Comment on Climate change & war by Wagathon

February 14, 2012, 2:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

$

0

0

We could be energy independent. But, with small minded politicians and superstitious schoolteachers we’re headed in the wrong direction.

Until humans can control the sun, nuclear energy is the solution. “Currently, this solution is not possible owing to misguided government policies, regulations, and taxation and to legal maneuvers available to anti-nuclear activists. These impediments should be legislatively repealed.”

[Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine]

---

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by WebHubTelescope

February 14, 2012, 2:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate change & war by Wagathon

$

0

0

Chief’s Navier-Stokes has a diffusion term. Diffusion is a model of random walk. Random walk is a stochastic property. Therefore a significant fraction of what Chief is rebelling against doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Many times the phenomena observed are due to a behavior called stochastic resonance. What happens here is that certain trajectories in the state space get randomly amplified, and because of that amplification become observable above the underlying steady state behavior.

This concept was originally put forward in the seminal papers by Benzi, where they used it to address recurrent ice ages, and also Nicolis about the same time.

The point is that stochastic properties provide a more fundamental foundation than Chief is asserting.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by David Wojick

February 14, 2012, 3:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

The Obama budget proposal makes their priorities clear. Climate research gets a 5.6% boost, while defense research gets a 1.5% cut.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Joshua

February 14, 2012, 3:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by David Wojick

$

0

0

David – just out of curiosity – climate change is increasing from what % of the overall budget to what % of the overall budget? And defense research is decreasing from what % of the overall budget to what % of the overall budget? What are the total numbers?

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

February 14, 2012, 3:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Joshua

$

0

0

You going to tell us anything about the errors you claim that the letter is riddled with? Or are we just left – like with so many of your contributions – to take your remark as gospel?

And WTF does ‘disconnect with genuine controversy’ mean?

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

February 14, 2012, 3:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

I should also note that despite Prof Bosnich’s letter receiving a lively discussion at Bishop Hill’s blog, you have not felt able to share your castigation there – in the heat of the ‘genuine controversy’.

Perhaps you have other pressing calls on your time?

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

February 14, 2012, 3:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How not to save the planet by deep sea fishing destin fl

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

There is no guarantee that Andrew will read your advice if it is posted here. Should you not also post it at his blog?

Comment on How not to save the planet by deep sea fishing destin fl

February 14, 2012, 3:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

In accordance with the author, I could recover the worth to develop each in a couple of months. That sounds great, especially with your rising costs connected with an electrical current currently.

---

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by WebHubTelescope

February 14, 2012, 3:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on How not to save the planet by deep sea fishing destin fl

$

0

0

It’s not nonsense as that is standard practice of climate scientists and physicists. Physicists often refer to the convolution of an impulse response as a Green’s function method.

Bottomline, my explanation trumps your empty assertion. I suppose you operate completely on a gambler’s hunch?

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

February 14, 2012, 3:29 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Colin Lawson

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Hi Judith,

Tsonis and colleagues used a network model to determine the ‘distance’ between the indices of major modes of NH climate variability. The distance is minimal at certain times – sychronisation -and then diverges again. At these times we have extreme ENSO events – ENSO dragon-kings in 1976/77 and 1998/2001 – after which climate settles into a new trajectory. So we have slowing down – autocorrelation increases in the ‘distance’ parameter – and noisy bifurcation.

It is not of much use to compare the Earth system to simple Lorenz attractors. The Earth system has a far more complex state topology and an infinite phase space. To say that it is not a simple Lorenz attractor which readily move between two attractors and it is therefore not chaotic is illogical. There are much complex systems that shift from state to state – and are ergodic in the sense that they will return to an original state if given enough time. Not a terribly usefull concept over time frames of anything but acdemic interest.

Tomas – I believe – distinguised between temporal chaos as embodied by models – and the spatio-temporal chaos of the Earth system. Intrinsically different dynamically complex systems. But they are still share properties with simple Lorenz atractors in the broad class of dynamically complex sysems. They are systems that are non-linearly sensitive to small changes in control variables.

I think Tsonis deserves a Nobel Prize for quantitatively showing how this works in modern climate records.

Robert I Ellsion
Chief Hydrologist

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Colin Lawson

February 14, 2012, 3:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

Interesting article “Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine” at: http://bit.ly/yBuePN

Comment on Nullius in Verba by WebHubTelescope

February 14, 2012, 3:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate change & war by Doug Cotton

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Colin Lawson

$

0

0

Late asks me to show my work.
Click on my handle and index to the Google docs text on the topic of CO2.
I read what you wrote because I am many steps ahead of you.

Comment on Climate change & war by Doug Cotton

February 14, 2012, 4:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Doug Cotton

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Anyone who <i>thinks</i> about these points will realise there is no greenhouse effect ... <b>(1) The direction of net radiative energy flow can be the opposite of the direction of heat transfer.</b> if you have a warmer object (say 310 K) with low emissivity (say 0.2) and a cooler object (say 300 K) with much higher emissivity (say 0.9) then net radiative energy flow is from the cooler to the warmer object. Yet the Second Law says heat transfer is from hot to cold. So, there is no warming of the warmer body by any of the (net) radiative energy going into it. <b>(2) Any warming of a warmer surface by radiation from a cooler atmosphere violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.</B> Consider the situation when the surface is being warmed by the Sun at 11am somewhere. Its temperature is rising and net radiative energy flow is into the surface. How could additional thermal energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to make the surface warm at a faster rate? Clearly radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface. The surface molecules "reject" radiation which has a peak frequency lower than the peak frequency of their own emission, and so no radiative energy is converted to thermal energy. (This was proved in Johnson's <i>Computational Blackbody Radiation.</i>), So <b>the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility.</b>

