Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Open thread weekend by Alexej Buergin

0
0

The german version of EPA did that. The minister, Old Meier, thinks it is OK even though he admits he has not read it (yes, he is a lawyer, and yes, he is bald and fat). The authors are four persons who know nothing about climate.
Google Umweltsbundesamt, Altmeier


Comment on Open thread weekend by Alexej Buergin

0
0

Can’t be Jimmie Noone, the clarinetist, who died in 1944. So what is the first name of Mr. Noone who has demonstrated that those adjustments are wrong? Is that Steven Goddards real name?

Comment on Storm surge hockey stick (?) by phatboy

0
0

So those 3,000 deaths were a direct result of the hurricane, were they?
Shame on you for gratuitously using human tragedy in an attempt to bolster your argument.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Chief Hydrologist

Comment on Storm surge hockey stick (?) by David Springer

0
0

Thanks for your opinion. I must say I’m duly impressed that you quoted scientists from 1956 which is the year of my birth but I’m a bit puzzled as you chastised me for quoting something written 30 years ago.

At any rate is there some kind of near term testable buried in your diatribe or was it the unadulterated hand waving that it appears to be?

Comment on Storm surge hockey stick (?) by David Springer

0
0

BartR, aside from being an anonymous coward, is a broken little toy.

Comment on Open thread weekend by angech

0
0

I have recently been allowed to make some comments on Nevin’s excellent Arctic blog where Mr R Gates gave his 4 graphs that matter [sic]. I made an unfortunate comment that ” Picking the month of September for your 4th graph is a bit disingenuous as there are 11 other monthly graphs you could have used or a straight anomalies graph you could have used. ” . This upset some other commentators ” Why is this disingenuous? Just as northern lakes freeze over every winter, few believe the arctic will be ice-free year round. Since winter and the disappearance of the sun will fill the arctic with sea ice, the full effect of warming can only be seen at the fall minimum. But you know this already – so the only one being disingenuous is you.’ “So your idea that warming should be seen on every day is not just wrong, it’s completely nonsensical.”
I would like to ask Mr Gates if he agrees with this view but also ask if he would like to put up his graphs here for discussion as he has some interesting conclusions. Hope I am not taking up space needlessly

Comment on Open thread weekend by handjive


Comment on Storm surge hockey stick (?) by John Carpenter

0
0

Bart,

“Grinsted et al’s choice, and their approach, seems to be achieving rather better statistical outcomes than other proxies and bases.

Rate all the potential bases for Grinsted et al to have used to index hurricanes on a scale of least to most reliable, and come back and tell me how ‘very poor’ their choices are relative to the whole gamut.

Of course, to me, I’d be wondering why the heck no one’s thought to say, “Hey! We should be rationally tracking this information to the best of our abilities instead of leaving it to statisticians to try to find some sorta-kinda indices decades after the fact!”

Perhaps it’s true that tide gauge proxies are of better ‘quality’ data than the rest of the gamut. But if the quality is still low, the quality of the information coming out of the data might (probably) be low as well. Your last point is the most important one. The problem is, everyone has 20/20 hindsight wrt what we should have done. The problem is, we usually don’t have the data we really want at the time we need it to help determine the size/scope of the problem. So it is completely normal and correct to look for data that was collected during the time of the problem and see if it gives us meaningful information. An analysis was run on the available data, it apparently says we should be experiencing big storm surges in the near future, much bigger than any we have experienced before. At this point the authors have a choice. 1). Evaluate the quality of the result with a perspective of whether the result seems plausible. 2). Sound the alarm bell again.

From reading only the information provided, the abstract in particular, it appears to me they opted for 2. I think this could be another example of ringing the alarm bell before we really know it is necessary to do so. But hey, it sure is fun to ring.

Comment on Storm surge hockey stick (?) by David Springer

0
0

Scatology is perhaps a better fit than eschatology. There is certainly an abundance of that type of evidence, in the form of scientific papers, being dropped by the usual suspects. Such papers are suitable for placement on the bottom of bird cages which makes them doubly interesting in a scatological context.

Comment on Mainstreaming ECS ~ 2 C by Myrrh

0
0

DocMartyn | May 23, 2013 at 9:58 am | Imagine we have a column of CO2 from the surface of the Earth all the way out to space. The Earth’s 300K SURFACE is pumping out IR through the column of CO2, and then out into the sink of space at a temperature of 4K.
Note that the overall flux is unidirectional.
Note that the Earths gravity well is unidirectional..

