[…] Full story […]
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by I Know I’m Right! A Behavioral View Of Over-Confidence | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
↧
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
The Chief is just as much of a krank as Philip Haddad in this belief, but at least PH does not create multiple sockpuppet aliases such as <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/05/sea-level-rise-discussion-thread/#comment-206692" rel="nofollow">"Diogenes"</a> to push those beliefs.
The Chief is the worst kind of bottom-feeder who uses multiple sockpuppets to create a fake grassroots.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by David L. Hagen
Steven
Almost all global modeling presentations under report the uncertainty range, showing only the average of a few runs. Temperature trends between individual runs from the same model have varied by an order of magnitude. Very few models are run for the 400 model run years S. Fred Singer (2011) found needed to reduce stochastic /chaotic variation. (e.g. 20 runs of 20 years each.
<a href="http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Chaotic_Behavior_July_2011_Final.doc" rel="nofollow">Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of Climate Models</a>
Correspondingly, <a href="https://www.google.com/#fp=bd6ce7fe40fcd0bd&q=nigel+fox+truths" rel="nofollow">Nigel Fox of NPL in the TRUTHS project</a> reports that current satellite measurements are ten time poorer than they could be for lack of onboard absolute calibration.
Authors covering up these issues does NOT give me much confidence in their results! See Richard Feynman on the importance of reporting ALL the evidence and ALL the weaknesses, not cherrypicking what looks nice and hiding the reality. <a href="https://www.google.com/#fp=bd6ce7fe40fcd0bd&q=feynman+cargo+cult+science" rel="nofollow">Cargo Cult Science 1974.</a>
We would be far further along by investing in Fox's absolute calibration for satellites than in billions of dollars more in meaningless regurgitation of unverified unvalidated models herded along by alarmists to catastrophic predictions.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Chief, “The data is captured through an aperture – so it is highly directional. It is often cited as showing that certain frequencies don’t make it to space. Not true – it actually shows scattering in those frequencies. Proof enough of the radiative properties of greenhouse gases but it doesn’t mean that the Earth doesn’t emit in those frequencies.”
Right, an ideal black body cavity would not have any gaps in its emission spectrum. An ideal radiant shell, would also not have any gaps, it would just be a continuation of the black body cavity, but reality is not perfect. There is a loss of efficiency with each shell resulting in a gray body. A perfect “Gray” body would emit 50% of the energy it receives from the black body source which would require zero advection meaning the shells would have to be isothermal. Earth ain’t perfect.
~70% of the surface of the Earth is a near perfect black body and the first near ideal radiant shell is the turbopause where there is effectively no turbulent mixing. The Stratopause is another closer to ideal shell which has a area ~3% larger than the full surface of the Earth and an average temperature/energy of 0C 315 Wm-2. The Turbopause that a temperature/energy of ~-89C (65Wm-2) The two shells produce a net 240Wm-2 TOA radiant energy with minimal collisional broadening of the spectrum. It is like having a greenhouse in a greenhouse, The 65 Wm-2 is a dry WMGHG effect and the 315 Wm-2 the water vapor greenhouse.
Those two shells are restricted to their spectra based on temperature and composition with the gaps being indications of their efficiency if the only energy involved is from the blackbody source. Unfortunately, the atmospheric is not perfectly transparent, so the shells receive energy from the sun and the greater the distance the shell is from the true surface the more likely solar will be absorbed in an anisotropic angle which CERES does a fine job of correcting for btw.
All of this results in a delightfully complex puzzle if you want to solve to a high degree of precision or you can reduce the puzzle to the black body cavity, the oceans, ~4C 335Wm-2 which maintain an average ~335 “global” average DWLR and since the oceans only cover ~70% of the surface, an apparent TOA flux of ~240 Wm-2 allowing for the areal difference.
But any object above absolute zero will emit IR, when ya gotta go, ya gotta go.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by kim
I defend and forgive Richard Tol, for he once thought the science was settled.
===========
↧
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Pekka Pirilä
Peter,
I was only stating some facts. They may be irrelevant, or not.
The comment was not directed to or against anyone specifically, but I thought is has some connection to the sub-thread as it tells on the duration of Tol’s interest in climate related issues.
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by Beth Cooper
Keeping the record staight is somethin’ i admire… ter do
with what *can* yer believe. i hate dissimulation because it’s
a power ploy and, heh, misguided fallible humans as we are,
we need ter try be faithful ter the evidence and if it doesn’t
measure up ter testing, discard it. Tony Brown is one of our
denizens here, who, like Juditjh Curry, has this kind of integrity.
Don’t mean ter embarrass either Judith or Tony but that’s how
I see it
A humble serf.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by kim
Nobody’s perfect.
