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

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

Ah – it is called the kinetic temperature – but all energy is conserved which is why this describes describes the system. Nighty night.


Comment on New presentations on sea ice by daveandrews723

0
0

So, in other words Al Gore won’t be sailing to the North Pole any time soon? Time to give back the Nobel Prize.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by TJA

0
0

I always thought the “methane bomb” idea was ridiculous. Why didn’t it go off during the Holocene Optimum, or the Eemian?

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Michael

0
0

…but Al Gore

Go ditto-heads!

Comment on Words of wisdom from Charles Lyell by TJA

0
0

That level of sophistry is beneath even you, FOMD.

Comment on Words of wisdom from Charles Lyell by TJA

0
0

Based on which model? Which model is the one that gets the physics right? Or are you basing it on all of the models thrown together because you don’t know which of them actually does get it right, and that way you can pretend you have an answer with confidence.

The simple answer is that you don’t know, and you are throwing figures around based on computer programs full of guesses and assumptions, with a little physics mixed in.

Your faith that what is being done with these GCMs is actual “science” is touching.

Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

“P-N’s schoolgirl physics notwithstanding – we have seen PdV repeated how many times by myself and others – the principles of action seem to be a type of free expansion in which no work is done and no energy lost.”

So, you are now denying that work is done and you are asserting again that no energy is lost? But just a moment ago you wrote: “since it takes energy for the parcel molecules to “push out” on the parcel walls, they use up some of their internal energy in the process.”

So, my suspicion was correct. You opted to make both the assertion that some energy is lost through pushing out on the boundary (and hence work is done) and the contrary assertion that no energy is lost and no work is done. But you can’t defend two claims that contradict each other. That’s irrational.

Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

In free expansion (= Joule expansion) there is no temperature change either. You seem not to have paused a second to consider this. As I pointed out repeatedly, if this were the sort of expansion involved in atmosphere overturning, there there would be no lapse rate at all.


Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

I don’t know what you are talking about – and I suspect neither do.

What I said was that – dW is assumed to be the work of expansion against a constant pressure – although it is clear that there are problems with the assumption.

There seems little contradiction. But more handwaving about schoolgirl physics and whines about my supposed contradictions is really uninteresting.

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘In free expansion (= Joule expansion) there is no temperature change either. You seem not to have paused a second to consider this. As I pointed out repeatedly, if this were the sort of expansion involved in atmosphere overturning, there there would be no lapse rate at all.’

I keep saying it is not true for a real gas. Several times. Unless you are actually going to take this on board and move on to something interesting? No? Oh well.

Comment on Words of wisdom from Charles Lyell by Tom Fuller

0
0

Didn’t we learn how to take off, fly and land those suckers before we did the math?

Comment on Words of wisdom from Charles Lyell by Rob Ellison

0
0

As I say to Joshua – if he responds to a comment I pay special attention for special people because they obviously need the attention. I am good that way.

There are names I miss routinely in general comments because they don’t tend to say very much. Yours are not amongst those because while vacuous they tend to be short enough to involuntarily scan. So I get a dose of ditto heads and other profundities. You’re welcome.

Comment on Open thread by  D C

0
0

What I have written in my book is totally different from what you assume I am talking about from your reading of perhaps a few words only in my comments here.

Anyway, I’m getting busy with my challenge to the Australian Government.

Excerpts from my submission to them are below ….

Real world temperature data proves beyond doubt that the most prevalent greenhouse gas, water vapor, causes mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures to be lower because its radiating properties work against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient in the troposphere. This lowers the gradient and thus lowers the supporting temperature by about 10 to 12 degrees, as is confirmed by empirical evidence. Further evidence from other planets reinforces what I say. Because of this it is blatantly obvious to all those who are not gullible and understand thermodynamics that the greenhouse conjecture is totally false and carbon dioxide, like water vapor, actually cools, but only very slightly, perhaps less than 0.1 degree.

Climate models disregard the gravitationally induced temperature gradient and assume it doesn’t exist, despite the science first presented by the brilliant 19th century physicist, Josef Loschmidt who was first to estimate the size of air molecules. The models also assume that the radiation from the cold atmosphere delivers nearly twice as much thermal energy to the surface as does the Sun. It doesn’t, and that’s why you don’t feel it at night. They also disregard the obvious fact that nearly all the Sun’s radiation passes down into the first 20 metres or so of the ocean, where it’s colder. There can be no heat transfer from such colder depths in the ocean thermocline back up to the thin surface layer in the non-polar regions, and so that energy only eventually warms the polar surfaces. So the calculations which use all the radiation from the Sun and the atmosphere, added together and used in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to “explain” the surface temperature are completely false. What does happen is explained in my book, and the mechanism therein can be used to calculate the temperature on Venus and even at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface even though the planet is 30 times further from the Sun. That temperature has nothing to do with direct radiation from the Sun.

