Hmm, ‘Same ol’ … well once is enough i suppose, logically
speaking, but metaphorically speaking, I meself go fer ‘same
ol’ same ol’.’
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by markus
“This discussion initiated by WebHub and Paul Pukite took a lot of time and distracted the community from discussion of the things that are really important”
Another day. Another example of sceptic hypocrisy.
Now, if a scientist had made such a statement in regard to sceptics the sceptics would be out screaming blue murder and play the purer-than-pure card, telling us that it’s a “scientist’s job” to respond to criticisms and not to attack those making criticisms, because you know criticizing is part of science and should if anything be recognized and thanked.
But in this case we see sceptics don’t have a problem with the idea that sceptics can waste scientist’s time.
This continues an age old pattern of hypocrisy by sceptics. Because sceptics are rarely put in certain situations (they don’t have time to waste for example). This gives them leave to make up rules for others which they know they won’t need to abide to themselves.
A good recently example would be the wailing about “free speech” and Steyn being sued. As if all these sceptics really believe that calling someone a fraud in public is free speech. I mean hardly anyone in the real world thinks that, what’s the chance that so many such people would just happen to be climate sceptics?
Of course it’s so easy to take up ridiculous defences like that when you aren’t in that position.
Lo and behold on the fleeting occasion when sceptics have felt publicly slighted they haven’t hesitated to threaten lawsuits. We even had Watts last week fantasizing that sceptics would initiate lawsuits over cartoons! The all important “Free speech” didn’t even enter his head apparently. I wonder why.
Now I think if Watts or Curry were called frauds one day in a national newspaper, I think they would consult lawyers. That’s just my opinion of course, but I find it absurd to imagine they wouldn’t. And I would further bet the sceptic community would be highly supportive of such legal action. I certainly doubt ‘free speech’ would be uttered at all.
Basically all I am saying is I see right through you guys.
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by nobodyknows
It is a well known fact that water vapor are many “gases”, and that there are transitions between the different states.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
I have not seen this reflected in the blog world before. All states have different radiational properties. There are vater vapor, undercooled water vapor. water droplets, undercooled water droplets, ice crystals from water droplets, and ice glass directly from vapor, and perhaps some more states. How these states are formed and how stabile they are, must have some effect on the atmosphere energy balance, and on temperature gradient, and on OLR. I think it is good to have this discussion, and that there is some progress to have this book. Even if I cannot follow the calculations and theories.
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by climatereason
Markus
Let me know when you and another write a 700 page long highly technical book and I’ll read a couple of paragraphs online, take them out of context with the rest, exaggerate their importance and then write a rubbish review for all to see on what I have ‘found.’
With any luck I can also then tie you and your collaborator up in knots for four days into the bargain whilst refusing to directly confront the point by point rebuttal
tonyb
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Peter Davies
+1. The lack of self awareness in some people is astonishing.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
“The laws of physics are non-negotiable”
But that doesn’t mean they’re what you say they are,
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by AK
From the abstract of your second link:<blockquote>Whereas the hygroscopic growth regime below 95% RH is insensitive toward the surface tension σ, σ has a large influence on the activation, increasing with decreasing particle size. This implies that a cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) closure, connecting particle hygroscopic growth to activation, has to account for an influence of the examined substance on σ of the particle, especially for smaller particles in the size range from 50 to 100 nm. A simple estimate showed that a lowering of σ by only 10% can cause a change in the activated fraction (i.e., in the cloud droplet number concentration) of at least 10%–20%. Where organic molecules are present in sufficient concentration to reduce σ, surface tension may be an important factor in determining the activation of aerosol particles to cloud droplets.</blockquote>Therefore:
<a href="http://www.tellusb.net/coaction/index.php/tellusb/article/view/15598/html_1#CON0028" rel="nofollow">Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review</a> by Viviane R. Després, J. Alex Huffman, Susannah M. Burrows, Corinna Hoose, Aleksandr S. Safatov, Galina Buryak, Janine Fröhlich-Nowoisky, Wolfgang Elbert, Meinrat O. Andreae, Ulrich Pöschl, Ruprecht Jaenicke Tellus B 2012, 64, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
<a href="http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac%3A153253" rel="nofollow">Surfactant Behavior in Atmospheric Aerosols</a> by Allison Nicole Schwier Dissertation 2012
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Eli Rabett
You raise two issues, but you appear to think there is only one.
