My guess is they went *south* — according to a friend in Princeton, NJ, the Canada Honker population around Carnegie Lake suddenly doubled back in mid-September.

Thank you in advance

I agree. Now, if only we could get the IPCC to agree.

If you want to place your faith in the Iranian media, that’s fine.

Let me ‘splain it to you: It is called adherence to the truth.

And, IMHO, Anthony mostly covers weather, climate, and science stuff in a largely non-political way. I see no “color nailing” here in the postings. That the government screws up a lot is not a political statement. (And deserves to be advertized by any political side). That some of what it does is vitally important is also clear. What temperature record quality would we have to criticize were the Government not providing one?

Oh, and I hope you have a nice time getting your food, fuel, housing, clothing, and medical care without all those nasty businesses getting in the way. (Wonder where he gets his antibiotics and washing soap?…) Business is not evil. Business is not “right wing” (see Russia and COMMUNIST China as examples). Most of the world, including, now, the USA, run on a type of government / business relationship called ‘Lang Type Socialism’. See that last word? Socialism. Hardly a right wing concept and up to it’s eyeballs in ‘business’. So methinks your biases and bigotries are showing…

Oh, and per lower taxes as a right wing agenda item: you will need to take that up with the iconic Radical Right Winger who proposed them, got them passed, and improved the economy greatly in the process. I lived through his time and it worked very well. His name was John Kennedy.

The AGW crowd seems to think that the messenger is the message and loves to attack the messenger. The AGW crowd loves to stereotype, then attack the messaged based on such profiling. (See your post for an example of such “profiling” via stereotype …)

What the sceptic tends to do is search for truth, no matter who carries it and no matter what they may think on some other topic. (For example, Einstein believed in an” invisible man in the sky who liked to count hairs on people’s heads, but did not like playing dice”… Yet his science is stellar. So we hold his science up as an example of greatness, despite is other beliefs. Ditto Newton. Even Darwin had a few lines devoted to God in the original publications of his work on evolution, something that is often forgotten when holding him up as a reason to suppress a religious viewpoint… )

So all you have here is someone looking at the quality and bias of both the eastern and western news and finding an interesting disconnect on truthfulness depending on topic covered.

Much as i watch Mosaic to see what is really happening in the middle eastern mind, but do not look to the Muslim stations for valid Israeli news; or listen to the BBC for the “English – European” viewpoint, but any of their climate change news is simply propaganda; or watch FOX for a decent critique of the Looney Left and their political agenda, but would not expect them to give a valid appraisal of the merits of bringing back Glass-Steagall.

ALL news must be run through the Truth Test. And truth is where you find it, not where your biases tell you to look for confirmation.

that’s what I thought. For no reason other than curiosity, do you have a link to any reference material on Absorptivity and Emissivity coefficients for moist air? This topic is now going to drive me to dig out my old thermo books.

The heat of a 90 degree day in Honolulu is not the same as a 90 day in Phoenix. This global average temp stuff really bothers me because the issue is heat transfer. If they can’t model clouds, how can they model moisture content?

Other than a blatantly political one sided coverage of anything to do with Israel, the various Islamic news programs (it also has Jordanian, Dubai, Iranian and some others) are generally well done. As long as it is not a story about Israel or the Great Satan (ie. the U.S.A.) or “muslim issues”, the rest of Mosaic channels seem to be pretty straight news. It also does give an interesting counterpoint on the “muslim issues” and it gives an interesting insight into the way the Muslim World views anything about Israel through a very warped lens… Then you get to look back through the Israeli lens… “Two different worlds, we live in two different worlds”…

Fair Warning: LINK is from the far looney left politically. They occasionally have some interesting shows, but don’t leave it running with the kids in the room while you go make lunch ;-) (They are running a blurb admiring Michael Moore as cultural icon at the moment…) You do also get very interesting visuals some times. The Iranian coverage of the ‘failed coup’ showed a squad or three of motorcycles with a rider in military uniform on the back with a shoulder launched missile. A bit surreal in a way. “Ride a soft bike and carry a big rocket stick?” I can’t imagine us having a squad like that. It doesn’t pass the “giggle” test ;-)

Why do I watch this? I trade oil. If you would predict OPEC and military adventures in the Middle East, you need to go to their news, not ours. Ours is useless sanitized pap for selling shampoo. Their news will show tensions building long before the violence starts. Ours will show the “action” after the war has been engaged for a few days and something “interesting” is available in the visuals. Useless for trading.

Sidebar: I also get BBC news on the satellite as well. Interesting perspective from the other side of the puddle. Nice counterpoint to FOX that tends to the radical right on political issues (and Hannity with his nightly moment of rant. Rant is not news. The “Red Eye” metrosexual hour isn’t news either. Whatever happened to 24 hour NEWS?…)

Also, FWIW, the best straight news comes as the little ‘blurbs’ on Bloomberg and CNBC. They know it MUST be “straight” and “fast” or you will have a busted trade. Just the facts, accurate and quick. Unfortunately, not much depth behind it. Sigh.

I just wish there was some “straight news” somewhere. An average of the left and right is not the middle… (Hmmm… nor is an average of the high and low the integrated area under the curve… )

However, this assumes that the air absorbs all of the radiant heat and that none of it reaches the ground thereby raising the surface temperature. At best such a calculation could only serve as a maximum upper limit to the temperature change.

For radiative heat transfer I use the next formula:

q = e (σ) (A) [(Ts) ^4 – (Ta) ^4]

Or simply q = e (σ) (A) (T^4)

The result is also power (W). For obtaining the load of energy (J) one should multiply by time (t).

Oher formulas must to be applied if you wish to know the total of energy transferred from the surface to the air.

Regarding the heat transfer from the air to the surface, warming the latter up, it’s not feasible in the real world:

http://www.biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html

Unless I completely misunderstand Nasif Nahle his calculations are contain an error. Nasif Nahle wrote in reply to a the question of how much will 2 W/sqm raise the temperature of air

ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C”

Yes, you are correct and I stand corrected. The correct conversion is as follows:

2 W*s = 2 J.

So the corrected procedure is as follows:

ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 J / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 J/kg*K) = 0.002 K = 0.002 °C

Thanks for noticing the error.

Sorry :)

” In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:

2 W*s = 2 J/s

ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C”

The problem is that watts are not energy, watt are power or a rate of energy. Joules are energy. As noted by Nahle watts are joules per second. Nahle’s answer shouldn’t be .002 C, it should be .002 C per second.

This will continue until the air has warmed to the point where it radiates away as much heat as it is taking in or until the sun goes down, whichever comes first.

However, this assumes that the air absorbs all of the radiant heat and that none of it reaches the ground thereby raising the surface temperature. At best such a calculation could only serve as a maximum upper limit to the temperature change.

I would expect the Iranian media to continue to report both sides of the climate debate.

If you want to place your faith in the Iranian media, that’s fine

This cheap shot reveals something about you RW not the readers of WUWT.