Judith Curry,
Outstanding! Clear, precise and informative.
Thank you
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by RiHo08
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Faustino
R. Gresty, the connection is that many use the alleged CAGW issue as a vehicle for transferring resources from developed to poorer countries. Many aid agencies and NGOs are on this particular bandwagon, whether or not there is any scientific, economic or moral justification for it.
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Eunice
What about cannibalism?
I don’t see it listed anywhere.
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Faustino
mosomoso, English cricket supporters are a highly endangered species, particularly after the latest 20-20 fiasco, if God has a plan for us, it must be via purgatory.
Judith, thanks, op on 10 April, survival instincts remain in play (unlike our cricketers) until then. It seems that many parts of my body had “use by age 70″ stamped on them, the finely-timed warranties keep running out.
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by D C
<b>IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT:</b>
The whole concept of greenhouse radiative forcing has been "supported" by arguments about a "runaway greenhouse effect" on Venus. This is totally fictitious, and I copy below a note I've added to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Venus" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia talk page on Venus</a>.
<b>GREENHOUSE EFFECT on VENUS CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED by VALID PHYSICS</B>
It cannot be substantiated with standard physics that the surface of Venus is kept hot by radiation from the colder carbon dioxide atmosphere. The small solid core of Uranus (55% the mass of Earth) has a surface temperature several times that of the Venus surface, and yet only about as much methane as Earth has water vapor. Uranus is nearly 30 times further from the Sun than Earth is, and thus receives little more than 0.1% of incident solar radiation.
In fact the surface temperature of Venus rises by about 5 degrees (from 732K to 737K) during the four-month-long day and so this requires an input of thermal energy, which cannot be coming from the colder atmosphere because, if it were, entropy would be decreasing.
Venus cools by 5 degrees at night, and so it could easily have cooled right down over the life of the planet if the Sun provided no insolation. So we can deduce that it is energy from the Sun which is gradually raising the temperature of the Venus surface during those four months of Earth time. But less than 20 watts per square meter of solar radiation gets through to the surface because carbon dioxide actually absorbs incident solar radiation.
If one tries to explain the 5 degree difference with Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for radiation, there is a difference of about 450 watts per square meter just between the two temperatures 732K and 737K, and so this is not supplied from the direct solar radiation which is only about one tenth of that which reaches Earth's surface.
Hence there is no scientific basis for assuming that direct radiation to the surface is the cause of the high surface temperatures on Venus, and thus there is no "runaway greenhouse effect."
↧
↧
Comment on Blog commenting etiquette by Contract Wars Hack Tool
Pretty! This was a really wonderful article.
Many thanks for providing this information.
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Jim D
manacker, while I would agree that CAGW is not a scientific term and can’t be classified as even a hypothesis, because who knows what the “C” is defined as, but AGW is a theory. The reason is it that part of it gives a predicted range of sensitivity, and measurements are ongoing to test it and refine this sensitivity in the real world. Note that ECS is only part of AGW, and AGW is only part of the climate-forcing mechanism that is a broader theory, including volcanoes, natural variability, the energy balance, ocean heat content, Milankovitch theory, etc. Skeptics want to parse out manmade CO2 as something special, but it is hard to untie it from the underlying physics of climate forcing that has been going on throughout paleoclimate.
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Faustino
RiHo08, I put you in the “sensible” class with Andrew Lilico. There is indisputable evidence that all indicators of improvements in the human condition over the last few centuries are closely linked to economic growth. As for what we’ve escaped from, I posted this on Facebook:
So is life really better now than erstwhile? Examination of skeletons in a London burial pit from the 1348-50 Black Death gives an indication. From BBC online:
Analysis of isotope levels in the skeletons’ bones and teeth indicate that:
• Many of the skeletons appear to suffer signs of malnutrition and 16% had rickets.
• There is a high rate of back damage and strain indicating heavy manual labour.
• The later skeletons from the 1400s had a high rate of upper body injury consistent with being involved in violent altercations.
• 40% grew up outside London, possibly as far north as Scotland – showing that 14th Century London attracted people from across Britain just as it does today.
Archaeologist Jay Carver said: “We can see from the people here that Londoners weren’t living an easy life. The combination of a poor diet and generally a struggle means they were very susceptible to the plague at that time and that’s possibly one of the explanations for why the Black Death was so devastating.”
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by gs
1. Yep. Who gets to establish the null hypothesis gets a big, possibly insuperable, edge in debates like the Climate Wars.
2. One man's "basic physics" is another's "handwaving argument".
3. IMO <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/03/quanta-freeman-dyson-qa/" rel="nofollow">Freeman Dyson</a> makes sense:
<i>...there’s only one subject that I’ve been controversial, which is climate. I spend maybe 1 percent of my time on climate, and that’s the only field in which I’m opposed to the majority. Generally speaking, I’m much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they’re not talking nonsense.
...
What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate, and so that’s sort of a neutral position. I’m not saying the majority is necessarily wrong. I’m saying that they don’t understand what they’re seeing. It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled, so I shall remain neutral until something very different happens.</i>
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by Wagathon
<blockquote><strong><em>Hans von Storch,</em> </strong><em>Question</em>: What is the subjective element in scientific practice? Does culture matter? What is the role of instinct?