The first is the issue of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. The answer is that while water vapor absorbs IR, it’s presence in the atmosphere is controlled by the temperature of the surface (evaporation) and the atmosphere (condensation). Moreover, water vapor is not well mixed and the concentration is strongly dependent on altitude because of the lapse rate. Water vapor is a feedback not a forcing, but it is a greenhouse gas.
Perhaps an example, if you change the water vapor mixing ratio, nothing happens to the CO2 mixing ratio. OTOH, if you change the CO2 mixing ratio, the water vapor concentration follows as the surface and the atmosphere warm or cool in response
The second issue is your rather word salad model of how a molecule absorbs energy and converts it into kinetic energy. The answer is that for IR photons, the absorbed energy of the photon is converted into vibrations which are motions of the nuclei of the molecule relative to each other. When this molecule comes within some picometers of another molecule that energy may be transferred by collision through interaction of the dipole or induced dipole moments of the two molecules (they never actually touch) to rotational, or vibrational excitation of the collision partner or kinetic energy of both. Collisions at atmospheric pressure occur on the order of a tenth of a nanosecond. V-T transfer to N2 or O2 takes ~10usec so it is not that efficient but there are lots of collision.
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Dave
That link is a summary of someone’s speculative idea.
The theory that the Higgs mechanism explains the mass of the fundamental particles has been tested and found to, so far, correctly describe nature. The speculative idea in the link hasn’t.
↧
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Eli Rabett
There is a huge literature.
↧
Comment on Week in review by naq
DHS is watching…
so I pray it is just another model.
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Dave
The Higgs field gives the fundamental particles (i.e. those which have no apparent substructure) mass. This means that the quarks pick up their masses this way.
Most of the observable matter in the cosmos is provided by nuclei. If one would consider the quarks in a nucleus and add up their masses then it becomes clear that they account for several per cent of the mass of the nuclei. The rest comes from the strong force.
Higgs theory of mass generation and the strong force have nothing to do with each other in this respect.
I teach postgraduate courses in advanced particle physics so I’m confident of my facts here.
Unfortunately the author of this blog entry has made a few errors when discussing particle physics (Higgs -> gravitation being only one of them).
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Eli Rabett
For the reasons that the <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/aerosols-in-woods.html" rel="nofollow">Finns have pretty well shown this</a> in the natural world and with their help this has been <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/" rel="nofollow">the outcome of the Dane's CERN boondoggle</a>
↧
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by curryja
Hi Mike, best book on O/A interface is Kantha and Clayson, with the unlikely title
Small Scale Processes in Geophysical Flows
While ocean waves are the most visible example of oceanic mixing processes, this macroscale mixing process represents but one end of the spectrum of mixing processes operating in the ocean. At the scale of a typical phytoplanktoic diatom or larval fish inhabiting these seas, the most important mixing processes occur on the molecular scale – at the scale of turbulence. Physical-biological interactions at this scale are of paramount importance to the productivity of the seas (fisheries) and the heat balance that controls large scale ocean climate phenomena such as El Niño and tornadoes. This book grew out of the need for a comprehensive treatment of the diverse elements of geophysical fluid flow at the microscale. Kantha and Clayson have arranged a logial exposition of the various mixing processes operating within and between the oceans and its boundaries with the atmosphere and ocean floor. The authors’ intent is to develop a volume that would provide a comprehensive treatment of the fundamental elements of ocean mixing so that students, academics, and professional fluid dynamicists and oceanographers can access this essential information from one source. This volume will serve as both a valuable reference tool for mathematically inclined limnologists, oceanographers and fluid modelers.
More info at google books
http://books.google.com/books/about/Small_Scale_Processes_in_Geophysical_Flu.html?id=c9BsNjRd9oYC
Btw, Clayson was my Ph.D. student, there is much material from her Ph.D. thesis in this tome, Kantha was my colleague at U. Colorado.
