The herd mentality at work. Ignore the science.
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by WebHubTelescope
↧
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Trombone
:)
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Rob Ellison
You would surely need to explore the microphysical states in cloud nucleation in which Stefan-Boltzmann gives way to Bose-Einstein statistics. Which were given as very low temperature and strong surfactants.
More generally – the webbly is typically superficial and ultimately eccentric. Taking anything he says seriously is an error.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by AK
<blockquote>AJ:</blockquote>It's AK. AJ's somebody else who comments here.<blockquote>One example where modeling the non-classical behavior of water vapor molecules is importan is the ice nucleation on supercooled water droplets. This was exampled at -40°C, so this apparently would have relevance to cloud formation physics. </blockquote>The tops of tropical "hot tower" convection cells reach lows of -70°C, so this <b>definitely</b> <i>"would have relevance to cloud formation physics."</i>
Looks like you're <strike>found </strike>provided some of the references Webdummy's demanding.
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Vaughan Pratt
You are ignoring the contributions of all the other man made GHG’s, which (according to the IPCC) represent about a 75% increase in total forcing compared to CO2 alone.
Excellent point. AR5 (WG1, p.661) gives industrial era radiative forcing as 2.83 W/m2 broken down as 1.82 + 0.48 + 0.17 + 0.36 for respectively CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons. In percentages, 64%, 17%, 6%, and 13%.
Had these proportions remained constant since 1850 we could simply take CO2 as a proxy for them all. So if the sensitivity were 2 °C/doubling we could apportion this as 1.28 + 0.34 + 0.12 + 0.26 °C/doubling.
However they haven’t. For example since 2005 (the year for AR4 estimates) total GHG forcing increased by 8%, but CO2 increased by 10%, methane by 2%, nitrous oxide by 6%, and halocarbons stayed constant (though CFC’s 11, 12, and 113 went down while HCFC-22, aka R22, went up despite being phased out in the US). (All this is on p.661 op cit.)
The proper way to handle this would be to estimate methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons since 1850, convert that to a combined forcing, and fit that to climate since 1850. I don’t know how feasible that is.
This is complicated by the fact that different GHGs have different feedback mechanisms and hence different climate feedback parameters.
In the interim the approximation based on the assumption that their proportions remained the same since 1850 is the best I can offer, with a total GHG sensitivity of 1.885 °C per doubling, and CO2’s contribution to that being about 1.2 °C/doubling. Since CO2 is increasing faster than the others this has to be a low-ball estimate.
↧
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Wagathon
Perhaps what you didn’t remember is the deposition of cloud droplets on vegetation at high elevations.
You also seem to be saying that no one understands this stuff –e.g., why is it that, “the particle can potentially be recycled, functioning more than once as a CCN,” becomes, “the key question?”
Your example of a droplet that dries out may be unimportant. If it is important, then we must consider all of the factors (turbulent and Brownian diffusion, sedimentation, impaction, interception) that are a part of ‘dry’ deposition processes and what bearing they have on whatever you see is the ‘key’ concern you have in putting forward your ‘key’ question and whether such concerns are on a global or a regional scale.
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Vaughan Pratt
The longest word is: floccinaucinihlipilificationist
Merely spelling it correctly would make it longer.
But at that length it’s hard to tell whether that or floccinaucinihilipilificationismlessness is longer. Sort of like the Red Queen when she asked Alice, “Can you do addition? What’s one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one?”
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Carrick
AK:
It’s AK. AJ’s somebody else who comments here.
AK, I apologize for the mistake.
AJ, I also apologize for the mistake.
:-P
If somebody doesn’t even understand when to apply the Pauli Exclusion Principle, or what a boson is, it does seem unlikely that anything more technical he has to say on the topic is going to be of much value.
So I admit I am more interested in the general questions of are there semiclassical physics associated with cloud condensation, and how would you model it?
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by beththeserf
The cow with the white face in the front row seemed to be
particularly enjoying it, cd.