All climate follows natural cycles which are very evident in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. In that plot (calculated from planetary orbits) we can predict slight cooling till 2028, then 30 years of warming (by about half a degree) and then 500 years of long-term cooling with superimposed 60 year cycles.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison

0
0

There is that new study of the PDO and the US Pacific north-west. These patterns of decadal variability of surface temperature repeats in Alaska, the US generally certainly and in the Arctic it seems. Decadal cooling seems a reasonable bet.

Comment on Open thread by  D C

0
0

 

So how and why does a temperature gradient evolve in a long thin perfectly insulated sealed cylinder of dry air when it is turned from a horizontal position to a vertical one in a gravitational field? Why is the effect appropriately magnified in a stronger artificial force field (eg Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube) this providing further evidence?

My book explains why the environmental temperature gradient is less in magnitude than the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, and I have mentioned the reason in previous comments which I can’t be bothered re-posting, even though they may have been deleted. You had your chance to read and learn from my research.

 


Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

I commented only on the derivation of the lapse rate – which is incorrect – and the gravitational potential which is really a buoyancy potential.

The gravito-thermal effect is based on molecules being accelerated downward by gravity and upward movement decelerated. It is such thin gruel. And you’re right – I didn’t read beyond that.

Doug is banned on blogs across the world. For good reason.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by TJA

0
0

I agree with you that his post is pretty lame.

Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

0
0

Rob Ellison: “What I said was that – dW is assumed to be the work of expansion against a constant pressure – although it is clear that there are problems with the assumption.”

There is no such assumption in the derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate. On the very contrary, pressure is explicitly assumed to be a function of elevation and hence dP = -rho*g*dz.
The work done when the air parcel rises by an infinitesimal distance dz *exactly* is W = PdV. If you wish, it can be written (“P1″+”P2″/2)*dV. But since the difference between “P1″ and “P2″ is an *infinitesimal*, this changes nothing at all to the derivation.

And of course, the fact that the expansion is preformed against a boundary that resists with an external pressure matching the internal pressure, the expansion isn’t free at all. When you are asserting that the expansion is free, you aren’t thereby challenging your own (stawman) claim about constant pressure. You are rather positing that no work is done at all. In fact you explicitly said that the energy change is zero. But in that case the temperature change *also* is zero (an obvious but inconvenient implication that you never denied or acknowledged). But you are claiming that (1) the expansion is free, *and* that energy is constant, *and* that is isn’t constant, *and* that temperature changes. You are certainly contradicting yourself a lot.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by tonyb

0
0

When I last contacted Florence Fetterer a couple of months ago she had hoped to get the new work on arctic ice up by the end of September but obviously she has been delayed a little

She mentioned that ‘the data set will be called “Gridded monthly sea ice extent and concentration, 1850 onwards.’

Judith kindly reference Part two of my paper on Arctic sea ice above. It was an edited version of the much longer version with many more references that tried to rival ‘War and Peace’ in its length. It is here;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/

Especially interesting in the longer version is the statement from Julienne Stroeve in her personal email to me (reproduced with permission) regarding the interesting definition of what constitutes ‘ sea ice.’

Bearing in mind the likely extent of ice melt in the 1920-1950 period, the melt in the 1816 to 1850 period, the likely melting in the 1730’s and the mid 1500’s (from references I researched at the Scott Polar institute in Cambridge),the extensive 400 year long melting during the Viking period and the discoveries of the Arctic townships of the Ipiatuk from the Bronze age it seems certain that the extensive arctic ice melt we can observe through the ages is by no means unusual.

50% anthropogenic? I’m not sure about that until someone puts previous melt periods into context with the modern one. Going back to 1850 won’t do that.

What is interesting from the 1920-1950 period is that the Antarctic ice A:LSO melted.

tonyb

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Paul Matthews

0
0

” There is a good summary of the meeting at envision nation. ”

The organisers of the meeting, Mark Brandon and Sheldon Bacon, do not agree that Nick Breeze’s post is a good summary. I think they say that he misrepresented what Gavin said in his talk.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images