This book deals extensively with the surface skin layer, fluxes between the atmosphere and ocean, and ocean mixed layer. This is the definitive ref on this topic.
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Eli Rabett
Yes, did you notice how the forming clouds were sucked in as predicted by <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/" rel="nofollow">some random Russians</a> (last year's blogoversary")
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by David Springer
FWIW I’ve always been a fan of Bohmian Mechanics. The Copenhagen Interpretation is a classic (pun intended) example of groupthink.
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Rob Ellison
Perhaps so Eli. Have you read any?
↧
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by AK
I've been dipping into a <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=TuLyHQ8h2LgC&pg=PA417&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">book on Biological Soil Crusts</a>. Several interesting thoughts. Some (transcribed) excerpts:<blockquote>One of the most significant impacts of anthropogenic activity is land-use change; Kates <i>et al.</i> (1990) estimates that almost 50% of the ice-free terrestrial land surface has been transformed or utilized by humans. The direct impact of humans on disturbance regimes and local biogeochemical cycles will most likely override any direct effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry ([ref.]). Land-use change is widespread in the arid and semiarid regions where most biological soil crusts are found. These regions are home to 35% of the world's population ([ref.]) and use is rapidly increasing due to increased need for food production in areas formerly regarded as unsuitable for this purpose, water development, and increased population pressures ([ref.]).</blockquote><blockquote>With disturbance, lichens and mosses are replaced by cyanobacteria. recovery of the lichen and moss component <b>can take decades to centuries</b> ([refs.]) This decrease in crust cover and change in species composition will have direct effects on rates of soil erosion [...] [my bold]</blockquote>Thus producing a substantial, and <b>well-evolved</b> "memory" to the overall eco-climate system. Biological innovations, both anthropogenic and otherwise, combine in potentially highly nonlinear ways with local climate changes to produce extensive changes to aerosol production: both amount and type. And the progress of those changes can cover <i>"decades to centuries"</i> of differences in response to annual weather variations.<blockquote>Similarly, loss of crust cover increases soil loss from wind erosion (Chap. 25). Soil particle movement is initiated at lower wind speeds when crusts are disturbed or absent. Lichen-moss crusts on both silt and sandy soils have <b>2-130 times more resistance</b> to soil erosion than cyanobacteria-dominated crusts on the same soils, and sediment production is increased up to 35 times when well-developed crusts are disturbed ([refs.]) [my bold]</blockquote>Thus showing how changes to land use/ecosystems can combine with climate change to produce potentially huge "feedbacks" to climate, based on the ability of different aerosols to produce different responses by cloudy air to any specific temperature/humidity regime.
Not to mention the ability of such changes in aerosol production to effect changes to the biological carbon pump in large parts of the ocean, sterile except for the effect of windblown nutrients (especially phosphorus and iron).
The capacity of windblown pollen and other spores from better watered areas to affect the evolution of cloudy air regimes is obvious. Personally, I hadn't realized how important the role of the micro-scale ecosystem was in controlling aerosol production in arid areas.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
steven, ” It sounds to me like the only time they differ is when you should go to the respective equation for the right integer spin due to a low energy state or high density.”
Those would apply, but you are really only looking for something else once the Boltzmann (classical) approximation isn’t good enough. Clouds can have a variety of special cases where classical methods miss important details. If BE can describe those cases somewhat better, it would be a better choice. If you need to start a new Boltzmann relationship with a different k at some T starting point, that would work as well. You are just trying to find the simplest solution to the special cases.
With the MLTSC you have a situation where mixed phase increases with decreasing temperatures. Since they are liquid topped, the liquid phase change dominates instead of the solid phase change, for what ever reason. If you can describe that with classical methods, no need for anything else. If not, what would improve modeling of MLTSC? If that happens to be BE, figuring why would be nice. It could be because there is a higher density of x(H2O) combinations in a thin layer, don’t know, but you need a better way to describe what is going on. V&C indicates that B-E MIGHT apply not that it does (based on what has been posted).
↧
Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by curryja
Did you read my comment on the main post about keeping the comments relevant? Vitaly tried reading the comments, but found most of them off topic and incomprehensible. I deleted about 20 of the most pointless off topic comments. If you want to bicker, do it on week in review.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
