Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by stefanthedenier

January 22, 2012, 7:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by JCH

$

0

0

Jim, grandma’s advice: man has 2 ears and one mouth – should listen twice as much as talks. Can you take an advice?:

You talk about GLOBAL warming of 2-5degrees. Did those people that educated you; told you that: if the troposphere warms up by 2degrees > will expand INSTANTLY by 1km extra UP. Can you imagine how much EXTRA COLDNESS in that extra km can intercept and redirect down? Q: why O+N expand much more when warmed by 4degrees, than by 2 degrees? If you can find answer on that question – you will understand that your convection crap is just that (nothing personal). Problem with you people indoctrinated in planet can get warmer is: they didn’t tell you the missing links. Didn’t tell you that the laws of physics regulate the temperature by O /N expanding when warmer / shrinking when get colder! NOT THE CLIMATOLOGIST, When they say: we will control only to 2degrees warming – is insult to human intelligence!!!

Another shock for you: Q: do you know that: O+N don’t wait to warm up by 2degrees, before start expanding?! Therefore: unless some place on the planet is gone colder – your place CANNOT get warmer! Because where is gone colder – the atmosphere shrunk – to accommodate for the extra volume of air from your warmed area. otherwise, if is only one area / hemisphere gone warmer – without another getting colder – the EXTRA volume by warming of your area will go UP, intercept extra coldness in 3,5 seconds – will take few minutes to get down that coldness, to some other place – equalise – overall never Global warming. Jim, I know what you know; you don’t know what I know – therefore I have unfair advantage on you. It sounds silly to point to me the affect of water, or similar. If you can learn the affect of water – tell Australian politicians… P.s. under Warmist mythology, water supposed to be bad for the climate..The same people that educated you about ”convections” Jim, HO2 is a lousy heat conductor, CO2 has perfect conductivity Jim, do you want to know what I know? Before that; lecturing anybody with your ”convections” is only ”distributing Warmist doo-doo”’

---

Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

January 22, 2012, 7:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by huxley

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by stefanthedenier

$

0

0

Stefan, I think you have a lot in common with Lubos Motl. Maybe you can go over to his blog and try to convince him of your theory.

Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by huxley

January 22, 2012, 7:44 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by stefanthedenier

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

$

0

0

In my personal week, I discovered that Lynn Margulis, a noted biologist, died last month. I used to read her in "CoEvolution Quarterly." As a young scientist Margulis presented the maverick theory that eukaryotic cells evolved not in the lineal "tree-of-life" manner of standard evolution, but from the symbiosis of multiple prokaryotic cells. She took much heat for this from orthodox biologists, but she stuck to her guns and eventually won the debate. Later in life Margulis observed: <i>[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any other abstract notion of ‘truth’—scientists especially… <b>It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.</b> The problem is that many fine scientists recognize genuine difficulties with the ‘standard model’ of evolution, so to speak. However, most lack the conceptual tools to solve the difficulties they legitimately recognize. <b>Scientists, like anyone else, follow the money flow.</b></i> All this sounds vaguely familiar.

Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by stefanthedenier

January 22, 2012, 7:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by David Young

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by huxley

$

0

0

WebHub, you are hallucinating again. The earth is not warmer than the moon by 33degrees because of CO2 and water vapour; as brainwashing goes. But because is of many kilometres thick layer of Oxygen + nitrogen. They let the sunlight trough, because they are TRANSPARENT, same as glass on a normal greenhouse. Than when the sunlight warms the ground, the O+N as perfect INSULATORS are keeping the unlimited coldness 50km away. On the moon that unlimited coldness touches the ground. All of you Warmist are fed same crap – make same mistakes.

On the earth, the geothermal heat is absorbed by the oceans. No geothermal heat on the moon or oceans. How come all of you are forbidden to notice the amount of insulating O+N, plus ALL the water Nobody can accuse you Telescope of comparing oranges with apples; because you are all comparing oranges with a watermelon! Do you know now why the earth is warmer by 33degrees, or you are not allowed to think what the mob doesn’t permit you?!

Comment on Climate Classroom by David Young

January 22, 2012, 7:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by stefanthedenier

$

0

0

Chief, Web can be a little bit of a cynical H. L. Menken type. And I note that he likes to pontificate on areas he knows little about. And then there is the fact that no one can check his credentials to determine how little he really knows. Kind of a game that serves noone except Web.

