Beth and Belinda wandering hand in hand like conjoined twins in the depths of dusty old threads…Too much co2 has obviously confused them
tonyb
Comment on Profits(?) of doom by climatereason
↧
↧
Comment on Profits(?) of doom by Belinda
Tony, Yes and yes. :)
↧
Comment on Profits(?) of doom by mosomoso
Both of them a touch “Yarra”, as we say in more northern parts.
↧
Comment on Profits(?) of doom by beththeserf
mosomoso, Yes and yes.
Serf and, er, serf.
↧
Comment on Profits(?) of doom by Peter Lang
Call out to your younger sister to help you. I reckon she’d be sitting there very near by. :)
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by brent
No one trusts Washington on climate change
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/31320b68-d6ae-11e3-b251-00144feabdc0.html
↧
Comment on Profits(?) of doom by beththeserf
Peter,
She is and I will.
↧
Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by brent
The Insiders: Five reasons voters don’t believe the White House about global warming
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/05/08/the-insiders-five-reasons-voters-dont-believe-the-white-house-about-global-warming/?tid=pm_pop
↧
Comment on Week in review by David Springer
Speaking of clawing crap out of the ground I wonder if nasty stupid little Barty realizes the top export of British Columbia is coal?
The economic stakes: Key economic sectors and what they bring to B.C.
Top 5 B.C. origin exports to the world (2012) • Coal 18% of B.C. exports • Lumber 13% • Wood pulp 7% • Copper 6% • Oil & gas 5%
If hypocrisy had a dollar value then it would probably top the list of BC exports instead of coal.
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Tanglewood
And why dredge up the three-year-old Christy submission now?, someone asked.
Because the same corruption and political bias inherent the IPCC that once boosted the Hockey Stick fraud, is still in operation now, still wielding the same huge and malign influence over the world.
So the question is : can it be reformed into taking on the objectives of science? Or is it constitutionally dishonest and political, and must therefore just be scrapped?
↧
Comment on Week in review by David Springer
“It’s hard to go past that for hyperbolic stupidity”
Don’t underestimate yourself. When it comes to stupidity you da man.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. ~Harlan Ellison
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Quizas, quizas, quizas?
↧
Comment on Week in review by David Springer
Nice burn, Skippy. Good thing for FOMD he’s got his flame retardant clothing on today instead of his usual retarded flamer outfit.
↧
↧
Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by Kristian
Pekka Pirilä says, May 8, 2014 at 10:14 am:
<em>"The influence of added CO2 does not come from there, it comes from the upper troposphere. When the upper troposphere cannot lose as much heat by IR emission. less heat can be transferred up from the low troposphere. That makes the low troposphere warmer and the surface warmer.
<strong>Added CO2 operates always through changes in the radiative balance at the tropopause.</strong> What happens at lower altitudes must be derived from that. (What happens in the stratosphere has it’s main effect also through the radiative balance at tropopause.) The effect of CO2 in the troposphere does not influence much the internal net energy fluxes of the troposphere, but CO2 of every altitude has some influence on the flux at tropopause."</em> (My emphasis.)
Only it doesn't, Pekka (referring to the bolded part above). That's just something you and SoD keep <em>saying</em>. That's how it SHOULD work in your hypothetical model of the world. That doesn't mean it's automatically <em>real</em>. There are no observational data from the real earth system pointing to your proposed radiative mechanism for surface warming to be a real mechanism. We simply don't see it anywhere.
This is what the data consistently shows: <strong>surface temps up (or down) > tropospheric temps up (or down) > OLR at ToA up (or down)</strong>.
This is how the heat from the sun <em>actually</em> flows through the earth system. Surface warms first, then the troposphere, then, as a consequence of this, the radiative output to space increases. There is NO observational evidence anywhere for the opposite process to occur: <strong>OLR at ToA down > tropospheric temps up > surface temps up</strong>.
