Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Stephen Schneider

”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart

”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth

The distinction between deliberate falsehood and extraordinary delusion is of no practical import.


Comment on Week in review by Tom Fuller

$
0
0

Matthew Marler, the Economist’s shining hour was their spirited defense of Bjorn Lomborg. Is that what you’re referring to?

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

Rob Ellison: “Nothing from Pekka’s treatment is relevant to gas in a box. We have been through that before.”

Pekka’s treatment applies without modification to the gas in a box since all the same assumptions apply: (1) Maxwell distribution of speeds, (2) stationary density profile, (3) isothermal profile, (4) uniform vertical gravitational field. The finite size of the box makes no difference since collisions on the walls have no effect on the distribution of speeds.

Rob Ellison: “We have particles moving at an average speed of 466m/s at 273K. The gravitational acceleration down – an infinitesimal increase in downward velocity has nothing to do with density.”

Since my references count for nothing, what about the Fronsdal paper that you are so fond of? He also considers a *finite* volume of ideal gas (his ‘box’ is a cylinder of height h) under gravity and derives the same density gradient as everyone else. His equation 3.3 just is the barometric density formula!

“We suppose that the gas is confined to the section z0 < z < z0 + h of a vertical cylinder with base area A and expect the density to fall off at higher altitudes. A plausible action density, for a perfect gas at constant temperature T in a constant gravitational field [...] We may consider this an isolated system with fixed mass and fixed extension. [...]”

“The effect of gravity was included by adding the gravitational potential energy to the Hamiltonian; which is standard practice. The result of that modification is that, in the presence of the gravitational field, there are no
longer any stationary solutions with uniform temperature. Instead, both density and temperature decrease with elevation.” (my emphasis)

Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

$
0
0

What do the practitioners of weather cryptesthesia have to say about UK’s upcoming 2014/15 winter — no big deal or what the Sunday Express believes: “BRITAIN is edging closer to an ARCTIC FREEZE with blizzards, record low temperatures and polar gales set to cripple the country in weeks.” A forecasting tool that is being considered is the OPI (October Pattern Index) that apparently is at -2.86.

The OPI was devised by Italian scientists Riccardo Valente and Professor Judah Cohen with this year’s readings dangerously similar to those taken during the catastrophic winter of 2009/10 – the coldest in 31 years.

Comment on Week in review by Eric

$
0
0

I know record warm temps do nothing to make you question your belief in a cooling globe, Rob Ellison. No scepticism, just idiocy.

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Do you have anything new to say – or simply reframe all the old silly arguments.

Pekka’s considers an atmosphere in which molecules are free to move up. That is the point of it.

Similarly the case of Fronsdal – who examines the symplectic manifold of the Hamiltonian in an atmosphere under gravity. Interesting paper – one of thousands I have read.

What you fail to consider is dispersion of highly energetic molecules moving randomly in a box. They are equally as likely to move up as down – they move from areas of relative – and transient – high density to low. Extrapolating from a density difference in the atmosphere to one in a box with merely extreme and tediously obsessive and silly verbiage is laughable.

Comment on Week in review by Eric

$
0
0

Could be rls. Seems the response most of the time is “uncertainty” and/or “the pause”. Would be nice to see updated thoughts based on recent data though.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

$
0
0

Only a matter of time before the first alarmist fear-mongering from a “skeptic” about Ebola.

I considered kim, Cwon, Wags, Cap’n, GaryM, stan, Jeffn, and pokerguy as likely candidates, but the smart money was certainly on jim2, and he didn’t disappoint.


Comment on Week in review by jim2

$
0
0

What do you believe the fear of ebola sells? Sometimes fear is entirely appropriate – it is an emotion we have and it’s there for a good reason.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

$
0
0

Ahhh, the “smart money” … I see.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

$
0
0

Danny –

If it helps to understand…

===

jim2 | July 4, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
I really hate public transportation. It’s like being in a germ incubator.

jim2 | July 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
But at a grocery store, there isn’t someone 3 feet behind me sneezing or coughing in my direction. That’s my take on it. You are welcomed to it.

jim2 | July 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
I personally don’t like crowds. I don’t like going to the theater, although I have done that, just not recently. I do go to restaurants, but usually ones that allow a decent distance from other diners….And I’m not going to be you-know-what to elbow with a bunch of people in the middle of February during flu season. Probably the next big thing to bring down excess population.