You are basically right about nonlinear dynamical systems. The problem for the models is as you describe. The best justification I’ve heard is that the models all seem to “settle down to pretty much the same climate.” This is circular reasoning and tells me very little of much value. It may be true, but relies on some pretty strong assumptions about the nature of the attractor. My betting is on complex feedback processes that respond to changes in spacial distribution of the forcings causing ice ages and interglacials.

Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Don Monfort

January 22, 2012, 7:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility by stefanthedenier

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by David Young

$

0

0

Jim,

Actually, the cutoff man is an IR absorbing molecule. The atmosphere is the air/path of the ball from CF to home plate. The balls are horse hide covered IR photons. And yes the CF is going to get warmer, trying to keep up, in the drill where the cutoff man is throwing balls back at him. Now can you explain the part about the cutoff man cooling the atmosphere by throwing about half the balls back to CF, instead of letting them go directly to homeplate/space.

Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility by stefanthedenier

January 22, 2012, 8:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Eli Rabbet, you are changing the frequency again. I didn’t talk about fraking gas of old methane. New methane is produced together with other substances b] same as H2O molecule attaches itself to dust > makes dust to be heavier and drops down – fresh methane doesn’t come out of a placenta animals by itself, then belch / fart separately the smelly bit. have you ever heard of ” molecular adhesion”. ?! Pure methane, molecule disperse; but as ”fresh” methane is lucky to have the smelly bit – sinks in the ground.

For how long you can dismiss that: creation of extra new methane, prevents depletion of free oxygen in the atmosphere?! It is ALL proven. You used an of-cut to ridicule me on your blog – didn’t inform me as right to reply – was informed by somebody about you gossiping unfairly. When somebody that has read the whole text. on my blog wrote a comment that: Stefan deserve recognition; you stopped comments.

Would be fair for you to paste the whole text ( with improved English – your English is brilliant) then we are even. It’s your credibility. Plus, if you have any respect for people that comment there – they should have the rest of the story. Many of them must be good people, you mislead them. When they hear the truth from somebody else – your credibility will be zero. P.s, another page next to the page on ”METHANEGATE” I made ”the creation of crude oil’ should be read after METHANEGATE as an appendix. They are very related; it’s in the world interest, in your interest to know what’s in both – you will get my respect, you will respect yourself. Please stop comparing apples with old methane, yes fresh methane can be made from apples, with the adhesiveness attached to other impurity. People don’t need to go to Antarctic to find out that fresh methane with its impurity stinks. Have some dignity, be a good sport. .

Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by WebHubTelescope

January 22, 2012, 8:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility by stefanthedenier

$

0

0

Montford, It looks like you are agreeing with lots of people but want to be argumentative. I said upfront that most of the pipeline work has been in place and being used. Conventional oil from places like the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan have been shipped south of the border for years and since the Weyburn is on the decline, there is capacity in place. Canada has something like 27,000 miles of pipelines. Oil is always an exercise in flow analysis, and the flow and flow capacity won’t change drastically.

---

Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

January 22, 2012, 9:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Don, interesting challenge. I would explain it this way. The tropospheric temperature is not proportional to the number of balls fielded by the cut-off man, but proportional to the CF temperature. This is a connection made by the convection.

Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

January 22, 2012, 9:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joe's World

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

$

0

0

The cooling would occur when the cut-off man runs into a deficit, as he wants to throw his balls at the same rate, while the CF only throws his when the surface is warm. The analogy fails when the cut-off man has to throw borrowed balls before he actually receives them, but that represents night-time cooling. Overall it balances out.

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joe's World

January 23, 2012, 5:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by andrew adams

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by Jim D

$

0

0

Edim,

How can scientists see they are incorrect when they do NOT want to know.
Staying ignorant is safe for their funding and careers. Not to mention of the bias of the publishing field nor the media to produce propaganda to buy bad technology because it is “green”.

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by andrew adams

January 23, 2012, 5:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joe's World

$

0

0

The judge is called free elections and when the people decide something, anything, then it is completely irrelevant whether some Oreskes likes it or not.

So if “the people” decide in free elections that AGW is not a threat that will make it so?

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua

January 23, 2012, 5:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by andrew adams

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by andrew adams

$

0

0

I don’t agree with the opinion in the op-ed.

Then again, I think that Michael’s question is valid.

Is the situation different here because there is more scientific agreement over climate change than over cigarette smoking and cancer?

At what point in the debate about cigarette smoking different than the debate about climate change?

Was the “controversy” about cigarette smoking accompanied by scientists who had different viewpoints mounting a “scientific argument” by promoting a stream of articles questioning the value of scientific consensus, or the process of publishing scientific literature, or the validity of scientific research – as we see here constantly on Judith’s blog?