Gosh, I don’t know where to start. Do you understand what you’ve said in this post well enough to put it into English so we can all join in?

What do you mean by “gravity well”?

The photons rising up from the Earth have a vector, upwards, and momentum.
The passage and attenuation of radiative flux by absorption of photons by the gas results in radiative pressure; first postulated by Maxwell and independently Bartoli. Radiation pressure was first demonstrated experimentally 2012 years ago by Nichols and Hull.

And what is that pressure on the surface of one molecule of carbon dioxide compared with one molecule of nitrogen and one molecule of oxygen when “Radiation pressure is the pressure exerted upon any surface exposed to electromagnetic radiation” and which has been described as “feeble” and “negligible for everyday objects. ..one could lift a U. S. penny with laser pointers, but doing so would require about 30 billion 1-mW laser pointers.”?
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Light_pressure )

The impact on the gas, where we have a unidirectional photon flux and a gravity well, is to raise the temperature of the column.

Are you offering yet another version of this “invisible barrier” unknown to traditional science “container” like the “invisible barrier at TOA like the glass of a greenhouse which stops the powerful radiant heat which is the Sun’s great thermal energy which is the Sun’s heat energy in transfer by radiatiation aka thermal infrared aka longwave infrared from the millions of degee hot Sun from entering”? Like the unknown to traditional science “invisible dam around the Earth blocking upwelling heat building up heat by restricting its flow to space”, at the top of your “gravity well”?

How does this “gravity well” “raise the temperature of the column”?

The transfer of momentum to an electrons transition on the absorption of a photon alters the overall momentum of the whole molecules, and is both unidirectional and against the gravity field.

So the upwelling photons from Earth in this “gravity well” are not heat but light?

Electronic transitions are not applicable to radiated heat.

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_With_a_Biological_Emphasis/Chapter__4%3A_Structure_Determination_I/Section_4.3%3A_Ultraviolet_and_visible_spectroscopy

“While interaction with infrared light causes molecules to undergo vibrational transitions, the shorter wavelength, higher energy radiation in the UV (200-400 nm) and visible (400-700 nm) range of the electromagnetic spectrum causes many organic molecules to undergo electronic transitions. What this means is that when the energy from UV or visible light is absorbed by a molecule, one of its electrons jumps from a lower energy to a higher energy molecular orbital.”

Light cannot move the whole molecule into vibration which is what it takes to heat up a molecule, which is increasing its internal kinetic energy.

Visible light works on the much tiner electronic transition level because it is much tinier than the bigger heat energy of longwave infrared. Visible light is some 500 times bigger than the even titchier electron and knocks the electron into a higher energy state, not out of orbit, that would be ionising and visible light isn’t powerful enough to do that; the electron emits the same visible light energy as it settles back to ground state which is how we get our blue sky, the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen bouncing it around like a pinball machine. The much bigger heat wave of longwave infrared bangs into the whole molecule and gets the lot into internal vibration as the molecule absorbs it. Which is kinetic energy the energy of movement.

Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy, friction, moving the whole molecule into vibration, kinetic energy aka heat – the molecules of your skin don’t move linearly, or perhaps they do for you. Are you, generic, shape-shifters? Are you part of the evolution of the life on Earth or are you blow-ins?

“Whereas, emission of photons from gas molecules in an excited state is multi-directional due to ability of the gas molecules to tumble whilst in an excited state, i.e. tumbling occurs during the time between photon absorption and photon emission.

Because real gas is a fluid? Not an imaginary massless ideal gas in empty space with no volume to tumble? Or are you saying the stability of the whole molecule is affected by each encounter of an electron with light?

The overall effect of having an overall flux of photons traveling in one direction, against a gravity well, is to cause heating, as individual gas molecules are raised against the gravity well by the radiative pressure.

You’re still claiming linear kinetic movement when traditional physics says this results in either electronic transitions in reflection/scattering by absorption of light, so no change, or internal vibration of the whole molecule, which is kinetic movement i.e. heat, from absorbing the bigger more powerful radiant heat which is longwave infrared, which results in the expansion of the volume of the gas molecule which means it becomes less dense and therefore lighter than air under the pulling power of gravity which causes it to move linearily in space, that is, being lighter than air it will rise.