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full

‘Moist enthalpy hereafter referred to as equivalent temperature (TE), expresses the atmospheric heat
content by combining into a single variable air temperature (T) and atmospheric moisture. As a result, TE, rather than T alone, is an alternative metric for assessing atmospheric warming, which depicts heat
content. Over the mid-latitudes, TE and T generally present similar magnitudes during winter and early
spring, in contrast with large differences observed during the growing season in conjunction with
increases in summer humidity. TE has generally increased during the recent decades, especially during
summer months. Large trend differences between T and TE occur at the surface and lower troposphere,
decrease with altitude and then fade in the upper troposphere. TE is linked to the large scale climate
variability and helps better understand the general circulation of the atmosphere and the differences
between surface and upper air thermal discrepancies. Moreover, when compared to T alone, TE is larger
in areas with higher physical evaporation and transpiration rates and is more correlated to biomass
seasonal variability.’ http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nt-77.pdf

Which bit of science are you rejecting? Vigourous multi-decadal variability or moist enthalpy?

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

“Frankly I stopped reading after the quote above. There is seemingly an obsession with *proving* the barometric formula. Really not necessary, relevant or all that interesting.”

It most definitely is relevant to your claim that the density in the box is uniform. This is what the whole discussion has been about. You wish to deny that there is a density drop-off with height that can compensate for the effect of gravitational acceleration on the speed distributions. This is the essence of your second main objection. The only other relevant claim of yours is that a uniform temperature is inconsistent with there being a density gradient when the average kinetic energy doesn’t vary with height. This is exemplified by your discussion of the two cylinders; which you recently dismissed as being irrelevant too. You now have come to say of both of your own main arguments that they are irrelevant. They aren’t irrelevant. They are hopelessly flawed.

Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by R. Gates

$
0
0

Doc,

Suggesting that a “redesign” of their algorithm is a reason for 2014 being so warm is just plain silly. Globally 2014 is just barely behind 2010 as the warmest year, and this is without an El Nino. With a weak solar cycle and no El Nino, faux-skeptics have very little actual dynamical explanation for why 2014 will be near the top of the list in warmest years on record, other than relying on “natural variability”. Fortunately, basic GH physics and the continual energy gain the system has seen during the “hiatus” offers the rest of us a very good understanding of how 2014 could be so warm– without resorting to “natural variability” as the escape-clause answer. The planet is warming, and to very high degree of probability, it is humans that are doing it.

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

It is a confusion of energy terms for the barometric formula. It is in any inconsequential.

The finite volume is open on both ends – that is the nature of the formulation. Molecules move between levels. In general in the atmosphere and the box there is random motion. This is a difference – not one I can be bothered any longer to discuss.

The absurdity of going over this again and again with extreme verbiage only and a misapplication of papers barely understood seems pretty obvious to me.

I have long since ceased to take this with anything but disdain. What is the point? Other than someone with a less than distinguished understanding of basic physics to self importantly pontificate how physics rules.


Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by bob droege

$
0
0

But if you qualify it with the uncertainty has to be less than the trend, why the pause disappears.

Kinda helps if you can tell the difference between warming, cooling and pausing.

Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Rud Istvan

$
0
0

Jim2, be careful not to extrapolate immediate supply/demand price swings into the longer term–especially when the underlying commodity is quite price inelastic. Volatility around any trend is then inherent.

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0
Rob Ellison: "The finite volume is open on both ends" OK. So when Frønsdal writes that "the gas is <b>confined</i> to the <b>section</b> z0 < z < z0 + h of a vertical cylinder" he really means to say that the cylinder is "open" on both ends. That's a strange way for him to express himself.

Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by R. Gates

$
0
0

An odd sort of way for a “hiatus” to continue:

Sure to be warmest non-El Nino year on record. Wow, what if an El Nino actually developed?

Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Rob Ellison

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images