I’m off this weekend – talk quietly and politely amongst yourselves. Don’t make me come back here.
If you have something worth posting on the front page, flag a moderator. In the meantime I have a couple of stories that will post using the WordPress scheduler. – Anthony
Smokey says:
No, but the poster whom I was responding to, _Jim, did.
A peak at the costs of Clean Coal CO2 sequestration.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/14/catch-me-if-you-can-does-the-ieas-carbon-capture-plan-make-any-sense/
Joel Shore says:
“If I were running RealClimate, I think I would start censoring the comments of you and P Wilson…”
Don’t worry, they already do. And they censor plenty of other posters’ comments too, we read about it all the time here. Realclimate is its own little echo chamber, consisting of a small number of the same people who post most of the comments. They might as well be repeating Al Gore’s faxed talking points. Something like this:
1. OK, listen up, people! Starting right now we’re going to stop referring to ‘global warming’. The damn planet is cooling while CO2 is still going up. So from now on, it’s ‘climate change’. Make sure everyone gets the memo.
2. When we talk about sea ice, make absolutely certain you never mention the Southern Hemisphere! Or global sea ice for that matter. It’s Arctic ice extent, 24/7. And even though Arctic ice is growing again, always say that it’s getting thinner.
3. Every time there’s a local heat wave, post that it’s caused by AGW. But when posts start coming in from around the world reporting much colder than seasonal weather everywhere, you are to repeat the mantra: “weather isn’t climate… weather isn’t climate… weather isn’t climate…”
4. Since we don’t have the science on our side, always attack motives: skeptics are paid off by Big Oil and Big Tobacco. Ad hominem attacks remain a big part of our arsenal. Use them!
5. Above all, always turn the scientific method on its head, and demand that skeptics have to prove that AGW doesn’t exist. Never accept a skeptic’s challenge to falsify natural climate variability, we’re getting killed on that one. Oh, and always put “skeptics” in quotation marks.
Now Joel says we’re trolls. And he would censor our posts if he could. What a guy.
Smokey…
#6. C’mon, guys… you are physicists!!! Get on the “skeptics” websites and start refuting every single post that goes against the consensus!!! Use all those big scientific words and cause as much confusion as you possibly can… We’re running out of time… Heck… we all know it’s getting colder, so get out there… WUWT will let you post so post already… lots and lots of people read that blog if you can’t convince plumbers and geologists and meteorologists and engineers… You DON’T deserve any more government money…
Remember that is our money! The taxpayers are too stupid to keep it from us….
As the theory goes, AGW occurs because we’ve put 30% extra c02 into the atmosphere.
1) Unproven assumption, since its based on unresolvable ice core data and selective proxies – ice proxies in the case of the IPCC
2) Isotopic mass balances indicate’s 4% anthropogenic maximum (Segalstad)
3) Increase in gas doesn’t mean increase in temperature (Try this with a long tube filled with as much c02 as can be found in the atmosphere, whilst taking its temperature during a 1 hour experiment at 4 points along the tube, and varying th etemperature between 0 and 30C Double and halve the amounts of c02. The temperatures remain the same)
This explains why AGW has to concoct esoteric formulas to fudge straightforward empirical facts, even going so far as to pull eqations out of thin air to justify the numbers and produce something of a quagmire. The error formulator’s syndrome is that eleborate errors have to be framed to fit around the initial metaphysic.
I’d be flattered to be censored at RC – not that censorship is a valid scientific process. However, I did once ask a question about why the temperature responded so immediately to the solar eclipse recently by plummetting 10C then returning back to normal immediately it was over. That was ground enough for cesorship.
