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

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Michael Larkin

0
0

Isn’t it being taken for granted that the model of how the sun works is correct? What if it the sun works quite differently? What are sunspots? How might they influence the climate on earth?

I’m not necessarily saying Electric Universe theory is correct, but if it is, the sun is primarily a plasma phenomenon and isn’t mainly powered by fusion processes; it’s a whole different ballgame and electrical/magnetic phenomena may have far greater influence than is currently being considered.

Certainly, EU theorists are highly sceptical about the importance of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, viewing their influence as tiny in relation to solar effects.

However, I suppose some AGW sceptics may hold EU theorists in the same sort of contempt that they themselves are held by many warmists (despite the fact that there are many credible people who are/have been been involved in EU; at least one with a Nobel prize).

Some aspects of the framework within which scientifically controversial issues is discussed may be accepted on all sides, but what if a number of those aspects are misconceived? I applaud what’s going on at Climate Dialogue, but just because one has experts discussing something from different sides of a controversy, that doesn’t mean that everything that might be relevant is actually being discussed. It could be analogous to two groups arguing over whether the earth is round or square without paying attention to evidence that it might be spherical.


Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by rls

0
0

Milivoje: Please, as simplistic as possible, what is the physical relationship of the magnetic fields to earth climate/weather? Thank you
Richard

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by David Wojick

0
0

NASA tried to get a sun-climate research program off the ground a few years ago but failed. The USGCRP has a big carbon cycle program but no solar cycle program. A perfect example of funding induced biases in research or fibs.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by kim

0
0

The eyes in the skies say it ain’t so, aye?
===========================

Comment on Week in review by David Wojick

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by rhhardin

0
0
The Sun's been throwing off an astounding number of <a href="http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/today.html" rel="nofollow">X-class flares</a> (link will outdate itself) in the last few days, which makes shortwave bands dead, whatever else it does.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Lucifer

0
0

Magnetic fields modulate the amount of ionizing particle radiation in the lower troposphere.
Ionizing particle radiation provides cloud condensation nuclei, first observed in cloud chambers:

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by kim

0
0

We built a cloud chamber in 8th Grade Science class. Probably warped me forever.
=============


Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

0
0

captdallas wrote: “Which is wrong.”

What is wrong? That the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the two cylinders is (3/2)kT in both of them when they are at the same temperature? Rob is saying that KEavg is not the same in both cylinders, though he is defining KEavg (per molecule) as U_thermal/N, where N is the
number of molecules and U the total thermal energy of the gas.

“If you take a single volume of air and compress it, it will warm due to heat of compression. You cool that volume to the same initial temperature and the energy per molecule has to decrease. Rob pretty clearly said that the more compressed cylinder had to cool to its external environment to be at the same temperature as the first. That is how you can get two cylinders at different pressures and the same temperature to begin with.”

This explains how the molecules in the compressed cylinder lose kinetic energy after it has cooled back from a higher temperature (whatever the cause of the higher temperature). It gives no support to the idea that the two different cylinders with two different pressures, at the same temperature, have different average kinetic energy per molecule; let alone that they have the same amount of total internal energy irrespective of molar quantity.

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

0
0

steven wrote: “If the temperature of the gas is the same in both containers then the kinetic energy per molecule is the same. [...]”

Thanks steven. Agreed with everything you wrote. That is also my understanding.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by tonyb

0
0

Fan

I would like you to take one step back , pause, then objectively tell me when accurate (i.e scientifically valid) GLOBAL land temperatures really date from.

Then take a few minutes off with a cup of coffee and answer the same question with regards to GLOBAL ocean temperatures. The key words here are ‘objectively.’

tonyb

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by vukcevic

0
0

rls, thanks for your interest.
As it happens with the CO2 or the sunspot numbers all these matters are subject of conjecture; but we can’t switch on or off one or the other to prove or disprove the point.
Hence we have to go by existence of a weaker or stronger correlation, absence of a correlation means the forcing is unlikely, but even strongest correlation is not necessarily the proof, since it could be common cause rather than direct forcing. Definition of a viable physical mechanism is a further major obstacle.
Dr. Curry had (some time ago) a preview of the details based on my ideas as presented in this graph

but the rest of the readers may have opportunity to read more, if a paper currently being prepared is published in the forthcoming months.
The current science is not entirely certain on the extent of the sun -climate link, even less on the sun-earth magnetism.
In this article recently published

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375/document

( data1 link has changed to: http://sbc.oma.be/data1.html )
the sun-earth magnetic field link is posited and numerically evaluated for the first time.

