Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by freedomfan

0
0

Greg Laden is a coward who blocks people who disagree with him… just like Mann.


Comment on Week in review by D o u g 

0
0
In regard to the issue of the temperature gradient and subsequent convection, this is explained in great detail in the book <i>"Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide"</i> for which you can read reviews on Amazon. As stated in Wikipedia and physics websites, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics" rel="nofollow">Second Law of Thermodynamics</a> "states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy." Now in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium" rel="nofollow">thermodynamic equilibrium</a> "there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, either within a system or between systems. In a system in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, no macroscopic change occurs." Basically, this is because it is the state of maximum entropy within the constraints of the system. Thermodynamic equilibrium embraces all forms of internal energy, but, in the assumed absence of phase change and chemical reactions, we are mostly just interested in considering the mean kinetic energy of molecules in a region (this relating to temperature) and the mean gravitational potential energy. Because there are no net flows of energy we have no unbalanced energy potentials. This means that it is the mean sum (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) which must be homogeneous at all altitudes. Hence, because potential energy varies, so too does kinetic energy, this meaning we have a temperature gradient. The kinetic energy difference can be represented by the energy required to raise mass <i>M</i> by a temperature difference <i>dT</i>. We get this using the specific heat <i>Cp</i>. We equate this with the difference in potential energy for a height difference <i>dH</i> and acceleration due to gravity <i>g</i>.. <i>M.Cp.dT = M.g.dH</i> So the temperature gradient is given by ... <i>dT/dH = g/Cp</i> where the direction of the gravitational force is of course the opposite of that of <i>dH</i> This is the dry rate. However radiation between two small regions (in contrast to the diffusion and convection process) has a temperature levelling effect, as is well known. But there's not a high percentage of radiating molecules in the atmosphere and the gravitationally-induced gradient is only reduced by about a third by water vapour (plus a very small amount by carbon dioxide) and that is why the "wet" gradient is less steep and thus leads to a lower supported surface temperature.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Don Monfort

0
0

Yeah, your little pudgy bald hero has really suffered from all the assaults on his lack of integrity. I bet he has missed out on one or two junkets because he had to take time out to sue people. Grow up, jimmy.

Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

0
0

You’ve got your head up Uranus, dougie.

Comment on Week in review by D o u g 

0
0

Garbage Rob. Radiation from the colder atmosphere does not even penetrate the surface of the ocean by more than a few nanometres. You cannot add the back radiation flux to the solar flux and bung the total into SBL calculations. All you have at the surface is 161W/m^2 of solar radiation which could raise the temperature of the surface, except that it would only support a temperature of minus 35 degrees C in a surface completely paved in black asphalt. Now all your back radiation can slow the radiative component of the surface cooling from that -35C. Big deal!

As usual, you present no physics and no calculations. My calculations above use emissivity of asphalt 0.88 and so any reader can check with an on-line Stefan-Boltzmann calculator easily found on Google.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Michael

0
0

moshpit,

Almost all early responses to ‘Piltdown Man’ pointed out that it was a combination of human and ape parts.

If you want to push this analogy, you’ll find that the part of Charles Dawson is played by Steve McIntyre.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Rob Ellison

0
0

Research on the last 1 to 2 ka has resulted in several multi-proxy reconstructions of global or hemispheric temperature (e.g., Rutherford et al., 2005; Mann et al., 2007; 2008). In addition, first attempts have been made to reconstruct other climatic parameters, at a high spatial and temporal resolution (e.g., Luterbacher et al., 2004). Despite significant progress over the last few decades, we still do not sufficiently understand the precise sequence of changes related to regional climate forcings, internal variability, system feedbacks, and the responses of surface climate, land-cover, and bio- and hydro-sphere. Furthermore, at the decadal-to-centennial timescale we do not understand how sensitive the climate is to changes in solar activity, frequency of volcanic eruptions, greenhouse gas and aerosol concentration, and land cover.

It is understood that, at the continental- to regional-scale, climate is strongly modulated by internal variability, e.g., the NAO and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) in the Atlantic area; and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillations (PDO) in the Pacific area. However, the interactions of key processes at different temporal and spatial scales are not fully understood (Bengtsson et al., 2006).

Further, many parts of the globe lack adequate paleorecords for comparison with model simulations, and high-resolution (spatially and temporally) instrumental datasets are sparse. This is particularly true for the southern hemisphere and the tropics.’ http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/2k-network/intro

ttps://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pages2k.png

Mann’s sins were fairly obvious – concealing inconvenient data, splicing data that is not comparable, but most of all, the great sin of science and data, hiding the uncertainty monster. Science advocacy comes from selling uncertain or just plain bad science as more settled than it can possibly be for political ends.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Don Monfort

0
0

mikey says: “I’ll make TJA happy;”

It took you and google a while, mikey.


Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Faustino

0
0

I happen to enjoy Mark Steyn as a columnist and speaker; others don’t. But those who dismiss him on the basis of his commentary should look at video recordings of the 2008 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearings of complaints against Steyn and Maclean’s magazine. I found him very impressive in defending his case and free speech. He is far from being an opinionated lightweight.

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

You assume that the planet is a blackbody with no carbon dioxide or water vapour in the atmosphere. You usually compere this to measured temps to get a greenhouse effect of some 33K.

http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf

But of course it is all wrong and all IR hitting the surface is ‘pseudo-scattered’ in some ‘pseudo science’ way.

Comment on Week in review by D o u g 

0
0

And the “net” business is garbage too, Rob.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to thermodynamic equilibrium (see comment below) and hence to all forms of energy, including gravitational potential energy. If your “net” effect were true then what you are claiming is as absurd as saying the Second Law is not violated if water flows up a hill to a lake at the top of a mountain, provided that it flows further down the other side.

I wrote a comprehensive paper on all this two and a half years ago. Look up “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” because I don’t have time to repeat what is in the paper here. You cannot magnify the warming effect of radiation entering the top of the atmosphere by reflecting it back and forth (such as between parallel mirrors) and then into the surface.

Radiation from a colder source undergoes resonant (or “pseudo”) scattering in a warmer target, and none of its electromagnetic energy is converted to thermal energy. Instead the EM energy becomes part of the target’s own quota of radiation (as per its Planck curve) and so it uses less of its own thermal energy. Hence that portion of the target’s cooling which is due to radiation is indeed slowed. But other non-radiative cooling processes can and will accelerate in order to compensate, so the overall effect is close to nil.

What actually slows and even stops the cooling in the early pre-dawn hours is the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere – a temperature supported because the gravito-thermal effect is a reality. For more on that see my comment below. The surface is already warmed by the gravito thermal effect. Water vapour cools it a bit (from about 300K to 288K) and so does carbon dioxide but only by about 0.1 degree.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Faustino

0
0

Stephen, perhaps if Wilson had gone outside into the sunshine, he’d have been disinfected and recovered. But, yes, if he allegedly supported the principle, he didn’t live up to it.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Tonyb

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Faustino

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Rob Ellison

0
0

These are very real changes in the state of ocean and atmospheric circulation. Ocean SST and THC for instance.

Defining them as handwaving without data is impossible and insufferable nonsense. There is a limit to how much drilling down into detail is possible with every comment. Some things require some background – an ability to review data – and a willingness to reflect and review. You show none of this.

‘The above formula uses the absolute value of the correlation coefficient because the choice of sign of indices is arbitrary. The distance can be
thought as the average correlation between all possible pairs of nodes and is interpreted as a measure of the synchronization of the network’s components. Synchronization between nonlinear (chaotic) oscillators occurs when their corresponding signals converge to a common, albeit
irregular, signal. In this case, the signals are identical and their cross-correlation is maximized. Thus, a distance of zero corresponds to a complete synchronization and a distance of √ 2 signifies a set of uncorrelated nodes.’ https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/tsonis_GRL07.pdf

The indices can be seen as chaotic oscillating nodes on a network through which the propagating signal is tracked. This is the sense of what Tsonis and colleagues show to be analogous to the theory of synchronized chaos – the system behaved like irregularly oscillating nodes on a network. This is a specific type of network – with specific behaviours and not merely links in a some other type of network. You are utterly hopeless.


Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Michael

0
0

TJA,

If you think the r@ntings of a gutter-journalist are part of the scientific ‘debate’, you’ve lost your marbles.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ climatgebeagle

“AD47 is another interesting one”

I presume that that one is the one with Dr. Mann’s picture under the masthead, captioned as ‘The Gold Standard Faculty Example of AD47 Personified’

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Michael

0
0

“Rebuttal” in quoatation marks? When did I say that.

But yes, I missed the one after Tom’s comment – I’m not sure how. Was it is moderation briefly??

TJA | October 2, 2014 at 5:55 am |
“That is one criticism, but not the only criticism by any means, just the easiest for you to defend….”

Never said it was, I just answered a question you posed.

What is this – ever moving goal-posts?

From you comment above – you accept that that PCA issue is, for practical purposes, irrelevant?

Back-fitting. There nothing wrong with that, but there can be a discussion on appropriate levels.

You don’t have much to say on M&Ms “nearly always” comment – do you think that’s accurate??

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Is there a general consensus within the science community of what anti-science exactly means?

I’ve thought of it as: By poking enough holes in “Theory X”, this will prove “Theory Y”. This has been used by Creationists in efforts to disprove the theory of evolution.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by TJA

0
0

If you think the country will be a better place without free speech, you have lost yours.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images