warming that started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940. There was no sudden increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 which rules out the greenhouse effect as a cause. Furthermore, it is quite impossible for greenhouse effect to stop as suddenly as it did in 1940. What happened in 1940 was the beginning of the severe cooling associated with World War II. Its aftereffects continued after the war and the next real warming did not begin until 1976, as I mentioned. The likelihood is that the early century warming had a solar origin. As to the greenhouse effect that is supposed to be the cause of AGW, it does not exist. Ferenc Miskolczi showed in 2010 that atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation was constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. This substantial amount of carbon dioxide did not increase the absorption of radiation by one whit. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

For the most part I do. I made a simple enough correction and he chose to lie about it. Get’s up my nose.

He changes a simple formula that has quite obvious physical meaning to:

dS/dt (W.s/s) = Power in (W) – Power out(W)

True but trivial. We are really interested in energy, heat and work rather than power flux. So we multiply by time to get:

ΔS (J) = Energy in (J) – Energy out (J)

And derive the diferential as below. It is not difficult but he seems to deliberately spread FUD wherever he goes.


Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0
Figure 7 of K&T 1997 showed 78 W/m2 for "evapotranspiration". In his <a href="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/energydiagnostics09final.pdf" rel="nofollow">2009 paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy"</a> Trenberth ups that from 78 to 80 leaving the rest largely unchanged except for making sure there was about 1 W/m2 of disequilibrium to represent global warming. (The 1997 paper was in perfect equilibrium!) What's your source for these numbers? (One complaint I had about the 1997 paper was that it completely neglected the cooling effect that evaporation has on rain, which is strongest at the onset of a rain storm because the humidity is lowest then. Scienceofdoom disagreed with me about that on the ground that the hydrological cycle is closed, but it seemed obvious to me that if the rain is cooler at the beginning of a storm than in the middle it will cool the ground, which K&T don't take into account. From that perspective I'd be fine with 88 W/m2 instead of 80 if that's what this additional effect turned out to be.)

Comment on IEA Facts and Fictions by Brandon Shollenberger

$
0
0

GaryM, why would people who believe peak oil is a problem short oil companies? I can’t see what believing oil will peak in, say 2020 (earlier than I would ever expect), would have to do with shorting oil companies now.

And how is conventional oil like a checking account? Conventional oil is, by far, the largest component in oil production. Unconventional oil is small in comparison. If anything, you have your metaphor reversed.

As for the Green River deposits, why don’t you tell us what the expected production rates for them will be in, say 2020? Or 2030? How much of a difference will they make?

Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

Plus one ter u also dear chief, fer yer comment on disutopean
literature tho’ I meself jest can’t respond ter their comments
targetin’ little chillders.
B the CG )

Comment on Open thread weekend by lorne50

$
0
0

Steve sorry sometime’s this stuff just make’ss me mad so really should we stop our planet or help the Poor?

Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

Sorry fer renegging on plus ones, Peter Davies, hope yer that doesn’t mean yer’ve lost all respect fer me, i do aim fer trustworthiness tho’ I
was never a girl guide. (

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images