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Doug Cotton

February 14, 2012, 4:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartland by Paul Vaughan

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate change & war by Doug Cotton

$

0

0

Consider these two points ... <b>(1) The direction of net radiative energy flow can be the opposite of the direction of heat transfer.</b> If you have a warmer object (say 310 K) with low emissivity (say 0.2) and a cooler object (say 300 K) with much higher emissivity (say 0.9) then net radiative energy flow is from the cooler to the warmer object. Yet the Second Law says heat transfer is from hot to cold. So, there is no warming of the warmer body by any of the (net) radiative energy going into it. <b>(2) Any warming of a warmer surface by radiation from a cooler atmosphere violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.</B> Consider the situation when the surface is being warmed by the Sun at 11am somewhere. Its temperature is rising and net radiative energy flow is into the surface. How could additional thermal energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to make the surface warm at a faster rate? Clearly radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface. The surface molecules scatter radiation which has a peak frequency lower than the peak frequency of their own emission, and so no radiative energy is converted to thermal energy. (This was proved in Johnson's <i>Computational Blackbody Radiation.</i>), So <b>the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility.</b>

Comment on Heartland by Paul Vaughan

February 15, 2012, 7:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartland by Fred Moolten

≪ Previous: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Doug Cotton

$

0

0

I don’t usually comment on politics, but the funding aspect of this issue is very important. I would estimate that millions of dollars are invested in untenable alarmist climate modeling fantasies (the salaries & hardware alone would do it) for every dollar invested in legitimate, essential, important research on natural climate. Personally, I decided to stop shopping around for funding because there was too much red tape & politics with every source of funding, much of it demanding (unsuccessfully) that I do things with which I disagree fundamentally. The whole situation with funding is thoroughly disgusting all the way around. Any really honest, serious, sensible, & capable researcher will be left out in the cold to freeze. No matter which “side” or system (academic, private, ngo, whatever) one pursues for funding, one will be stuck being a crook of one form or another. Truly sickening. But nature’s beautiful, so we’ll find a way. Best Regards.

---

Comment on Heartland by Fred Moolten

February 15, 2012, 7:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartland by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartland by Paul Vaughan

$

0

0

Dave – I gather from your comment that you know very little climate science. It’s late, I’m not prepared to stay up much longer, and so I won’t dwell on your misconceptions, but if you have an interest in learning rather than arguing, please feel free to email me.

Comment on Heartland by WebHubTelescope

February 15, 2012, 7:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ergodicity by David Young

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartland by Fred Moolten

$

0

0

“I’m not sure why anyone would object to taking the propaganda out of educational materials and to present data in a more meaningful way.”

I recall some of Wojick’s comments from last year when I seriously started monitoring this blog, which were about scientific argument. So I googled it and these are all from one thread I remembered reading:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/07/carbon-cycle-questions-part-ii/

“Human behavior, including scientific discourse, exists in the world. It is therefore open to scientific analysis. That is what I do.”

and

“My claim to fame is having discovered the hidden structure of expressed thought (writing and speaking) or, in simple terms, how sentences fit together. This is science, Logic to be precise, not philosophy. “

and

“I think I understand the climate debate better than anyone, not because I know more about climate but because I know more about the logic of complex issues. “

and

“The coal burners are my heroes and I am proud of my advocacy work, especially as I am winning and you are losing.”

Presented in his own words. You skeptics figure out what all this means. He’s your guy, deal with it.

Comment on Ergodicity by David Young

February 15, 2012, 7:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartland by Dave Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartland by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Chief, Just a couple of points. You are very insightful.
First, regarding the discussion with Vaughan Pratt on a previous thread, it is true that opposite vortices can cancel over a long time as diffusion takes place. However, in all real forced systems, the vortices are continuosly generated so the patterns don’t fade with time. In fact, vortex dynamics are chaotic with vortex sheets breaking up into smaller and smaller vortex filaments. And the famous Reyleigh Taylor instability concerns shear layers of concentrated vorticity. So, its not really very useful to invoke diffusion as if it damps perturbations. With outside forcing, the chaos can produce a lot of variation in forces for example.
Second, you are right that even though popularly characterized as chaotic, vortex dynamics is in fact deterministic, its just an ill posed problem. Also see my later comment on norms.

An interesting thing I have heard recently but not investigated is the assertion that the multibody gravitational problem is in fact chaotic as the number of bodies increases. Do you know anything about this?

Comment on Heartland by Dave Springer

February 15, 2012, 7:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartland by Dave Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Ergodicity by David Young

$

0

0

Fred Moolton

You want each high school science teacher to independently determine what to teach kiddies about the natural world?

Serious? High school teachers are generally clowns who can’t independently think their way out of a paper bag but did manage to get a teaching credential tacked onto a 4-year degree from an undistinguished local state college. Everybody with a bigger brain is either a university professor (the next level of failure to compete in the real world) or is in the commercial world earning a fortune and having a blast doing it. I myself was given the equivalent of three (unshared) Nobel prize awards ($3 million before taxes) for my contributions in math and science in private industry and I did it before my 44th birthday. Now I do what the tenured crowd does which is pretty much whatever I want and I answer to no one. The difference is I really earned my reward instead of just politicing my way along a tenure track.

Not all high school teachers and university professors are like that of course. There are exceptions to every rule but that’s still pretty much the rule in my experience.

Comment on Heartland by Dave Springer

February 15, 2012, 8:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartland by Dave Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartland by Dave Springer

$

0

0

Fred Moolten

I’ll go toe to toe with you any day in just about any area of science including climate. You don’t stand a chance. Run along now. You look like you really really need a beauty sleep.