Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

@ Pekka

……… and it remains the best available understanding until someone produces a better theory and provides evidence for its superiority.”

My theory explains the facts just as well as the theory that ACO2 is the primary factor that controls the climate of the Earth and has the advantage of not requiring that ACO2 be taxed and regulated. Neither does it require the massive expansion in the size and power of government necessary to do the taxing and regulating or the concomitant loss in freedom and personal autonomy for the ‘common man’ that will inevitably accompany it.

Explains the facts and does not require that I give the government more of my money and freedom while it grows in size and power.

I consider that to be overwhelming evidence of its superiority.


Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Bad Andrew

$
0
0

“the inability to do controlled experiments does not render the findings unscientific”

Yes does. The inability to “test” the AGW hypothesis renders it not science.

Andrew

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Bad Andrew

$
0
0

Come up with a hypothesis you can test. Then, you will have science.

But you know that already.

Andrew

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Alexej Buergin

$
0
0

For some reason Mosher is still talking about “measuring” the speed of light. That cannot be done because the speed of light is DEFINED.
That happened 30 years ago. Look it up.

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Eunice,

Assuming the forcing correct and causal, this gives us an observation of the transient response (~ 1.6K)

That makes no sense. The units are nonsense.

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Wagathon

$
0
0

The boldness with which misinformation has been promoted has made climate change warnings useless. The government-education bureaucracy appears to worse than worthless: they are not protecting us from harm they’re causing harm.

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

Eunice, you write “There’s a pretty simple way to get you in the ballpark of transient climate sensitivity.”

Where is the proof that the change in temperature was caused by a change in CO2 concentration?

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

Pekka, you write ” but that theory and observations make it very likely that TCR is not significantly less than 1C, and most likely closer to 2C than 1C.”

Will you agree that these numbers have not been measured?


Comment on Open thread by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$
0
0

LIGHT BULB FREEDOM !

I’m sorry, but light bulb freedom is not high on my list of things to be concerned about. It annoys me when a bulb burns out, but otherwise I don’t spend much time thinking about light bulbs.

Comment on Open thread by kim

$
0
0

Sure, sure, sure, ‘absolutely definitive answers’. For whatever questions you have.
=========

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

@MC: First the surface radiates at it’s temperature, it radiates to in this case the sky (under clear skies).

Correct. Supposedly about 6% of that radiation escapes directly to space, the rest is captured by GHGs and clouds.

I’ve taken the time to point a IR thermometer at the clear sky, on a 20 F day, the sky was -60F, S-B says radiating 506 kJ to the sky. I don’t know what altitude I’m measuring, maybe it below your 15 km, but -60F is 222K.

First, most of what you’re measuring is likely to be radiation from water vapor. IR thermometers only go down to about 14 μm in wavelength, thereby missing a considerable portion of the CO2 backradiation, for which you need a pyrgeometer, which typically covers 4.5-100 μm.

Second, as you noted yourself you’re measuring a composite temperature radiated down from many altitudes. Weather balloons give a more accurate picture of how temperature depends on altitude, even expensive pyrgeometers aren’t a great way to measure lapse rate.

Third, you can expect considerable variation with latitude. (You didn’t give yours.)

Fourth, -60F is really pushing it for those little IR thermometers because the thermometer itself is much hotter than that and so it has to pick out a very small amount of thermal signal in the sky from the considerable thermal noise generated by the instrument. The Wikipedia article on pyrgeometers says “To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile.” I don’t know how carefully the cheap IR thermometers do that, but I’ve noticed that they give more reliable readings after waving them around in cold air for a bit to cool them down. Storing them in the freezer when not in use may help as long as they don’t then overcompensate.

And from what I’ve heard the tropospheric hotspot is missing.

That should not be an issue for temperature profiles obtained using weather balloons, which supposedly simply report the temperatures they see as they rise.

Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang

$
0
0

You comments confirms that facts and rational argument is confronting for CAGW alarmists.

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

[Reposting this in the correct thread (I hit the wrong Reply button). Hopefully someone will delete the copy umpteen paragraphs above.]

@MC: First the surface radiates at it’s temperature, it radiates to in this case the sky (under clear skies).

Correct. Supposedly about 6% of that radiation escapes directly to space, the rest is captured by GHGs and clouds.

I’ve taken the time to point a IR thermometer at the clear sky, on a 20 F day, the sky was -60F, S-B says radiating 506 kJ to the sky. I don’t know what altitude I’m measuring, maybe it below your 15 km, but -60F is 222K.

First, most of what you’re measuring is likely to be radiation from water vapor. IR thermometers only go down to about 14 μm in wavelength, thereby missing a considerable portion of the CO2 backradiation, for which you need a pyrgeometer, which typically covers 4.5-100 μm.

Second, as you noted yourself you’re measuring a composite temperature radiated down from many altitudes. Weather balloons give a more accurate picture of how temperature depends on altitude, even expensive pyrgeometers aren’t a great way to measure lapse rate.

Third, you can expect considerable variation with latitude. (You didn’t give yours.)

