Dontcha remember? It was a ‘slam dunk’.
==============

RiHoo8,

Life expectancy has increased due to two main factors. As I already mentioned infant mortality has declined significantly since 1900. The second factor is a multiple due to the reduction of heart disease, that is the number one killer. That is attributed to better medical care, diet, and lifestyle:

http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/review-diet-lifestyle-life-expectancy/

“The net force down transferred is mg. The mass of the gas in the box times gravity. Duh. But the molecular motions are still random and the molecules tend to disperse.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/weighgas.html.”

It’s interesting that you would link to this hyperphysics page, quote the conclusion, and ignore the derivation. The derivation is the exact same one that I did. And you also failed to note this result that I also had derived:

“The difference between the average force on the bottom and top of the container is just the weight, mg, of the molecule.”

In case you had failed to notice when I last mentioned it, the difference in average force on the bottom and top of the container (which you denied exists) just is the pressure difference multiplied by the surface area. This is from the very definition of pressure.

Was it Marcott who said of their data that the 20th century portion of their reconstruction was not “robust”?

IIRC it was one of the other authors, but speaking for the whole group. Don’t have time to chase down links, but you can start with Pielke Jr.

“Uthermal = N.f.(1/2).R.T

The total thermal energy is the same for the same temperature. Which implies that the average thermal energy per mole is less in the denser material.”

I agree with the equation (where ‘f’ is the number of degrees of freedom of the molecules — kinetic, rotational, and vibrational).

But what you say contradicts the equation. ‘N’ represents the number of moles. Hence if the second container has twice the pressure, same temperature, same volume, and hence twice the molar amount, then this equation states that it has twice the total thermal energy. Thermal energy is proportional to *both* temperature and molar amount. Pressure and volume are irrelevant (only for the case of ideal or weakly interacting gases, of course).

It is not a matter of COST. No matter how much you spend on current wind and solar installations, they are not capable of supplying a significant part of our energy needs. They are NOT capable of achieving the emission reductions that their proponents aim for.
So, what do you need a ‘right mix” or “balance” for, if your basic aim is impossible to acheive by these means ?

A lot of people don’t seem to realise that there were several proposed fingerprints to look for:
a. significant heat gained by the top layers of the sea outside of natural variation
b. stratospheric cooling.
c. troposheric warming.
d. dominant manmade CO2 precludes any significant pause in near surface temperature rise beyond the enso fluctuation.
e. The poles should both warm.
f. outgoing radiation reduces.

The Argo floats went in search of a and found only a heating plateau (after adjusting the initial cooling upwards), b stopped in 1995, c never happened at all, d also went the opposite to predictions, with e only one of the poles warmed and the other cooled and f, according to Lindzen, is demonstrably untrue.

By all objective metrics the hypothesis has been heavily disproven for some time. The reason the issue doesn’t go away is because most reseearchers are still being paid to find this dog that didn’t bark and if they report there is no problem to solve they are rapidly defunded.

Marcott et al. responded at realclimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Using 73 reconstructions with an average resolution of ~120 years with additional smoothing provides around a 200 year smoothed “shaft”. So if you want to compare instrumental to Marcott use one data point for the instrumental period and you get FIIK.

Steve Postrel — Someone needs to fight back how you (and others like you) manipulate everything under the sun to often create a toxic discussion environment (far more than needs to be) on our CE Blog.

Although I am very pro-nuclear, here’s what say, a natural gas lobbyist could construct using Keitho’s cost per kWh argument: When the Georgia Power nuclear units and other new units come on-line, they could (and probably will) construct cost per kWh numbers for nuclear similar to what Keitho referenced for renewables. How? Because new nuclear units get a production tax credit almost identical to the wind energy tax credit. In addition to the kWh based tax credit (the per unit measure that Keitho refers to), a natural gas lobbyist would probably through in a slew of other subsidies (construction cost cap guarantees, Price-Anderson, DOE R&D and loan guarantees, etc.).