============
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Brandon Shollenberger
Peter Lang, it’s cheeky to accuse me of nit-picking while only responding to a comment I made to address a minor point. It’s easy to accuse someone of nit-picking when you simply ignore their lengthy, detailed comments.
But I do not include you amongst those, sorry. So, at this stage, I accept Richard Tol’s interpretation over yours. If you addressed your questions to him in a respectful manner and debated him over your concerns, I may be interested in the debate, but as it seems you are just posting a whinge here and elsewhere, I don’t have a very high opinion of your approach. It doesn’t suggest to me you have a high level of integrity.
I did exactly what you claim I should have done but didn’t. You conveniently overlook this fact, along with the fact Richard Tol’s responses fit your negative characterization far better than my comments. You’ve managed to basically invert everything in your comment.
If all you have to contribute are negative comments about my character, you should stop responding. It’s a waste of everybody’s time.
↧
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
Rednecks, word salad swill.
Captain and Chief whack jobs. Why do you exist?
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Pekka Pirilä
All parts of atmosphere starting from highest stratosphere up are so rare that they play a very little role in the Earth energy balance. The let most wavelengths pass trough essentially freely. The higher opacity over very narrow bands does not change the overall picture. The temperatures at Stratopause and Turbopause are interesting for the study of outer atmosphere, but have very little influence on the Earth energy balance.
The numbers you calculate from the Stefan-Boltzmann law are irrelevant. The value of 50% that you mention is not connected to any recognizable feature of the real Earth system.
There are no ideal shells at those altitudes, just altitudes where the properties of the atmosphere change in a way that affect significantly the temperature gradient. (As I noted above those temperatures have almost no influence on the Earth energy balance.)
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Beth Cooper
Thx Max-me-fellow-serf, but as i told yer before, i’m but
a minnow, and a serf minnow at that )
kim-non-pareil, re ‘Nobody’s perfect’ yer fergot ter cite,
‘Some Like it Hot!’ )
But-a-serf
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by kim
T, it’s been about four centuries that armies of lawyers(and others) have been marching about it, and a coupla more before that spent busily torquing the meaning of the meeting of the Barons, millenial scale climate changes ago.
=================
↧
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by Peter Davies
Tony, I don’t believe that Monckton is a sitting member of the House of Lords, but he seems prone to stretching the truth as had Michael Mann in relation to his claim of winning the Nobel prize. Its called Nobel cause corruption ;)
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by kim
‘Banks, for example, would not accept the evidence of the particular text of Magna Carta drawn up in John’s reign, because it was “an inforced act from a distressed king,” and had never been restated in exactly that form.’
H/t Margeret Atwood Judson.
==============
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Jim Cripwell
Kim you write “Nobody’s perfect”
This reminds me of Mac Davis
“Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble,
When you’re perfect in every way,
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble,
But I’m doin’ the best that I can.”
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Chief Hydrologist
You’re getting a bit repugnant again webby – try to reel it in.
Dallas – I was talking more about the instrument than any approximation of a blackbody. Although there was a cavity blackbody in the instrument for calibration.
Compare the FOV of IMG with CERES.
http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/AtmChem/IMG/general/whatIMG.html
↧
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Peter Lang
Brandon,
Your hypocrisy is astounding, given your frequent long arguments with others.
You should take your own advice about not responding and wasting people time. And you’ve been told that before by others.
No need to respond. See if you can help yourself.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Beth Cooper
Say Jim,
Not wishin’
ter be
the bearer
of bad news
but the gods
tell us
hubris is
followed by
nemesis.
A serf.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
You have a Civil Engineer Chief and an HVAC Engineer Cappy trying haplessly to explain what is happening with atmospheric radiative physics.
The Captain is obviously borrowing terms from his industrial heating experience using a phrase “radiant shell” indiscriminately, not realizing that the atmosphere is more of a perturbation, via a continuous low-density medium, to outgoing IR than any layer of insulation or whatever he is trying to analogize to. Since Cappy is unable to express anything with formal mathematical precision, he is simply bumbling and fumbling about.
The Chief is just being a copy&paste amateur, trying to impress anyone within earshot that he understands the physics. He also can not express anything mathematically, so is left to yowl at anyone who questions his explanations.
Notice that they use authoritarian titles such as Captain and Chief to indicate that they know what they are talking about. It doesn’t work that way. These guys need to have a track record and provide some citations from any background work they have done to establish some credibility. Cappy has a blog, but it is called “Redneck Physics”, so I doubt that this is anything more than a gag. The Chief claims to be a speed reader since the age of 3, which is the extent of his CV.
Yet Cappy and Chief know they are right.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
