CO2 is a trace gas. Man-made CO2 is a fraction of the trace.
There is no way one molecule in ten thousand regulates Earth Temperature. That is way outside of reasonable.
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by popesclimatetheory
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
“The hyperphysics link I provided went through the weight calc.”
Yes, they did the exact same calculation that I did earlier and that you ignored. And they explicitly concluded, just as I did, that the average force (= momentum transfered / dt) is larger on the bottom that it is on the top by exactly m*g. This precisely what I had claimed and that you denied, and it entails the same vertical pressure gradient inside or outside of a box, according to the barometric formula. And it is a result from kinetic theory under gravity.
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by popesclimatetheory
Model data trumps no data.
NO!
incorrect model output is much worse than no data.
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison: “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.”
1. False under gravity, as your hyperphysics link demonstrates clearly. If pressure is higher on the bottom under isothermal conditions, then so is the density.
2. True.
3. False.
4. True. True. True (though only for ideal or mono-atomic gases).
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by popesclimatetheory
The assumption that some regular cycle exists in the climate where the past can be easily extrapolated into the future is not supported by the data.
It certainly is supported by the data. The data has gone from warm to cold to warm to cold in the same bounds for ten thousand years. That is as good as it gets.
↧
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by Bob Ludwick
@ Scottish Sceptic
“”Or as they say in computing: garbage in is garbage out.”
Or as they say in Climate Science: garbage in is gold out.
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Joshua
tim –
==> “However it is almost equally idi*tic to claim the invasion of Iraq was primarily for oil. ”
You see, this is one of the reasons I love me some Climate Etc. I didn’t make a statement consistent with what you just described. In fact, I repeatedly said something basically similar to your other statement:
==> “I’d say it is idiotic to say that ensuring the flow of middle east oil has nothing to do with our foreign policy in the region. ”
But yet, despite being a self-described “skeptic,” you mischaracterized what I said to confirm a bias on your part about what I do or don’t say.
It is folks like Steve Postrel who speak in such categorical and overly confident terms, in ways that ignore uncertainty.
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
“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.”
I know this is what you claim, but it contradicts your formula. It is contrary to physical law.
Think of it this way. Since it’s the same gas (nitrogen — N2, say), it has the same specific heat. Volumetric heat capacity is specific heat multiplied by density. If the two containers have the same volume and temperature T1, but the second one has twice the pressure (and hence twice the density), then you need twice the energy to heat up the second container as you need to heat up the first container to the same final temperature T2. (Using a coiled resistor, say.) If you thus are spending twice the amount of energy (to power the resistor), you are likewise increasing it’s internal energy by twice the amount, thus contradicting your claim that it has the same internal energy at the same temperature T2.
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Joshua
BTW, tim – nice to see you join me in risibility.
↧
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by kim
Modern alchemists turning lede into gold.
==============
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
This is another bit that you missed in your hyperphysics link.
“Taking an average force like this allows you to determine average forces and average pressures on the walls of a container of gas.”
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by John28
“Conclusion The strongest climate-science is not now”
Had me going there for just a split second.
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by popesclimatetheory
@R Gates your data is not real data that is more hockey stick
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/23/root-cause-analysis-of-the-modern-warming/#comment-640713
Real data for the last ten thousand years goes from warm to cold to warm to cold and does not have the hockey stick on the end.
↧
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by Wagathon
Root cause: advocates of more government control over every aspect of our lives by any means –e.g.,
No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control… The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science. ~Will Happer
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by jim2
Dr. Curry. You mentioned that people dismiss externality studies. Perhaps you could post, or have someone post, the external costs of natural gas to start with.
I’m very skeptical of the external costs. I do see that when particulates are released, it is reasonable that those could cause negative health consequences. Most of the particulate sources have been cleaned up, with some remaining particulate emissions. We can’t expect a risk-free life and at some point it no longer makes sense to try to make further cuts. I’m not seeing how natural gas has significant external costs of any kind. If all the external costs are postulated to be due to CO2 emissions, then those are just as uncertain as sensitivity estimates.
Also, I don’t see a huge effort to quantify the benefits of coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. That part has to be done in order to get a handle on how significant external costs are.
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by Willard
> Model output offers one explanation.
I thought the explanation was in the model, John
What are you modeling, if you don’t have an explanation to start with?
Oh, and nice post, MattS. The best post so far on Judy’s.
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by popesclimatetheory
Earth does not have A Stable Temperature.
Earth does have A Stable Temperature Cycle that is about 1000 years long.
Earth does have A Stable Temperature Cycle that is about 60 years long.
These are easy to pick out. There are others.
Temperature excursions inside the bounds of these cycles can be chaotic. There have been no excursions outside of the bounds of the past ten thousand years.
↧
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by Bob Ludwick
@ Matt Skaggs
First: thank you. Nice post.
” I have grave doubts that we have survived Step 1 in this process, ……..”
Exactly!
What we are faced with, using your automobile analogy, is that while driving peacefully down the street, car purring like a kitten, you are flagged down by a group of self-identified ‘Automotive Experts’, and told: “We have determined that there are serious problems with your car. Please get out. We will take your car to our shop to be repaired. We anticipate that this will take quite some time, so you will be billed periodically as repairs progress. Please ensure that your payments are submitted promptly so that the unpleasantness of having you arrested and your assets confiscated can be avoided. Have a nice day!”
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Stephen Segrest
Jim2’s comment on Wind — I wonder if there is even one person at CE that will comment on Jim2 statement that the wind production tax credit is for forever. Probably not.
↧
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by popesclimatetheory
Fundamentally, no one knows if we have had a planetary temperature excursion as we don’t know what internal variability is. This comes down to not knowing something we need to know.
We have data for the past ten thousand years that has cycled in the same bounds. That is a record of the natural internal variability. We now to have more people working to understand what caused it. That is what I do.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
