Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

CH. Fail. The air temperature alone does not limit their temperature change. The ground surface, for example, cools faster than the air at night. Being a more effective IR emitter than air, it responds to the IR balance, while the air mostly cools by contact with it as its own IR emission is inefficient. That is why the fastest cooling air is nearer the ground, not higher up. Similarly water surfaces.

The reason you get a frost on the carport rather than the car is because that’s where the moisture is. You specified equal air temperature. I assumed that the canopy was no barrier to heat. That is it warms to the ambient temperature and radiates. The situation of clouds/no clouds is entirely different and results in changes in the local temperature profile.

As for your totally stupid narrative about ground and surface temperatures. You are as I said an utter and trivial twit.


Comment on Big green in denial by Jim D

$
0
0

It doesn’t go to the poorest, unless it is subsidizing their fuel bills. The main part should go to new green jobs or adaptation to climate change, maybe damage costs that would otherwise come from everyone’s income tax. In any case it goes back into the economy. It is known also that giving money to the poorest is the most efficient way of getting it back into the economy because they spend their extra money, and don’t just put it away or invest overseas like rich people, but that’s a different point.

Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2

$
0
0

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.

In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by timg56

$
0
0

David ,

fan’s ability to link to relevant material or his ability to interpret it outside of his particularly fine mesh filters is renowned here at CE.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Doc,

During the night heat stored during the day is transferred to the atmosphere (and to a lesser degree directly to the space).

If the day has been sunny and led to stratification, that stratification will first disappear. When the stratification is gone heat is brought to the surface from somewhat lower layers.

Comment on Open thread weekend by ordvic

$
0
0

R. Gates:
“Arctic sea ice has been declining, Greenland and Antarctic land ice has been declining and most glaciers around the world have been declining.”

According to:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The S. hemisphere sea ice anomaly has trended up since 1979 to a current +0.632.

“Meanwhile ocean heat content has been increasing and this is all consistent with increasing greenhouse gases”

This is why I’m reading about AGW here is to find out about it as I’m not a scientist or in the field but so far it’s just more confusion. I will certainly read you among the others here and hope I eventually find out.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

TonyB, not even you would be so rash as to assert that inter-annual and decadal time scales are — in Judith Curry’s (ill-considered?) phrase — “far more relevant to societies” than longer time-scales.

Observation  Jared Diamond documents in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, that crucial societal time-scales typically are multi-generational.

Conclusion  Judith Curry’s scientific judgment is conditioned by her idiosyncratic personal aversion to scientific considerations relating to sustainment

In science especially, narrow judgment is poor judgment, eh TonyB?

Please respect broader, longer-term perspectives, Judith Curry!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by andrew adams

$
0
0

Well if we’re talking about projections for arctic sea ice let’s see what the IPCC said in AR4

“In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century.“[my italics]

Given how David Rose likes to talk about inaccurate IPCC projections it’s odd how he failed to mention this one.


Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by R. Gates the Skeptical Warmist

$
0
0

Chief Hyrdo:

Anyone following our exchanges over the past few days should recognize that your credibility is zero. Your claim that ocean heat content peaked in 1998 is not supported by any current (2012 or 2013) study, no current data, and no expert in the area of ocean heat content.

Yet you continue to spout off and call others names. Pitiful.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by R. Gates the Skeptical Warmist

$
0
0

Chief Hydro:

Anyone following our exchanges over the past few days should recognize that your credibility is zero. Your claim that ocean heat content peaked in 1998 is not supported by any current (2012 or 2013) study, no current data, and no expert in the area of ocean heat content.

Yet you continue to spout off and call others names. Pitiful.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

‘ As the defector and I spoke, over two long days in March 2002, the debate in the West on what, if anything, to do about Iraq and Saddam Hussein was feverish. Once President Bush had described Iraq as part of an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address, some kind of intervention seemed inevitable. At the same time, there were powerful voices urging restraint: in the liberal media; in the capitals of Europe; in the State Department and C.I.A.

The defector’s information only intensifies the dilemma posed by the persistence of Saddam Hussein. This account of the ease with which Iraq appears to have evaded U.N. sanctions to date does not make one confident that the so-called smart sanctions now being proposed as a means of curbing Saddam’s military ambition are any more likely to be effective. At the same time, Saddam’s alleged willingness to use a nuclear weapon against Israel before the invasion of Kuwait suggests that the global strategic threat that his possession of weapons of mass destruction represents is not theoretical, but real.

But how far have the Tammooz missile and other programs progressed? How effective are his chemical and biological weapons? How ready are his regime’s servants to activate a strategy that might see the Middle East afflicted with biblical destruction in the event of a U.S. attack? On an accurate Western assessment of such questions much may depend.’

‘Saddam Hussein enjoyed U.S. support in his long war with Iran in the 1980s — even after Iraq repeatedly used chemical weapons. Iraq used mustard gas against the Iranians in 1983, with no objection from the Reagan administration. In 1987, Foreign Policy magazine reported last week, the U.S. gave Saddam intelligence that an Iranian invasion was imminent at a hole in Iraq’s defenses. “An Iranian victory is unacceptable,” President Reagan wrote on an intelligence report. In response to the U.S. warning, Saddam repeatedly attacked Iranian forces with sarin, killing more than 20,000 and injuring thousands more. He later used sarin to kill more than 5,000 Kurds to put down an uprising in northern Iraq. Retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks, told Foreign Policy that the U.S. chose to ignore Saddam’s use of chemical weapons because Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils. “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas,” Francona said. “They didn’t have to. We already knew.” http://theweek.com/article/index/249224/a-brief-history-of-chemical-warfare

Top five crimes of Sadam Hussein>

http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm

Hussein executed 600,000 Iraqis.