For example, the same amount of molecules in liquid water will take up 1,000 times more space as water vapour. It’s the combined volumes of expanded less dense gases which create areas of low pressure, we can feel this because they do not weigh so heavily on us.. Hot air rises cold air sinks; when real gases get cold they condense, they become denser, there are more of them in the same space because they take up less room.

Van der Waals has been excised from AGWScienceFiction fisics the way it has excised the Water Cycle and excised rain from the Carbon Cycle, real gas molecules have volume and attraction and weight relative to each other under gravity, they will separate out, that is what evaporation is. Water vapour and methane are lighter than air under gravity so will always rise, carbon dioxide is heavier so will always sink. Always equals sponstaneously, it takes work to change that just as it takes work to change the direction of the movement of water which always flows downhill..

Real gas molecules of traditional physics are not the imaginary ideal gas dots of nothing bouncing off imaginary invisible containers or each other not subject to gravity of the fantasy AGW fisics. Yet you invoke gravity, in your “gravity well”..

You, generic AGW/CAGWs, don’t have a real gas atmosphere and don’t have real gravity – you go straight from the surface to empty space – yet you bring in terms from traditional physics inapplicable to your scenario, like gravity, or have to postulate the existence of unknown to traditional science powerful strong “invisible barriers”, which not only prevent the the great invisible thermal energy from the millions of degrees hot Sun from entering at TOA, but keep your not subject to gravity volumeless weightless dots of nothing which you disingenuously or out of ignorance call carbon dioxide from continuing their journey in empty space …

Thermodynamically, the presence of the gas is causing an increase in disorder in the system as discrete IR centered around 10 microns is absorbed and much lower frequencies are emitted, due to heating.

Gobbledegook.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by David Springer

0
0

Max_OK | May 24, 2013 at 2:47 am | Reply

“the government could have been behind the devastating May 20 tornado in Oklahoma.”

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANKS MAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DON’T CARE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT TOOTHLESS OKIES YOU’RE OKAY. JUST AVOID HARD TO CHEW FOODS AND THOUGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

0
0

But of SST’s are a poor proxy for total energy gain or loss in the Earth system, and merely tell us more about ocean to atmosphere energy exchange rates.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Myrrh

0
0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goats_on_a_tree,_capre_sull%27_albero.jpg

“If you use four limbs to carry your weight, the chances are higher that you will be unable to position yourself effectively or that one of your hands or feet will slip,” Winder said. “It is to your advantage if you can balance on just two or three limbs and use the others to steady yourself.”

Three limbs and “others” ?

Could it be the other way around? That monkeys and such evolved from us, became adapted to living in trees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboreal_locomotion

“Arboreal locomotion is the locomotion of animals in trees. In every habitat in which trees are present, animals have evolved to move in them. Some animals may only scale trees occasionally, while others are exclusively arboreal. These habitats pose numerous mechanical challenges to animals moving through them, leading to a variety of anatomical, behavioral and ecological consequences.[1] Furthermore, many of these same principles may be applied to climbing without trees, such as on rock piles or mountains.”

I really can’t see how walking upright would benefit us, there a several species of antelope for example and one is really very nimble among rocks : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klipspringer

And, why when we do climb steep craggy rock do we always revert to all fours?

Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

0
0

angech,

I strongly suspect that those who care about that post have already commented about it here, but just in case, that post is here:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/the-four-charts-that-really-matter.html

In regard to your question, the September minimum is the best month to gauge long-term trends in sea ice area and extent because it shows a fair consistent metric for the full-force of the summer melt season on a year by year basis. It simply is the best month to reveal any long-term changes– which of course we have seen. But, I also included the PIOMAS chart because it shows that volume has been declining across all months on a year to year basis which is an even stronger indication of significant changes in the sea ice. Now some have argued that the decline in Arctic sea ice is just a natural cycle, and it certainly could be true that it has been given an extra downward kick by a warm AMO, but I think few sea ice experts would not ascribe some anthropgenic influence to its overall rapid decline, This chart shows a most revealing longer-term perspective:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/environmental-issues/26625-1400-year-arctic-ice-reconstructions.html

It is very very likely that humans have done this and trying to argue that point really gets away from the more important question of what will it mean when we start having ice free summer Arctics in the coming decades.