Also, another problem in trying to offset your manipulation is getting data. Everyone in the oil industry knows that many smaller/medium oil wells are only pumping because of grand-fathered tax benefits (with no expiration dates) written as far back as the early 1900’s.

Your Keitho tactic is no different than that used by coal companies against the nuclear industry in the 70’s and 80’s — except rather than being a coal lobbyist, you are a political ideologue.

In trying to have any type of objective discussion, on these issues could I cite a PERFECT study? Absolutely not. I could cite a paper written by God, and you would demand a second opinion.

http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

I was just thinking, Arrhenius studied IR absorption by CO2. But did he study CO2 concentrations in the vicinity of 0.04$? I doubt it. I could be wrong.

Michael Mann’s “Nature trick” of using tree-ring proxies to “establish” past temperatures, and then using modern thermometer-bsed temperatures to “demonstrate” that modern temperatures are unprecedented, was an act of sensationalist showmanship of the P.T.Barnum variety, designed to prove the sucker–is-born-every-minute phenomenon.

Suppos that the mid-latitudes warm by 5 degrees C. Suppose that coral reefs begin growing off the oast of Georgia by the end of the century. Suppose pythons and anacondas, and alligators move into the Carolinas. So what? Corals used to grow at the latitude of England, crocodilians lived-in Canada. Real scientists don’t promote fear, they study things that they find interesting.

The notion that we must stop the climate from changing, in order to preclude people from migrating northward or to higher elevations as climates in these places become more comfortable to inhabit, is fringe lunacy, at best.

Most CE readers don’t want our lives dictated by authoritarian control freaks. The UN and IPCC, Al Gore, Michael Mann, and the like epitomize control freaks: people who derive pleasure from dictating, and disrupting other peoples lives.

You are saying that the cause of the force on the container — mg — is “augmented downward velocity”. But you also are denying that the molecules are hitting the bottom with an average velocity, or rate of collision, that are any different than the collisions with the top of the box. Hence you are denying the very cause that you are invoking.

“It bounces up again with the same velocity”

So? It still slows down on the way up and hence will not bounce as hard on the top, if at all! And this is true for all the molecules that hit the bottom.

The hyperphysics link I provided went through the weight calc.

So the molecules spend less time at the bottom – hitting faster and leaving faster – than at the top? Buoyancy of individual molecules is certainly irrelevant – gravity is minor and the mixing is dominated by a random walk. Molecules diffuse through the space – more or less evenly. It is a consequence of kinetic theory.

Merely repeating yourself again and again doesn’t change that. Any person actually trying to follow this has I assume given up long ago.

There are a coupe of germane points.

1. The distribution of molecules in a box distribute randomly across the space.

2. A compressed gas will heat up and then cool to ambient temperature.

3. An compressed gas and an uncompressed gas in thermodynamic equilibrium have the same temperature and the same total thermal energy.

4. Energy transfer occurs in collisions. In denser materials the number of collisions increase. The average kinetic energy is the total thermal energy divided by the number of molecules.

These people insist they understand science better than science deniers – and so the it all becomes endless point scoring on always quite dubious grounds. P-N is a attack gerbil with the same arrogance that anything he imagines is better that the nonsesne form science deniers. FOMBS employs far less than half understood jargon to pose as an science authority and prove that capitalism is evil. Bad faith – the essence of unethical communication is my point.

To summarize the contrarian postion on the eventual outcome of radiative forcing , if you don’t know the science, impersonate a member of the bar. If you don’t have the evidence, impersonate a statistician, and if you don’t like the verdict of the jury , try yo sound like a judge.

I agree with the equation (where ‘f’ is the number of degrees of freedom of the molecules — kinetic, rotational, and vibrational).

Gee whiz – I am happy for you.

But what you say contradicts the equation. ‘N’ represents the number of moles. Hence if the second container has twice the pressure, same temperature, same volume, and hence twice the molar amount, then this equation states that it has twice the total thermal energy. Thermal energy is proportional to *both* temperature and molar amount. Pressure and volume are irrelevant (only for the case of ideal or weakly interacting gases, of course).

