Yes, your title would have been better. Your’s is certainly more clever if one understands the discussion. The WSJ title is clearly from someone who does not really understand your point but understands that “statistics” is an eye-catching word in this debate.
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by rmdobservations
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
You are being disingenuous again. Of course there is no transfer of matter either. I took that for granted, as my Carnot cycle analogy (second stage) should have made clear. I was clearly contradicting your false assumption that adiabatic expansion precludes energy transfer through *work*. When a parcel of air rises and expands, in addition to gaining gravitational potential energy (which is energy gained through work from the buoyant force applied by the surrounding), it also performs an amount of work on its surrounding equal to the change in volume times the ambient pressure (analogous to the second stage of the Carnot cycle). Are you denying this?
↧
Comment on My week(s) in review by Michael
Yes, it’s big on hyperbole and rhetoric.
If you’re into polemics more than science, I guess it would be your thing.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
“Temperature is a point measurement – the temperature goes down at any point but the energy stays the same when integrated over the whole parcel.”
That’s nonsense. What energy stays the same? It’s *internal energy* that’s at issue. The internal energy variation of the rising parcel of air is equal to dW, as the standard lapse rate derivation that you quoted (seemingly approvingly) indeed assumes. This change is proportional to the temperature change for the reasons I stated (molecules giving up KE to the receding boundary of the expanding parcel).
↧
Comment on My week(s) in review by UhOh
Hilarity. Tisdale? He’s a kooky blogger, not a scientist. Zero creds. Try again
↧
↧
Comment on My week(s) in review by UhOh
Joseph, Lucifer’s doing what is known as a “gish gallup.” , but his own data is thin (ie citing Tisdale, a complete non-scientist lol). As a single example: He’ll authoritatively present the global drought chart, as if it’s official, when in fact it’s the result of a single very disputable paper in Nature. If you were to cite all the other papers in Nature (including recent ones describing climate change’s contribution to drought), they’d howl that its cherry picking,a conspiracy. etc.
Meanwhile people from Sao Paolo to Yemen are feeling the very real effects of drought. Doesn’t matter what’s going on right under our noses lol. As Miami is flooded, they’ll just find more excuses.
“Over the weekend, NASA announced that last month was the warmest September since global records have been kept. What’s more, the last six months were collectively the warmest middle half of the year in NASA’s records—dating back to 1880.
The record-breaking burst of warmth was kicked off by an exceptionally warm April—the first month in at least 800,000 years that atmospheric carbon dioxide reached 400 parts per million.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, which keeps a separate record of global temperatures, this April ranked as the warmest April on record. Followed by the warmest May on record. Followed by warmest June on record. (July wasn’t quite as hot—just the fourth-warmest July on record.) But August—again, you guessed it—was the warmest August on record. The NCDC will release its numbers for September later this month.”
Some of them here still claim we’re actually COOLING!
Whattyagonnado
↧
Comment on My week(s) in review by beththeserf
If yer get in fer nothing yer should clap. ie be thankful fer the
CE open forum. Heck, yer don’t even hafta’ have a PHD ter
gain entry .. Thx Judith.
bts.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
Despite a real gas expanding into a lower pressure as it rises – it like throwing a ball at a truck ’cause he says so.
The dry lapse rate is some 10K/km – the environmental lapse rate is some 6.5K/km.
The lower environmental lapse rate creates instabilities in the atmosphere – as does phase change with water vapor condensing.
One dimensional formula formulas say very little about the complexities – and one dimensional minds are very dogmatic about their one dimensional view of the universe. It is all very simple.
Here a good intro to some of the complexities.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/08/open-thread-21/#comment-637597
The problem with these people is that they are so busy quibbling about things they understand little of that they never say anything interesting at all.
↧
Comment on My week(s) in review by Ragnaar
Fair comment.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
Oh no – instead of the respectable academic site I meant I posted a vulgar Australian bogan mobile clip.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
Oh no – I meant to link this comment.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/08/open-thread-21/#comment-637597
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
“All this discussion about the dry adiabatic lapse rate is a bit misleading. It is not dry – it is not adiabatic – it is not a parcel – it is not conceptually simple.”
So, all this time we weren’t really talking about the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the atmosphere; we were really talking about throttled air flow through porous plugs? Thanks for clearing that up.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Ragnaar
Seems to me the volume increases and the density decreases The hot water transferred heat to the bottle. It stole heat. In the cool water, it gave heat to the water. Amongst other things, gas density changes seem to be a way to transfer heat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPErStqSSMk
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by D o u g
Please see <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/08/open-thread-21/#comment-637609" rel="nofollow">this</a> comment.
↧
Comment on My week(s) in review by kim
Arrogant in his ignorance or shoddy in his disingenuousness. It’s always the same question, the same question.
=============================
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison
As usual the pedantic and dogmatic springer misses the point. Heat flows in a number of ways and I suppose that – statistically – net heat could flow the wrong way. But I wouldn’t count on it.
↧
Comment on My week(s) in review by Rob Ellison
The mad, naked Emperor Moshpit complaining about food fights? No it can’t be.
Technical food fights about minutiae are the most interesting. I am still in the open post arguing lapse rates with P-N and Dougie. Although I think I have had enough – when it gets to the stage of full blown Monty Python department of arguments. It is full of huffing and puffing and sonorous declarations of nonsenses of course. I have worked through the math. But it is more the evolution of a visualization. I have the picture of the jiggle jiggle of the molecules of air rising in the atmosphere. It is nothing like the simplification of the math.
“What I am really trying to do is bring birth to clarity, which is really a half-assedly thought-out-pictorial semi-vision thing. I would see the jiggle-jiggle-jiggle or the wiggle of the path. Even now when I talk about the influence functional, I see the coupling and I take this turn – like as if there was a big bag of stuff – and try to collect it in away and to push it. It’s all visual. It’s hard to explain.” Feynmann
Don’t know about P-N and Dougie. Although contaminated by tribal dogmas those type of discussion have interest. I followed one recently on rock cores introduced by FOMBS. An interesting subject – which FOMBS promptly disowned when the implications were discussed. That I chimed in completely missing the point is
beside the point.
I commented recently on a recent blog civility radio program.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-637158
What we have in the climate war is a community of climate extremists who move freely between encampments on both sides. The home territory is the training ground for activists who venture out to skirmish in enemy territory. The tactic is very simple. Be as uncivil as possible in commentary and that creates adverse perceptions of the content of the blog – according to the study linked.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
No – I was talking about the expansion of a real gas into a lower pressure zone amongst other things.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
‘Do you or do you not agree that the temperature gradient forms autonomously in any planetary troposphere without there being any need for rising convection from a surface heated by solar radiation?’
There is evaporation and convection, there is conduction, there is surface warming, there is radiative flux from the atmosphere. Frankly the troposphere is far too turbulent to support anything but relatively quick mixing.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-50.41,-177.63,223
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
This is definitely over – I am riding into the sunset pardner.
‘Do you or do you not agree that the temperature gradient forms autonomously in any planetary troposphere without there being any need for rising convection from a surface heated by solar radiation?’
There is evaporation and convection, there is conduction, there is surface warming, there is radiative flux from the atmosphere. Frankly the troposphere is far too turbulent to support anything but relatively quick mixing.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-50.41,-177.63,223
↧