Mike Jonas (23:25:44)
When a c02 case can’t be proven at the area where c02 is absorbing radiation at its sharp peaks 10metres from ground level its looked for else where to prop the notion that something eccentric is happening in the troposhere with c02. C02 in the upper troposhere absorbs and transmits at the shoulders at 5% the efficiency as its peaks – and over far greater distance due to its band separation – and this is where c02 competes with nitrogen and oxygen which absorb heat at that range. An wrong assumption is that heat does not vanish into space being trapped only by greenhouse gasses. heat sits or circulates in the atmosphere for several months due to the nitrogen and oxygen (99% of the atmosphere), and it would do so even if there were no such thing as greenhouse gasses. There are a million more oxygen and nitrogen molecules than c02 there, and absorb at a wider band of lengths, so its unknowable how much c02 absorbs and re-emits at the upper tropospheric level. It can’t be determined by equations for two dimensional objects as gases don’t have a surface. C02 is thin in the upper troposphere, – and absorbs over greater distances at this height – up to 10km, as there are a thousandth of co2 molecues as at its peak, where the feedback (or forcing in AGW terms) is occurring. if so, then gross global warming from c02 is 0.0002C. the density at the upper troposphere is a 10th as sea level, so if you were to ask how much heat the upper troposphere transmits to the lower – the answer would be none. c02 still absorb heat in the stratosphere, although becomes even more irrelevant as the shoulders disappear. yet transmission values for c02 are already low at
this level. Most of the energy is thermalised through contact with nitrogen, water vapour and oxygen, before re-radiation takes place, so that the energy leaves the c02 absorbtion band
Add:
last sentence should be:
yet transmission values for c02 are already low at GROUND-10 METRES level. Most of the energy is thermalised through contact with nitrogen, water vapour and oxygen, before re-radiation takes place, so that the energy leaves the c02 absorbtion band
P Wilson: It is hard to know what to say about your posts about the radiative physics except that they are wrong from start to finish. I suggest that if you are interested in radiative physics of the atmosphere, you get a book and read it and actually learn rather than just talking nonsense. No scientists who are taken at all seriously on the climate or atmospheric science believe what you believe…NONE. Not even Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer. You are arguing about stuff that was basically all settled around half a century ago.
Joel Shore (10:09:02) : “P Wilson: … get a book and read it and actually learn rather than just talking nonsense. … You are arguing about stuff that was basically all settled around half a century ago.”
For those of us trying to follow this argument – references/links are needed.
Mike Jonas,
A good link taking an historical point-of-view is here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0623
I’m not sure of a good online resource is for more technical details, although I could recommend a couple of books that I have found useful:
L.D. Danny Harvey, “Global Warming: The Hard Science”,
Richard Goody, “Principles of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry”
Better still, if you really hold the belief, watch An Inconvenient Truth, or read the book.
All the celebrity A listers believe it, and they’re the ones in the know!
Mike Jonas (13:49:53)
Climatology is a new and difficult science without any precision. It has been seized on in the last 30 years by pulling equations out of physics and contorting them to fit the climate.
In fact, no science really exists. It has taken the shape metaphysic in the style of Hegel – The starting points would be chemistry, spectroscopy, air pressure, the physics of heat and astronomy. Metaphyics puts man at the centre of the universe that a rational approach abhors, although rationality is based on observation and logic.
“The Cooling Stars” by Henrik Svensmark
Other than that, research papers in journals are the better option to gain a grasp of the subject.
i daresay in years to come when the present paradigm/popular fashion has gone out of currency, as we learn more about how climate operates, the process of deduction from nominally self evident axioms should be a thing of the past.
the physics of gas diffusion would be quite a good starting point too and highlights the problems of applying mechanical physics to gases. At the moment, how heat gets transmitted from one molecule to another and what happens to those molecules in gases is quite elusive as there are so many random variables involved. Physicist use the watts per square metre notion, although that analysis is only relevant to two dimensional objects.
P Wilson: Do you understand what the field of remote sensing is? Do you understand that if you don’t think we have an understanding of the radiative physics of the atmosphere then you simply can’t believe, for example, the UAH temperature record? The satellite data set and the analysis of it is fundamentally based on our understanding of the radiative physics.
Cao everyone,
Im new to the forum and just wanted to introduce myself, my name is John and I’m form US. I’ve been a long time lurker who has finally decided to make an account and contribute.
Hi everyone,
Im new to the forum and just wanted to introduce myself, i’m David form Canada. I look forward too makeing a contribution here.
Hello ,
I’m new here and just wanted to stop by and say hi 🙂
[Welcome aboard. ~dbstealey, moderator]