No – the gas cools down to a local thermodynamic equilibrium. Or if you like – we assume that compression occurs over a long time period. So it has the same total thermal energy as the less dense gas – but the average kinetic energy per molecule is lower. Necessarily.

You twist the truth Segrest. Nuclear only gets 8 years of the production tax credit. Wind get it FOREVER!

But the biggest difference is that nuclear is worth it and wind isn’t.

jacobress – my basic aim is to supply energy needs in an economic, reliable and socially responsible manner. To achieve that goal you need a mix of resources. Such a system would include among other things, base load power, peaking power and the ability to make economic exchanges between area. A mix of resources is a hedge as putting all your eggs in one basket scan subject you to excessive risks.

If you live in Iceland – geothermal fits well into that mix. Thermal resources would not be appropriate in other regions. Similarly, I think even extreme critics have to agree, at least some of the wind in Texas makes sense and some solar in Arizona makes sense.

Deciding specific resources for the entire nation, without considering local capabilities and needs, is a dangerous thing to do. Each area will have it’s own proper balance.

Ron Ellison: “Kinetic theory says that energy is transferred in collisions”

Makes sense.

” – where there are more molecules in a volume the collisions increase in number.”

True, though kinetic theory also applies to ideal gases where there are zero collisions.

“In thermodynamic equilibrium – the energy of these collisions is lower.”

You may also want to read the last two sentences of this post.

The energy isn’t “in” the collisions. It is in the degrees of freedom (translational KE, rotational E, vibrational E). The collisions merely enable molecules to transfer energy to one another and in between degrees of freedom, constrained by conservation laws (momentum, angular momentum). Those transfers don’t create or destroy energy. (They do create temporary bound states that can store some energy. But this is neglected for the case of weakly interacting gases.)

When you put two moles of a gas in a container rather than one, at the same temperature, you double the number of molecules and hence the number of degrees of freedom available to store energy. If the temperature is the same then you have the same average energy per degree of freedom, for twice as many degrees of freedom. Hence you have twice as much thermal energy. You may or may not have twice as many collisions, but that’s irrelevant. The collisions merely transfer energy in between the degrees of freedom that are the true energy “containers”. The collisions don’t contain it — except very transiently in ephemeral bound states.

And even in cases where the collisions store a relatively high proportion of the total thermal energy — as is the case in strongly interacting, or very dense, gases — then that means that the volumetric thermal energy density is even larger. That’s because bound states also have degrees of freedom and each one of those contains (while it exists), on average, E = (1/2)kT. That’s exactly contrary to your claim about densely colliding gases having low volumetric thermal energy density.

Have you ever wondered why denser gases have a higher volumetric heat capacity; or why VHC = (specific_heat * density)? That’s because they store more thermal energy in the same volume at the same temperature. Isn’t that more intuitive an logical than the reverse claim?

This is one of the things Segrest whines about: The depletion allowance. It’s simply an acknowledgement of the fact that capital equipment depreciates in value over time and minerals and timber are harvested over time. He just doesn’t seem to get it.

Depletion Allowance
A tax deduction authorized by federal law for the exhaustion of oil and gas wells, mines, timber, mineral deposits or reserves, and other natural deposits.

Frequently, the ownership of such resources is split so that the depletion deduction is allotted among the various owners. Rights to royalty payments, leases, and subleases are not the same as ownership but the holders of such rights may be entitled to depletion deductions under the theory of “economic interest” formulated by the courts to ascertain the right to depletion allowances. Such economic interest, which signifies an investment interest in the minerals that furnish the sole resource for recouping the investment, is usually determined by the parties according to the provisions of their contract.

The cost method and the percentage, or statutory, method represent the two ways of calculating the Depletion Allowance.

