Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by cwon14
hunter, don’t waste your time. You’re talking someone with a “Che” teeshirt in his closet most likely. Reads “Rules for Radicals” as if it were a lost gospel. So when the MSM pushes the political...
View ArticleComment on Going viral by hunter
aa, You know what it proves: That AGW is a pile conflicting oxymoronic crap. You just hope it will all go away and leave you to the comfort of your faith. Too bad.
View ArticleComment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by Jim Owen
tt – You consider that a serious threat? Really? Let’s not get any more obtuse than we have to, eh? Or don’t you realize that Hansen had nothing to do with Climategate? Keep’em coming – I’m having fun...
View ArticleComment on Going viral by Jim Owen
I read it long ago – and heartily concur that it’s a great source and a good read.
View ArticleComment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by Jack Hughes
Peter – you are your own worst enemy
View ArticleComment on Carbon cycle questions by Pekka Pirilä
I would also prefer simple and straightforward evidence, but I have told, why I believe that having it at a level that can be presented in net discussion is not possible. We can tell our arguments to a...
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by David Wojick
Tom: Vaughn has posted a detailed scientific argument for discussion. Saying it should not be posted and that he does not understand basic physics just makes you look stupid, as neither is a counter...
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by curryja
Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. The argument is made technically from the spectral infrared...
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by curryja
Thanks David. Vaughan has written an essay that is useful in focusing the greenhouse dragon discussion.
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Pointman
“While I seriously doubt whether climate skeptics will thank me for pointing it out, I don’t believe their arguments impress the swing voters in the climate debate as convincingly as they might”. The...
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Chris Ho-Stuart
Al, I am pretty sure I know what you mean by “CO2 wavelengths”… CO2 absorbs some wavelengths very strongly, and others not very much at all; so I presume you mean those wavelengths which CO2 absorbs....
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by hunter
Dr. Curry, Most skeptics I am aware of do not agree with the Greenhouse Dragon. Using the Dragon as a proxy for ‘what skeptics believe’ is a bit of a straw man. Spencer, Lindzen, Pielke, Sr. and Salby...
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Pekka Pirilä
Judith, You should thank David here. I wrote a comment in the previous “dragon thread”. http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/10/greenhouse-dragon-technical-discussion-thread/#comment-97627 That presents in...
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Kermit
Tens of centimeters not meters. Ten of meters was debunked on another thread a few weeks ago.
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by live free or die
It is hard to tell whether this article is making a point worth contemplating or not. It seems to me the gist is that the net longwave flux is upward. That is, the upweard is bigger than the downward....
View ArticleComment on Two (+1) new uncertainty papers by WebHubTelescope
What you are describing is the maximum entropy principle. Assume the minimal information known about the process, such as a mean, and then use the probability distributions that arise from maximum...
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by David L. Hagen
Vaughan Pratt What evidence do you have for your statement: “Preindustrially this flux was in balance and CO2 was not under any great pressure to change rapidly in a single century” The ice core CO2...
View ArticleComment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Bad Andrew
“I don’t believe their arguments impress the swing voters in the climate debate as convincingly as they might.” More speculation in climate science that is really just politics. Just what we need....
View ArticleComment on Two (+1) new uncertainty papers by Jim Cripwell
Your calculations are impeccable. However, the 3.7 wm-2 we are talking about do not disappear from the earth’s surface. It is radiated out into space from somewhere else in the atmosphere. Your...
View ArticleComment on Two (+1) new uncertainty papers by Larry Goldberg
I am not going to enter into a disucssion on this. You can go straight to Wikipedia and argue with these sources: Rahmstorf, Stefan (2008). “Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts”. In...
View Article