Overall though, my post at Neven’s is about looking at the most broad and accurate gauges of Earth’s continued warming– and looking at the relatively low energy low thermal inertia troposphere is a very poor metric.


Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by David Springer

0
0

In addition to fighting other intelligent species you forgot to mention unicorns. They’re not intelligent but one imagines the horn is pretty darn sharp and as far as I know they cannot be killed or even disabled so it’s really a hopeless situation.

Comment on Open thread weekend by omanuel

Comment on Open thread weekend by Myrrh

0
0

http://polywellnuclearfusion.com/AltCantDoIt/Biofuel.html

Time to stop?

“Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. He factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. In contrast to Pimental, he believes that the total energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides to your car engine.

“He is also concerned about the sustainability of industrial farming in developing nations where sugar cane and trees are grown as feedstock for ethanol and other biofuels. Using United Nations data, he examined the production cycles of many large plantations. “One farm for a local village probably makes sense,” he says. “But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation effectively exporting thousands of tons of biomass on contract to Europe, that’s a completely different story. One of the prices you pay, for example, is that – in Brazil alone – you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece.”"

..

“In order to use 100% solar energy to grow corn and produce ethanol (fueling farm-and-transportation machinery with ethanol, distilling it with heat from burning crop residues, and using no fossil fuels), the consumption of ethanol to replace current U.S. petroleum use alone would require about 75% of all cultivated land on the face of the Earth, with no ethanol for other countries, or sufficient food for humans and animals.

“According to a leaked April 2008 World Bank report, biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by seventy-five percent (75%) in the past year. In 2007, biofuels consumed one third of America’s corn harvest. Filling up one SUV fuel tank one time with 100% ethanol uses enough corn to feed one person for a year. Thirty million tons of U.S. corn going to ethanol in 2007 greatly reduced the world’s overall supply of grain. (However, it is also true that 31% of the corn put into the process comes out as “distiller’s grain,” sometimes called DDGS – which is fed to livestock and is very high in protein.)

“Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, has called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to halt the increasing catastrophe for the poor. He proclaimed that the rising practice of converting food crops into biofuel is “A Crime Against Humanity,” saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that are causing millions of poor people to go hungry. The European Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development warns, “The push to expand biofuels is creating tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits.””

Comment on Open thread weekend by lolwot

0
0

“that’s why there is this reversible action to make our blood more acidic or more alkaline to maintain our fine alkaline balance.”

Wow what a slip up Myrrh. You’ve accidentally admitted here the truth that a pH lowering action on something that is alkaline can be described as making it “more acidic”.

Yet here is what you said last year:
“I’ve never seen any figures given for the claim that we are making the ocean more acidic, which we can’t be doing anyway because the ocean is not acidic, we could perhaps be making it less alkaline, but I haven’t found any figures for this.”

Yes we know you skeptics are playing games. It’s hard as hell to prove it, to piece together the contradictions, but it’s not impossible.

As Andrew Adams at the time of that thread pointed out:
“certain “skeptics” try to change the subject and make it all about semantics because they don’t like the answer.”

Two weeks ago we had Latimer Alder pushing the same BS:
“It will not make the oceans ‘more acidic’. It will make them ‘less alkaline’. You cannot make it ‘more acidic’ when it is not acidic to start with. ”

Jim Cripwell agreed.

Latimer Alder then pushed out the conspiracy theory to go along with the semantic games: “Greenists choose to incorrectly call it ‘acidification’ because they hope the general public will unconsciously associate it with bad ‘acidic’ things. There can be no other reason.”

Myhrr commented: “Future scientists will be so shocked at how these corrupted science memes have taken over and dumbed down the subject, from the main science bodies and at university level no less. It’s like mass hypnotism or something.”

Now we have you today describing a reduction in pH of blood from alkaline to alklanine as making it “more acidic”. Whoops. How alarmist of you. You must be have planned that language to scare the public!

Comment on Storm surge hockey stick (?) by Beth Cooper

0
0

Shame on ‘em
who conjure up
fearful scenarios,
seeking ter
bring serfs
ter their knees
in fear and
sub – ju -ga shun.

Sacrifice of maidens
has evah been
a retrogade
solution ter
the slings an’
arrows of
outrageous
for – tune.

tra – la – la.

Bts

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images