‘Make no mistake: The ouster of Saddam Hussein was a victory for human rights, and if there is any silver lining to come from the brutal Iraq War, it is that Hussein is no longer slaughtering and torturing his own people. But we should fully recognize that every indictment, every epithet, every moral condemnation we issue against Saddam Hussein also indicts us. We should all be ashamed of the atrocities that were committed under our leaders’ noses, and with our leaders’ blessing.’ http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

‘As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.’ http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

Hussein had and used chemical weapons and stockpiled nuclear materials – and threw out UN inspectors.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.Ui5Kej_4JmN

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by jim2

$
0
0

@Carrick Talmadge | September 9, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
Good points. People who are certain about their models should model the stock market, then invest their own money accordingly. We’ll see how long they are wedded to the models – and it won’t be long, I’m bettin’.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
Fox News jumps on the bandwagon: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/" / rel="nofollow">"Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013"</a> citing the Mail. Conversely it quotes: <blockquote>"[An ice-free Arctic is] definitely coming, and coming sooner than we previously expected,“ Walt Meier, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md, told LiveScience last month. “We're looking at when as opposed to if.”</blockquote>

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Operation desert fox?

‘Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to “degrade” Iraq’s ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:[5]

“I don’t think we’re pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can’t get everything, but degrading is the right word.”

The main targets of the bombing included weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, and the barracks and command headquarters of Saddam’s elite Republican Guard. Also, one of Saddam’s lavish presidential palaces came under attack. Iraqi air defense batteries, unable to target the American and British jets, began to blanket the sky with near random bursts of flak fire. The air strikes continued unabated however, and cruise missile barrages launched by naval vessels added to the bombs dropped by the planes. By the fourth night, most of the specified targets had been damaged or destroyed and the Operation was deemed a success. U.S. Special Forces members who had been on the ground in northern Iraq to protect Kurdish settlements from retaliation withdrew, and the air strikes ended.’

So what happened to the stockpiles? Perhaps they are coming back to haunt us in Syria.

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/the-unresolved-mystery-of-syrias-iraqi-chemical-weapons/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/072612-619904-obama-discovers-how-hard-mideast-politics-can-be.htm

Rose’s words seem far too moderate to do full justice to the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s reign. The progressive agenda here is utterly repulsive.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Ragnaar

$
0
0

“Well, it gets easier and easier to have a huge % rebound off of lower and lower levels…
…What’s the percentage increase the first year after we hit 0 summer sea ice? “Infinity %”?

You’re right. If we approach an ice out condition, the percentage change approaches infinity and as we go through the change, cross the threshold, it comes back from infinity sort of.

Are such binary changes allowed a flirtation with infinity? It reminds me of my favorite theory.


Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Jonathan

$
0
0

Some help with the basic figures here, please.

According to nsidc.org, the extent of arctic sea ice on 8 Sept 2012 was 3.523 mill km2. On the same day this year it was 5.179 mill km2.

I make that a 47% increase.

Where’d this 60% figure come from, and why hasn’t JC or anyone else checked it?

Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer

$
0
0

WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | September 8, 2013 at 4:27 pm |

” David Springer | September 8, 2013 at 3:24 pm |

The skin layer is cooler than the ocean below it. How’s that heat supposed to diffuse downward, Pekka? “

Springer, heat does not flow because of a gradient (such as charged particles in a electric field gradient), the gradient exists as a result of whatever flow has occurred.
————————————————————————————

Of course heat flows due to gradients. Warmer to colder. Until temperature is equal or in the case of something actively heated or cooled, which requires work (physics definition of work). Are you being willfully ignorant or truly ignorant of heat engines? Weather is the result of work being accomplished as heat flows across temperature gradients fercrisakes. The earth has uncountable temperature gradients from the core of the planet to the edge of the atmosphere. The working fluids are everything from liquid iron and rock to water (including ice) and gases. On the surface water is the real workhorse. There’s a reason it’s still widely used today in heat engines it’s a phucking good working fluid due to very high heat capacity of steam.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Gatesy,

You are simply repeating nonsense yet again. Claims but no data or science.

We probably know what the energy anomalies were.

Here is a 2013 cloud cover graph.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23

Clouds cause a net cooling – but we can see this directly in the radiant flux data.

Here’s the peak in the energy flux and the peak in ocean heat content.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=135

Again – power flux over time is energy. Hilarious boner you made there.

Here’s a 2013 study with annual values of ocean heat content that puts the ocean peak a little later. A link to the study has already need provided.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=0

You could try putting up or shutting up – because the ongoing space opera is hugely stupid.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Needed to say it twice gatesy?

You are simply repeating nonsense yet again. Claims but no data or science.

We probably know what the energy anomalies were.

Here is a 2013 cloud cover graph.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23

Clouds cause a net cooling – but we can see this directly in the radiant flux data.

Here’s the peak in the energy flux and the peak in ocean heat content.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=135

Again – power flux over time is energy. Hilarious boner you made there.

Here’s a 2013 study with annual values of ocean heat content that puts the ocean peak a little later. A link to the study has already need provided.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=0

You could try putting up or shutting up – because the ongoing space opera is hugely stupid.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by lolwot

$
0
0

It’s near enough, same order of magnitude

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images