Therefore the water vapor is insignificant? I mean, part of the mechanism that makes the heat capacity high is vibrational molecular modes. The same ones that absorb/emit IR. Hmmmm ….
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rob Ellison
The regimes are non-stationary. A different concept to aperiodic. This is what the diagram shows.
↧
Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by KateU
Well spoken!!
Victor, are you there?
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D
Unfortunately for that idea, O2 and N2 also have heat capacity, and so much more mass that they dwarf the traces gases in the air’s total. However, they do almost nothing in the IR, which is why H2O and CO2 are so important.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Steven Mosher
its not a trace gas where it counts
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Stephen Segrest
Peter Lang — I did read through your paper, and started to compile at least an initial set of questions — then I saw your above post about my total lack of understanding and ignorance.
I have degrees in engineering and economics — including work at the prestigious University of Chicago. I developed a leading U.S. Industry standard on engineering economics modelling for project evaluation (PROVAL) which is probably used in Australia. I’ve testified before the U.S. Congress several times.
Depending on how you answer my first set of simple questions — I may or may not choose any further dialogue with you.
(1) Did the Researchers at CEEM peer review or provide any type of critique on your paper? Has any professional organization provided any peer review?
(2) Did you have access to, and run the CEEM load shape model in your analysis?
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
Which <a href="http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CEEM" rel="nofollow">CEEM</a>?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Stephen Segrest
Peter said he used a study by the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets (CEEM) — which I know nothing about — I assume its part of an University?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang
Segrest,
Your comments on this post have demonstrated you don’t bother to read nor try to understand what the person you are responding to says. You’ve demonstrated that clearly. You’ve also demonstrated intellectual dishonesty http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/. You are not worth wasting the time on. A person who has the experience you claim, would not be making such comments. And they would read the paper and the references to find out the answer the questions you asked, without making a fool of yourself.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Stephen Segrest
Seems like a simple yes/no to:
1. Did CEEM or any professional organization peer review your work? Yes or No.
2. Did you run the CEEM load shape model in your analysis? Yes or No. (you just can’t do what you tried to do without running a load shape model).
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
The problem with ideologues is that they are not at all open to good ideas, like… how about letting the scientific method work?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang
Same answer, twit. Read it, like any professional or trained researcher would do.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Bob Ludwick
@ gregladen
“‘Research done prior to 2012 (e.g. Hansen et al 2011) parceled out the energy imbalance the Earth experiences from anthropogenic global warming. The extra heat caused by AGW from 2004 to 2010 was divided among the upper ocean (71%), the deeep ocean (5%), with the rest going various other places (only 4% over land).”
And exactly how was the ‘extra heat caused by AGW’ identified and quantified, prior to being divided?
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by alpha2actual
Jim D presented a number of between 30 to 40 billion tons which, according to his calculations resolves to 1%. The reality is 11.7 Billion metric tons presented to the atmosphere annually and anthropogenically (IPCC from 1990 to 1999) divided by 4.24 quadrillion resolves to 2.6 Ten-thousandths of a percent. Please correct me if I’m incorrect and I did resort to a scientific notation calculator.
Having said that, let’s move on to the 42,000 square mile Atacama Desert, Peru. This is a terrific laboratory if one wants to test the Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis. What makes it interesting is that it is generally considered to be the driest place on the planet (devoid of water vapor, which of course is the primary greenhouse gas) actually the humidity averages 10% per year and the average rainfall is measured in hundredths of an inch. For the past 200 years the climate has remained predictable and constant. Evidently the anthropogenic CO2 has had little if any effect on this ecosystem, go figure. Yet, globally in 2012, $359 Billion was expended on “Anthropogenic Climate Change” almost a $1 Billion a day,
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Ragnaar
“surface water > evaporation > increase in salinity > rise in specific weight > sinks to depth below 2000 m ?”
Interesting. Less clouds holding everything else constant would transport equatorial waters less far North before that water got too heavy because of faster evaporation.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D
I just go to Google and find these numbers. Here is an example, and everyone else agrees it is 30-40 Billion tonnes CO2 per year.
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Global-CO2.png?00cfb7
Regarding Peru, the wind blows, so CO2 is well mixed around the earth. Even Antarctica measures similar amounts to Hawaii.
If so much was spent on climate change, surely we should stop climate change rather than keep having to spend that. What was that point?
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Don Monfort
And jimmy wonders why nobody likes him.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D
It’s just the facts they don’t like. Just the facts.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
Seems more like a problem with a 10 minute internet expert with a meme to rationalise.
↧
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
Stephen Segrest – “I could go on and on countering your cherry-picking with cherry-picking …”
You win, you are a much better cherry-picker than me.
Why all the hostility? Why not state your case without rancor and be a gentleman about it? I’m actually interested in reading what you have to say.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