<em><strong>Roger A. Pielke, Sr.</strong></em>, <em>Reply</em>: Science needs to advance by following the scientific method. This needs to be independent of culture or any other external influence.</blockquote>
(Interview, <em>AGU Newsletter</em>, September 5, 2010)
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Jim D
manacker, no, the 2 C is above pre-industrial conventionally. You are the only one using your definition which simply ignores pipeline heating, and therefore underplays the warming. Given that, and simple correlation that shows 1 C per 100 ppm (transient), 2 C is reached at 200 ppm added or 480 ppm total (more like 450 ppm if you use the log formula). 700 ppm gives you 4 C (using a mid-point 3 C sensitivity) and is a likely unmitigated value by 2100. Potentially there are enough fossil fuels for 1000-2000 ppm depending on how hard we want to try to find them, mine or tap them and separate them. The 4 C (700 ppm) target, which is not a good target at all, already requires leaving more than half the known remaining fossil fuels in the ground. To keep it at 2 C requires more like just using 25% of them. I personally don’t think 450 ppm is possible, but climate stabilization at 500 ppm is, which is just over 2 C.
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Robert I Ellison
‘We return to the first law of thermodynamics
dQ + dW = dU + dEB (7)
When we change the altitude of an air parcel, there are two energy transfers involving work,
• One associated with doing work to raise the air parcel in Earth’s gravity field which changes the bulk potential energy.
• the work associated with the air parcel decompression as the air parcel is raised to higher altitude and lower pressure.
In the first type of work, remember that the vertical force on an air parcel that is not moving vertically is zero and in hydrostatic balance. To move the parcel vertically means the vertical force balance of gravity and pressure is no longer exactly zero such that the air parcel accelerates vertically. In this case, there is some work transferring energy to the bulk energy of the air parcel. While this is necessary to move the air parcel vertically, this is not the energy transfer we are interested in right now.
We are interested in the second type of work associated with the change in pressure as the air parcel is lifted (or lowered). We assume the lifting is fast enough that there is no heat transfer to or from the air parcel. In this case,
dW = dU’
There are assumptions of hydrostatic balance and no energy transfers. I suggest if you want to follow the derivation in full – Jim – do so and you might then be in a osition to do more than vaguely arm wave about terminology.
The entire point is tha there is a gravity effect – but that this by no means has relevance for the physics of IR scattering in the atmosphere. Pekka’s complaints are simply wildly wide of the mark.
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by kim
Well, I thought the argument has always been increased extremes from more energy in the system vs decreased extremes from a decreased polar/equatorial temperature gradient. Both have a physical argument.
I’m amused that they are countervailing, that they may both act, and that the net may be so near neutral as to be immeasurable.
How about this for a null? We’ll never settle on a null.
===================
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by Wagathon
It seems to me we have observational evidence that it is global cooling that leads to much worser weather –e.g.,
“…after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.”
(While the sun sleeps, Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark)
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by aaron
No.
Next question.
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Pekka Pirilä
The thermodynamic quantities related to the adiabatic vertical movement of a parcel of air are related in many different ways. Thus it’s possible to express the derivation in several ways. It’s, however important to realize what the energies involved are. They can be expressed as three components of work and one internal energy:’
1) work related to the change in potential energy
2) work related to the movement in the direction of the pressure gradient
3) work related to the expansion of the parcel
4 the internal energy
(1) and (2) cancel each other meaning that the parcel gains an equal amount of gravitational potential energy to the work done on it by movement in the direction of the pressure gradient. Equally it could be stated that the pressure force and gravity sum to zero net vertical force. Therefore no net work is related to the vertical movement.
(3) and (4) must then also be equal. To see in detail, what that means, it’s necessary to use the relationship that describes adiabatic expansion, but it’s technically correct to write directly the result.
The common misunderstanding is that the role of (2) in canceling (1) is not understood.
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by phatboy
Chap from the Met office on BBC news a few nights ago, explaining how the extreme rainfall we’ve had recently is because warmer air holds more moisture.
Didn’t explain, or even question, why, if that’s the case, we don’t have even more extreme rainfall in the height of summer, when the air really is much warmer.
It’s like they’re making it up as they go along – and they wonder why people have stopped believing them.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by Wagathon
<blockquote><strong>Null hypothesis</strong>: All worser weather can be explained by natural causes.</blockquote>
After the catastrophic deluge of the Great Flood, how bad can it get?
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by MishaBurnett
Science does not progress by advancing a theory and then claiming it has been proven if there is not evidence to disprove it. Repeating a claim continually over a period of years is not proof. So far the hypothesis that human industrial production is causing catastrophic climate change is unproven, and the predictive value of that hypothesis is the only “null” thing about it.
↧
Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by mosomoso
“By adding 1+1 we therefore know that sea-level rise is increasing the damage from storm surges – probably decades before this can be statistically proven with observational data.”
More than twenty decades, in fact. It’s odd how a phenomenon dating back to the late 1700s can be tied in with AGW. There again, sea level rise even seems to ignore Arctic ice levels and temps, so I guess it’s anybody’s to use and abuse to prove what they like. Not knowing anything about it is quite handy, really. Obama made the oceans slow their rise…about a hundred years before he was born, just to be on the safe side.
Our new Creationism?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