What’s the difference? Is a contextual difference, in that blogs didn’t exist before the scientific debate about cigarette smoke was considered “settled.” Is it a scientific difference, in that there wasn’t the same degree of scientific controversy? Is it different because the “consensus” viewpoint didn’t include scientists whose would could be criticized as politically influence or tribal?

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by andrew adams

January 23, 2012, 5:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua

$

0

0

<i>So am I to infer from this that the only way to support the IPCC consensus is to close your mind? </i> No.

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua

January 23, 2012, 5:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by andrew adams

$

0

0

Beesaman -

Would you mind elaborating as to why you see the situations as categorically different?

---

Comment on Climate Classroom by WebHubTelescope

January 23, 2012, 5:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Norm Kalmanovitch

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua

$

0

0

Chief Hydrologist insists on writing this in multiple comments:

There is an energy equilibria of sorts at the top of th atmosphere -
dS/dt = Ein – Eout – where dS/dt is the change in planetary heat content (plus enthalpy if we are being pedantic).

Whereas in precise mathematical terms, the E terms are in defined in the dimensions of energy (and not power) so the correct formulation is:
dS/dt = d/dt(Ein – Eout)
What this says is that for changes in the energy balance over time (the right hand side) leads to a perturbation in the net energy flow (the left hand side). Over the long term, the net has to approach zero, otherwise we are not conserving energy
dS/dt = 0
This formulation allows us to apply Stefan-Boltzmann’s law where dEin/dt is the solar insolation (given in power per cross-sectional area) and dEout/dt is the statistical mechanical derivation of a black body radiator. This generates the first-order estimate of the planet’s temperature in the absence of GHG. Adding in the GHG’s gives us a gray-body modification that elevates the temperature beyond what the black-body SB law states.

For purposes of a more sophisticated analysis, we can leave it in the non-zero differential form, as this is useful for defining a forcing function perturbation. In this case we can estimate the transient response and the evolution to a steady state value. This is where terms such as the ocean’s heat capacity would fit into a spatio-temporal master equation.

Chief Hydrologist needs to go back over his arguments, as he is coming perilously close to joining the clown list I am compiling, where he can meet up with the other circus freaks, such as his brother Sideshow Bob.

I know that the Chief has the reputation of the smartest man in the room among climate skeptics on this blog, but I tend to think of his rants as Krugman describes Newt Gingrich, “A stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.”. I wouldn’t let Chief get near a classroom.

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Norm Kalmanovitch

January 23, 2012, 5:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Anteros

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

In science openmindedness is of value as long as it is not contradicted by fact. The fact that global warming ended by 1998 and the fact that the world has been in fact cooling since 2002 trumps any consensus of open minded people claiming human caused global. This includes Naiomi Oreskes who in 2004, six years after global warming ended and two years after the world had already started cooling, wrote a paper in the journal “Science” debunking claims that scientists disagreed about global warming in the past decade.
Openmindedness is about rejecting ludicrous claims that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are causing the CO2 concentration to rise at unprecidented rates when data shows that no such accelerated rate of increase is taking place.
Openmindedness is about rejecting the notion of an enhanced greenhouse effect from increased CO2 when three decades of satellite measurements show no detectable enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
Openmindedness is about rejecting the notion that increased CO2 has the effect stated in the CO2 forcing parameter of the climate models when observation shows that the 14.77micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation is too close to saturation from the existing concentration of CO2 to allow this to be possible.
Most importantly openmindedness is the ability to judge that starving millions of the world’s poor by using food as feedstock for biofuels is a morally unconscionable remedy for addressing a non existant alarmist fabrication.

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Anteros

January 23, 2012, 5:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joe's World

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Norm Kalmanovitch

$

0

0

Michael -
The same obfuscation as from Oreskes.

Cancer = not-very-good-news.

- Not disputed.

Warmer climate = ineffable disaster

- product of fevered imagination + very much disputed

See the difference?

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joe's World

January 23, 2012, 5:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joe's World

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Anteros

$

0

0

Andrew,

Tooooo late!
Many government policies and quotes are from the IPCC that they have paid into.
I have many e-mails from politicians that quote IPCC are their guide and I am a nobody with an opinion.

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joe's World

January 23, 2012, 5:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Anteros

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joe's World

$

0

0

Norm,

That’s what you get when you go “green”.
Not to mention the bad technology being pushed.