↧
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by rls
Jim D: Isn’t Lomborg’s “long time” about 200 years?
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by AK
<blockquote>Perhaps what you didn’t remember is the deposition of cloud droplets on vegetation at high elevations.</blockquote>The vast majority of cloud activity takes place at elevations above 6 Km. Not much vegetation there, AFAIK.<blockquote>You also seem to be saying that no one understands this stuff –e.g., why is it that, “the particle can potentially be recycled, functioning more than once as a CCN,” becomes, “the key question?”</blockquote>AFAIK most people who work in weather/climate (as well as many amateurs) understand this stuff. Just not you.
As for why it's a <i>"key question"</i>, that's because the primary interest in aerosols is how they function as CCN's. <i>I.E.</i> the relationship between aerosol production and cloud behavior. And, more importantly, the relationship between <b>changes to</b> aerosol production and <b>changes to</b> cloud behavior.
The process by which aerosol production affects cloud behavior, then, depends on how often, on average, each type of particle acts as a CCN. The more often it's recycled, the more changes to production are multiplied.
Also, if there are broad-scale changes to convection that affect this recycling rate, they can have an effect on cloud behavior equal to or perhaps greater than changes to aerosol production.
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Wagathon
…antidisestablishmentfloccinaucinihilipilification?
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by WebHubTelescope
”
Knowing how to run a piece of lab equipment, regardless of its cost, demonstrates you have the competency level of an undergrad work-study student, or a lab tech. nothing more.
“
Yes, and certainly devising the experiments, analyzing the results, writing research papers, and presenting at conferences doesn’t count either. A VoTech grad could that too — some pretend to on the interwebs, at least, LOL
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Steven Mosher
willard is playing dumb
“Every abstracts were rated twice, and conflicting results were arbitrated. ”
CONFLICT is not the only result of fatigue. If I am a harder grader than
rater A or rater B, then If I get easier as time goes on, the fatigue will result in AGREEMENT not conflict.
You need the times.
spoiliation, since they have the times and refuse to release.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Rob Ellison
Proportional to ‘kT instead of the accepted Arrhenius rate-law exp(-E/kT)’.
Not even close. Look at the equations.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by John Smith (it's my real name)
scott
you are absolutely right …
isn’t there a big NEO passing close this weekend ? …
so many galaxies, the math can not be disputed, aliens are out there
cell phone radiation (what the consensus % on that?) … uh-oh, maybe they’re right!
where’s my tin foil hat?
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by John Smith (it's my real name)
I knew that Voyager thing with the map on how to get here was a bad idea …
no telling who, are what, is going to find it :)
↧
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by AK
The same person who said:
(The theory of superconducivity [sic] is rather complex. I haven’t gone trough it in full detail in spite of the fact that I have lectured from a book that spends much space for superconductivity, but that was many decades ago.)
I don’t claim to be an expert in quantum theory, but I’ve seen plenty of “many decades ago” “expertise” (or at least scholarship) turn out to be wrong. I remain very skeptical.
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by stevepostrel
If you lick on Vaughan’s link on supposed subsidies to fossil fuel sources you find things like general industrial development bond subsidies that would apply equally to a solar plant, a car factory, or any other industrial project for which political support can be garnered. In economic terms these are not “fossil-fuel subsidies” because they ate not targeted to fossil fuels. The same goes for the “tax expenditures” and other items where people like Vaughan are claiming that a failure to penalize fossil fuel businesses relative to all others is somehow a subsidy. These claims are deceptive and misleading; if applied in a commercial rather than a political context they would be the sort of thing investigated in the US by the Federal Trade Commission.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by AK
The same person who said:
(The theory of superconducivity [sic] is rather complex. I haven’t gone trough it in full detail in spite of the fact that I have lectured from a book that spends much space for superconductivity, but that was many decades ago.)
I don’t claim to be an expert in quantum theory, but I’ve seen plenty of “many decades ago” expertise (or at least scholarship) turn out to be wrong. I remain very skeptical.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
