Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148452 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Open thread by John S.

$
0
0

The “convective adjustment” is symptomatic of the myopia that has afflicted climate modellers for decades. While numerous experiments have shown repeatedly that evaporation trumps all other mechanisms in transferring thermal energy from surface to atmosphere on an oceanic planet, they persist in their reliance upon academic radiative transfer theory as the backbone of their models, with other mechanisms relegated to a pesky afterthought.

BTW, since water vapor is lighter than air, buoyancy forces alone are sufficient to sustain moist convection. Nor is an unstable atmosphere required for thermally forced dry convection; an unstable environmental lapse rate merely indicates conditions wherein convection takes place spontaneously until hydrostatic balance is restored. Interestingly enough, nearly a century ago Robert Emden showed rigorously that an absorptive atmosphere in radiative equilibrium is necessarily top-heavy; i.e., is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Thus the pesky step-child of convection continues to bite the fathers of “climate science” in more ways than one.


Comment on Open thread by Wagathon

$
0
0

Why does the Left hamstring homegrown productivity and self-sufficiency at every turn and purposefully expose the economy to the artificial shortages and vagaries in the prices of conflict minerals? The answer is pretty simple: they love Marxism and want to see Americanism destroyed. The Left and the right can never have a reasoned discussion about AGW theory because the Left’s infatuation with global warming has nothing to do with science; it is based on its value as a tool for social change.

Comment on Open thread by Jim D

$
0
0

Search for convective-radiative equilibrium. Convection wins in the troposphere. Radiation is fast, but relatively weak because the atmosphere is not an efficient emitter and absorber.

Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Open thread by Ian H

$
0
0

In WWII the scientists realised that nuclear fusion could be used to build a massive bomb. They started with this scientific possibility and persuaded governments to fund the research to make it happen.

These days politicians imagine a world powered by windmills and solar panels. They take this dream and throw money at the science community saying “make it possible”. And the scientists do a quick back of the envelope calculation and raise an eyebrow; and the clever ones walk away.

Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Jim Cripwell,

Lovelock is obviously multi talented. He agrees with me too.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Open thread by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

@ skepticalphysiker

When you read about sea level rising 1-3 mm/yr, thus confirming that anthropogenic CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming, perform a little mental experiment. It doesn’t require that you be an expert in any particular thing, just think about the problem.

First a datum: Based on the published area of the oceans, and if I didn’t hose the math to badly, a one mm change in sea level corresponds to a net change in ocean volume of around 360 km^3.

Now, sit down and start listing everything that you can think of that affect the volume of the oceans, such as melting ice, plate tectonics, change in temperature, undersea discharges of magma and whatever, organic ‘rain’ from the upper ocean, etc.

Having done that, convince yourself that the climate experts have considered every physical process that affects ocean volume, can quantize them with at least tens of km^3 precision, can back out the contributions of all non-temperature related processes, and are able to detect the signal of anthropogenic CO2 in the changing sea level.

Good luck.

Comment on Open thread by Curious George

$
0
0

An excellent idea for an experiment! The situation is a little more complex – e.g., the re-emission will be in a random direction, and sometimes an excited CO2 molecule will not radiate but dispose of (a part of) energy in a collision, but I don’t see a reason why it could not be attempted.


Comment on Open thread by Jim D

$
0
0

The part I am most skeptical about is that the uncertainty is high enough to have any effect on the action that is needed based on what we know already. At this point the choices realistically are between action and more action, not action and no action.

Comment on Open thread by Robert I Ellison

$
0
0

I didn’t make the connection – the unfortunate style – much of which I passed over – should have tipped me off.

Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by David Springer

$
0
0

I know how averse you are to actual topical observations getting in the way of your opinions so I beg forgiveness in advance.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00334344

Coral growth in high-nutrient, low-pH seawater: a case study of corals cultured at the Waikiki Aquarium, Honolulu, Hawaii

Abstract

Fifty-seven species of hermatypic corals have been maintained and grown in high-nutrient seawater at the Waikiki Aquarium, Honolulu, Hawaii. In this study we document the chemical conditions of aquarium water in terms of dissolved nutrients and carbon. Aquarium water is characterized by concentrations of inorganic nutrients that are high relative to most natural reef ecosystems: SiO3∼200 μM; PO4∼0.6 μM; NO3∼5 μM; NH4∼2 μM. In contrast, concentrations of organic nutrients are lower than most tropical surface ocean waters: DOP ∼0.1 μM and DON ∼4 μM. The incoming well-water servicing the facility has low pH, creating over-saturation of carbon dioxide. The coral communities in aquaria took up inorganic nutrients and released organic nutrients. Rates of nutrient uptake into aquaria coral communities were similar to nutrient uptake by natural reef communities. Coral growth rates were near the upper rates reported from the field, demonstrating corals can and do flourish in relatively high-nutrient water. The growth of corals does not appear to be inhibited at concentrations of nitrogen up to 5 μM. Statements implying that corals can only grow in low nutrient oligotrophic seawater are therefore over-simplifications of processes that govern growth of these organisms. Some basic guidelines are given for maintenance of coral communities in aquaria

Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“sunshinehours1 | April 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
When you radiate from a higher place, the rate of loss is higher too because the sphere is bigger.”