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

0
0

captdallas wrote: “Then why not call it the Gravito-Energy effect if y’all have problems understanding temperature? A molecule going up against the force of gravity will transfer less energy to a upper fixed surface than a molecule going down with the force of gravity will to a lower fixed surface.”

If one considers a piece of isothermal air column enclosed in a box, then the molecules will have the same average kinetic energy at the top as they have at the bottom. Because of the barometric density gradient, the air lower in the column with have a higher volumetric heat capacity and it is only this that accounts for a higher rate of heat transfer, if there is any. There will be no heat transfer at all if the container has the same temperature as the air. In that case is irrelevant the rate of collisions is higher at the bottom than it is at the top. The air will not warm the bottom at a higher temperature just because the rate of collisions is higher, though the average kinetic energy of the molecules is the same. But Rob would dispute this, hence his insistence that the average kinetic energy of the denser air ought to be lower. I don’t think he has realized that this commits him to say that the molecules must therefore be slowing down as they fall within the gravity field of the Earth.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

TonyB seeks “[objectively accurate data]“

• Boreholes robustly and objectively affirm the global land-temperature “hockey-stick blade” is lengthening (without pause or evident limit).

• Sea-levels robustly and objectively affirm the global sea-temperature/ice-melt “hockey-stick blade” is lengthening (without pause or evident limit).

• In contrast, the objective global-scale evidence for earlier “hockey-stick blades” is flimsy-to-nonexistent.

Conclusion

It is a pleasure to answer your scientific questions reasonably, respectfully, and responsibly, TonyB!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by John

0
0

What in the heck might that be?

Good question. Two causal factors come to mind. They’re both very simplistic examples.

When salinity spikes in the arctic during the winter, the ocean falls away from the ice cap resulting in increased fracturing which exposes the polar ice to increased transport. Deformation of the Arctic sea floor could be another example but I haven’t run across any related research (Seiche under the ice aka surfs up for seals).

The second example is actually so obvious I’m surprised it isn’t part of standard dialogue regarding solar impact on Arctic ice.

Some very large rivers enter the Arctic from Russia and Canada. In Spring, the ice melts forming ice dams. A build up of warmer water swells behind the ice dams. When these natural dams finally break, massive force and temperature difference is dumped into the Arctic ocean resulting in ice loss. Simplistic example of gravity and solar at work.

Its also interesting to note the increase in Lena River flow during warm months and the decrease during winter months. The decrease is partially due to the increased need for power generation during the winter.

See:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/03/warm-rivers-and-arctic-sea-ice-loss.html


Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by aaron

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Curious George

0
0

Thank you for the link. I notice that the total energy flux in this X-ray band is 0.0001 W/m2. It would need a major amplification to influence much else.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by climatereason

0
0

Fan

As I said to you last week I have recently been in contact several times with Huang who created the borehole record and must point out again that it shows temperature rising for at least 300 years. Huang himself does not claim any degree of accuracy much earlier than this.

I asked you this question;

“Then take a few minutes off with a cup of coffee and answer the same question with regards to GLOBAL ocean temperatures. The key words here are ‘objectively.’

I will rephrase it.

Bearing in mind that much of the land surface hadn’t even been explored in 1880 how do you think we could have any sort of globally accurate picture of the ocean temperatures to that date?

tonyb

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

P-N, “What is wrong? That the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the two cylinders is (3/2)kT in both of them when they are at the same temperature.”

It is wrong because you are not solving the same problem Rob posed. Temperature is a measure of the average energy of collisions. You can have lots of collisions with lower energy or fewer with more energy. So you are looking at the average energy per container not the average energy per molecule. The 2g container has twice the molecules at half the energy per molecule. Sometimes it is better to start simple, restate the actual problem and use the simplest approach before jumping into quantum physics.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

TonyB, aren’t you and James Hansen asserting the same climate-change world-view?

• There’s overwhelming evidence of a global-scale 20th-21st century “hockey-stick blade” of temperature increase.

• There is no robust evidence of any comparable global-scale “hockey-stick blade” in any previous centuries.

Indeed, the preponderance of global-scale evidence suggests a relatively flat hockey-stick handle for the last thousand years.

`Cuz “local-scale fluctuations” — as commonly inferred from local historical records — just plain *DON’T* imply “global-scale hockey-stick blades” in previous centuries.

It is a pleasure to assist your global-scale climate-change understanding, TonyB!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images