Still, you keep claiming some mysterious, hidden mechanism (never seen, but surely still there, <em>behind</em> somewhere!) where warming (from ToA radiative imbalance) somehow starts at the top and then propagates <em>downwards</em> along the lapse rate ladder.
What you're promoting is in reality the flawed analogy of the 'closed glass box'. The 'GHE' seen in such experiments is really 'confined space heating'. It is a result of putting a rigid lid transparent to incoming SW, but opaque to outgoing LW, on top of a heated glass box. The lid does not let the outgoing IR through, it rather absorbs it. As the lid thus get warmer, the temp difference (the gradient) down to the heated bottom of the glass box get smaller and the heat transfer through the air within the box, from bottom to top, is reduced. This will result in the forced 'extra' warming of the bottom plate.
To make less heat flow from the surface to the tropopause, Pekka, you need to make the temp profile less steep. And since you claim that surface warming is the END RESULT, then the profile becoming gentler must start from a warming at the top. The top layer can't let through all the heat it receives from below (as it could before), and as a result it warms. This warming is then propagated <em>down</em> through the underlying air layers until we reach the surface. Like in the 'closed glass box'.
Apart from being completely and utterly at odds with ALL previous knowledge we have on how the earth system (the circulation of heat) works, this 'explanation' of surface warming seemingly prides itself on not having ANY observational backing from the real world at all!
You know what we call propositions like that, Pekka? PSEUDO-SCIENCE.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang
Mosomoso,
Not as aromatic and generally yummy as Sydney Basin Black Coal…but what is?
I agree. I support least cost energy. Unless nuclear power is the least cost option I do not support it. The majority of consumers and voters agree. Therefore, if the CAGW-ers want to cut global CO2 emissions they need to advocate to remove the impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear power.
Jim 2 and Roger Sowell, thank you for your comments. I’ll reply to Roger in a separate comment.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Skiphil
nice fiasco with your beloved Audubon Society, FOMT!! Read first, then post.
Fan of Massive Trolling just flings countless links and words like balls of poo at the wall, hoping something might stick.
↧
Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by Kristian
Jim D says, May 9, 2014 at 9:01 pm:
<em>"You can estimate sensitivity from the data since 1950, and you get 2 C per doubling, adding in all feedbacks and collateral effects like aerosols and other GHGs."</em>
Only AFTER you've just gone on and assumed that all the warming (and <em>more</em>, seemingly) is caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2 + feedbacks, Jim D. That's your pure circular reasoning displayed to the world once again.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Skiphil
Bart R,
You have not attempted to defend your inclusion of GWPF in a category with Mafia, Boko Haram, and the Taliban.
Instead you blow smoke. Let’s see if you will ever own your words, either to defend them or apologize for them:
[emphasis added to aid your reading comprehension]
“If I were listing organisations like the Mafia, the Taliban, and Boko Haram… the GWPF would, per its stated objectives and past behaviors, certainly be in the top rank.”
That is the list you made, and cavillng about who does or not discuss any science is mere bluster to distract from what you said.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Dagfinn
So earth romantic Paul Kingsnorth claims that “You look at every trend that environmentalists like me have been trying to stop for 50 years, and every single thing had gotten worse.”
Just off the top of my head, what about air pollution in European and US cities, acid rain, CFCs and the ozone layer? And whether you like it or not, environmentalists have been pretty successful in curtailing the growth of nuclear power.
I’m wondering if he has an alternative definiton of “gotten worse”. Something like “gotten better, but will surely get worse after the climate apocalypse”.
↧
Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by Generalissimo Skippy
It is quite clearly the case that El Nino frequency peaked last century.
It seems as well clearly not anywhere near the case that 1791-92 saw the biggest El Nino in 700 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moy2002/moy2002.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/paleolimnology/ecuador/pallcacocha_red_intensity.txt
LOD seems frantically nebulous. Milliseconds calculated how 400 years ago? No don’t tell me I don’t want to know.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