Fourth, -60F is really pushing it for those little IR thermometers because the thermometer itself is much hotter than that and so it has to pick out a very small amount of thermal signal in the sky from the considerable thermal noise generated by the instrument. The Wikipedia article on pyrgeometers says “To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile.” I don’t know how carefully the cheap IR thermometers do that, but I’ve noticed that they give more reliable readings after waving them around in cold air for a bit to cool them down. Storing them in the freezer when not in use may help as long as they don’t then overcompensate.

And from what I’ve heard the tropospheric hotspot is missing.

That should not be an issue for temperature profiles obtained using weather balloons, which supposedly simply report the temperatures they see as they rise.

Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Mosher,

1. Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity

2. Nuclear is the least-cost, low-emissions way to generate electricity

3. The cost of nuclear can come down a lot if we remove the irrational impediments that are blocking it.

4. If we allow it to be cheaper than coal, it will replace coal without any central decrees and demand and UN and government policy interventions. It will just happen because it is cheapest and fit for purpose – if we remove the impediments that are blocking progress.

5. You and everyone else can help if you will inform yourself of the facts – do the research, objectively and dispassionately – and then get out and explain what you’ve learnt to others.

Comment on Open thread by R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

$
0
0

“Modeling missed the natural variability…”
____
Uh…that is exactly why systems that exhibit deterministic chaos are inherently going to drift because of such variability.

In terms of the pause, there are two important factors at work, of which, the switch to the cool phase of the PDO is only one. Over the past 10 to 15 years we’ve seen an increase in the stratospheric optical depth and we’ve had a very sleepy sun with a weak solar cycle. These two factors have caused a reduction in the energy entering the climate system. But on the output side, the cool PDO means there was an even greater reduction in the net energy leaving the oceans to atmosphere. Thus, less input to the oceans but even less out, means net ocean heat content has increased. Over the long-term, increasing GH gases (don’t forget about methane and N2O) mean that less latent and sensible heat will be flowing from ocean to space, and this is exactly why the overall energy of the climate system is increasing, as displayed by rising ocean heat content, rising sea levels, and large reductions in overall net continental glacial mass. In terms of AGW, the “pause” is a head-fake, as overall energy in the system continues to accumulate at a very steady multi-decadal rate or perhaps the rate of accumulation is increasing slightly these past 10 years.


Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by cwon14

$
0
0

As it turns out I appear to have made a grave error regarding an incorrect ID of Kathleen Harnett White. It now appears there will be one skeptic represented on the panel. My apologies for the error.

Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Sorry. Time zone differences.

Dave Stringer – thanks for the response. It wasn’t all that hard to attempt imparting knowledge, rather than just patronising buzzwords, was it?

I agree with your comments about the geothermal gradient. As you point out, deep sea temperatures never get below the freezing point of the water at that depth, and unfrozen water can exist beneath 3000 meters or so of ice.

No wondrous CO2 greenhouse effect needed.

As to your comment about the conveyor belt transporting cold water from the Poles to the Tropics, may I suggest that this mechanism has significant flaws in explaining the similar temperature profile in bodies of water effectively isolated from cold Polar water – both fresh and saline. Time to invoke magic, I suppose.

in any case, may I thank you for pointing out that the surface of the Earth occupies a point between the white heat of the core, and the approximately 4K of outer space. Once again, no wondrous greenhouse effect necessary.

You might care to explain why the water at a depth of 1.5 km in Lake Baikal is around 4C, and the rock at the same depth is around 50C. The 4C temperature is reached at about 300 m, and remains more or less constant. It’s easily explained.

You are on the right track. Obviously, behaviour of fresh water is somewhat different to that of saline water, but you will find that once again, basic physics without the influence of CO2 is all that is needed.

It’s fairly obvious that many people do not realise that the crustal depth is variable, probably ranging between 3 km and 70 km (according to the USGS). The impact of this is that the slope of the geothermal gradient is of course quite variable, assuming the underlying mantle temperature remains relatively constant at the measuring point.

This needs to be taken into account when assassin the surface temperature impacts of isostatic rebound effects. Up or down? How fast? And so on.

Once again, thank you for attempting to explain why deep water does not freeze, and why unfrozen water may be found beneath 3000 meters of ice cap.

If you had tried just a little harder, and provided just a little bit more explanation, I would have congratulated you. As it is . . .

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

$
0
0

There is no way for an average to show an overall increase without the average max or average min to also show that increase.

Only through some pathological variant of Simpson’s paradox could that happen.

The onus is on you. This is a university blog and we don’t try to work your homework problems for you.

Comment on Open thread by John

$
0
0

To R Gates: the linked article in Nature paraphrasesTrenberth as saying that no more than 20% of the lack of warming in the pause is due to weakened sun, volcanos, or increased pollution from China and elsewhere: “Trenberth, for example, analysed their impacts on the basis of satellite measurements of energy entering and exiting the planet, and estimated that aerosols and solar activity account for just 20% of the hiatus”

Not that Nature is always right, far from it, or that these points are necessarily right, but just so you and other readers will know that the article takes that stance.

Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

David Springer,

Apologies for the typos. Assassin for assessing is one such. Blast the automatic correction!

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images