Cost depletion, like depreciation, bases the allowance on the original cost of the income-generating property. For example, a taxpayer who purchases rights to extricate oil for $2 million should be permitted to regain the capital tax-free when he or she extracts and markets the oil. The earnings from the depletable property should be viewed as encompassing a return of the taxpayer’s capital investment. A proportionate segment of such receipts each year should be exempt from taxation as income. When oil is viewed as a “wasting asset,” cost depletion permits yearly deductions for the receipt of $2 million tax-free over the duration of the pumping operations. The tax law permits the taxpayer to divide the cost of the investment by the estimated total of recoverable units in the natural deposit. This cost per unit is subsequently multiplied by the number of units sold annually, which results in the depletion deduction permitted for that year.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Depletion+Allowance

I saved a copy of key statements and my comments as I read the post

Of course, there is no way to conduct meaningful experiments on analogous climates, so one of the best tools is not of any use to us.

We can compare the temperature and Albedo in a Medieval Warm period to the temperature and Albedo in a Little Ice Age and we will have a valid experiment that we can compare to modern time.

When we look at two curves and they both seem to show an excursion that matches in onset, duration and amplitude, we consider that to be evidence of correlation.

We can compare the Roman and Medieval Warm periods to the Modern Warm period. The modern Warm Period is progressing much the same. We need little to explain why they are the same. The only thing different is CO2 and it has not changed the progress of the Warm Cycle to be different from what happened before.

A hockey stick shape in a data set provides a perfect opportunity, since the blade of the stick represents a significant excursion from the shaft of the stick, while the shaft represents the stable system that we need to start with.

The hockey stick was tossed out by the IPCC because it was fraudulent.

Here we want to evaluate the evidence that the excursion of interest is truly beyond the bounds of the stability region for the system.

Temperature is well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years. I read a little more and realized the author came to the same conclusion. Nothing is really different and CO2 caused the difference so CO2 has no measurable influence on temperature.

That way we can be specific about what input data we need.

They tell us the ice in the Glaciers and Ice Sheets is melting and the ice is retreating. Why don’t we use that.

Has the modern warming created a signature that is so unique that it can only be associated with a single root cause?

It can be associated with Albedo.

The skeptic arguments seem to all reside under a claim that the signature is not unique, not that it is unique to something other than GHG warming.

The skeptic arguments are not all in agreement with this. We do not have consensus. Some of us believe that the signature is albedo and the lost energy was reflected. Other skeptics have other theory. I will let them speak for themselves. Don’t lump skeptics under any one claim.

decrease in outward radiation would be due to a decreased albedo, where albedo represents reflection across the entire electromagnetic spectrum

You are on to something useful here.

Instead, there is hypothesized to be a complex function involving capacitance that explains the primary discrepancy, the recent hiatus.

Recent Albedo has been flat. Wait for the Earthshine report. It will show good correlation between Albedo and Temperature. That explains the hiatus.

With so much effort put into modelling CO2 warming while other fault tree boxes are nearly devoid of evidence, it is not even clear that the available tools are being applied efficiently.

It is very clear that too much effort has been put into understanding what influence CO2 has and no effort has been put into looking for other reasons for Natural Variability. This is true on the consensus side and on the skeptic side. Our own Climate Study Group has put most of our effort into sensitivity of temperature to CO2 and no coordinated effort into anything else. This was over my objections.

why would climate scientists not seek the added credibility that could be gained from an independent and established attribution effort?

because it would find no credibility. if your models always provide output that does not agree with real data, you have no credibility.

I have now read it all. This was an excellent post, in my opinion.

“Merely repeating yourself again and again doesn’t change that. Any person actually trying to follow this has I assume given up long ago.”

That would be my guess also.

1. A fault tree might be a useful way to display the complexity of the alternative hypotheses that are in play.

2. An issue tree would be better because it would also display the debate that building the fault tree would create. It is in that debate that the uncertainties emerge. Fault trees do not display uncertainties. Note how much of his discussion is devoted to uncertainties.

3. He seems to say in part 2, step 1, that a fault tree approach cannot resolve this particular attribution issue. I agree. The uncertainties are far too great. In fact what he refers to as the modern warming is actually a modeling result, not an observation. What he says about the weakness of using modeling applies from the very beginning.