Net loss is decreased. That’s just engineering.

Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“Jim Cripwell | April 4, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
Steven Mosher you write “The energy that doesn’t escape will.
A) heat the atmosphere And/or
B) get stored in the ocean and/or
C) melt ice.”

I don’t think so. The energy will escape, otherwise it will accumulate indefinitely, and the world will get hotter and hotter. ”

#######################

To return to equillibrium yes the surface would warm. You just made the rest of the argument. Thanks Jim,

Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Peter Lang

$
0
0

None of the quotes or Judith’s perspective mention the major benefit of GHG emissions – reducing the risk and/or delaying the time to onset of the next sudden global cooling event. And another possible benefit of GHG emissions is a milder and more tranquil climate at higher average global temperatures [the rate of change and amplitude of climate oscillations has been much greater when the planet is at cold temperatures then when it is at warmer temperatures.

Why did no one mention these benefits of GHG emisisons?

Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Peter Lang

$
0
0

J Martin,

JAXA satellite data shows us that ‘wealthy’ countries farms and countryside consume more co2 than those ‘wealthy’ countries produce. The first world emits more co2 than the third world, but consumes more co2 than it produces, leaving them as net consumers of co2 and the third world as net producers of co2.

Australia’s oceans absorb far more CO2 emissions than we produce. We are the world’s good guys. :)

The big emitters could pay us for the share of their emissions we abate for them. And we could take their nuclear waste too – both for a big fee of course.


Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by bob droege

$
0
0

Latimer,

I think the problem is that we need better chemistry education of the masses.

Or to get the american joe sixpack to enjoy a pint of bitter rather than the sweeter than it used to be local brew, budweiser, not to be confused with beer.

Comment on Open thread by climatereason

$
0
0

AK

Yes it is. He has made no secret of it and we have made several references here to his article over the past year and I have forwarded him several historic references. The MET office are increasingly interested in SSW’s.

I can’t see that they are at all affected by AGW but Rgates may believe differently. It was an interesting article I thought.

tonyb

Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Richard Drake

$
0
0
<blockquote>A reminder that the WG3 Report on mitigation is forthcoming. As far as I know, there haven’t been any leaks on this one yet, but I am inferring from some twitter comments that the costs of mitigation may be higher than previous estimated. Stay tuned.</blockquote> Judy, I don't know if you saw this from Richard Tol in <a href="http://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-shows-stern-inflated-climate-change-costs-25160" rel="nofollow">The Conversation</a> on Wednesday: <blockquote>The Stern Review was prepared by a team of civil servants and never reviewed (before publication) by independent experts. Some argue that the Stern Review served to bolster Gordon Brown’s credentials with the environmental wing of the Labour Party in preparation for his transition to party leader and prime minister. And in fact next week IPCC Working Group III will conclude that the Stern Review grossly underestimated the costs of bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.</blockquote> This would be inline with the twitter comments. The whole article is worthwhile.

Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison: Part II by how to make money with a blog comment gagner de l'argent avec on blog make money through blogging

$
0
0

Heya just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you know a
few of the images aren’t loading correctly. I’m not sure why
but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different browsers and both show the same results.

Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

AFOMD,

Your unproven assertion about the reasoning behind the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan is at odds with the purposes stated by the US Government of the day, both in the design and construction phase, and subsequent to the explosions.

You may be right, and have access to the Secret Warmist Government documents that nobody knows about.

As to your assertion that I follow juvenile political ideologies, you are correct.

I see, at least in the case of the USA, the results of big boy adult policies.

Military success? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan – ragtag, poorly equipped untrained locals versus the mightiest military the world has ever seen. I won’t even mention Somalia, or some of the others.

Economics? Bankrupt cities, poverty increasing. Economic dominance waning, although still probably the largest economy in the world. Big boy policy – print more money! How’s that working for you?

The US space program? Ask Mr Putin nicely, and for $70 million he’ll sell you a round trip ticket to the space station. Or, since the US can’t build rocket engines any more, he might sell you some more Russian rocket engines.

Culture? Mahatma Ghandi was once asked what he thought of American culture. He replied that he thought it would be a good idea.

I do not wish to offend any US citizens or residents of that great country. I have good reasons, as anyone who knows me realises.

So, AFOMD, if you choose big boy adult political ideologies, you live with yen consequences. I hope you enjoy them.

Future, hopefully might happen, pseudo facts from FOMD, reality from Mike Flynn.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Viewing all 148452 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images