In honor of Jeff Id closing The Air Vent, I’m going to take the day off and spend more time with my kids.
Be civil and keep the topics germane. Don’t make me come back here. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are, thankfully many knowledgeable people who frequent AW’s site, and I thank him once again for maintaining what must be the no.1 world wide web-log on matters scientific.
From cold fusion to solar flares, and quantum mechanics to volcanoes, we have the vast array of most science in one hit. Trouble is, there is too much info for the likes of me, a simple engineer, and so I have to applaud Anthony Watts, his very able assistants and, of course, his guests.
In the six or seven months that I have followed WUWT, I have never learnt so much in such a short space of time since I was attending (most of the time) school.
My wife tells me that I was loudly committing our so-called sceptics of climate-warming, as it was (to me) less than a year ago to almost torture, but now I am more than willing to apply that torture to those that manipulate this science, in all its various facets to those that make money from it, and especially those that decry science, in the true meaning of the word.
Thank you Anthony, and all your friends.
Ireland Government Crumbles As Green Party Pulls Out Of Ruling Coalition
“It has been a while since we had one of those “before Asia opens” kind of Sundays. Today just may be one. BBC has just reported that the Irish Green party has pulled out of the ruling coalition with Fianna Fail which is “expected to bring forward the general election from 11 March.” In other words suddenly the entire Irish “rescue”, taken for granted for over a month, will have to be reexamined, once the new ruling party, which will certainly be from the current opposition reevaluates the terms. Elections are now expected to come some time in mid-February. Look for peripheral bond spreads to go whooosh tomorrow.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ireland-government-crumbles-green-party-pulls-out-ruling-coalition
Off-Topic to some extent, but seeing how econimies are fairing in relation to their commitment to all things Green:
Interesting to see The 2010 Legatum Prosperity Index Table Rankings
http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx
UK at 13th, but Spain at 23rd and France at 19th trail significantly behind Canada (7), Autralia(4) and New Zealand(5)
Not unexpectedly, Scandinavia sweeps the board
My comment came across a little garbled. I was referring to
Oslo says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“I don’t know if this is news to others than me, but I came across this website for something called The Climate Institute: http://www.climate.org which claims the ”
Shadowy. Wikipedia doesn’t seem to know them. Amongst their donors are BP, Shell and GE. Oh, the IPCC is a shill for Big Oil? Somebody tell the Greens.
BBC compares denial of HIV virus in causation of AIDS to climate sceptics tomorrow, and the clips presented suggest Sir Paul Nurse(Royal Society) wants scientists to win peoples hearts and minds using the media rather than have them understand the science. Lest others fill the gap with politics and ideology of course, AKA the Royal Society et al.
Will watch with an open mind but an interesting spin on how science should be understood by the public (or not).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql
R Gates says-How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.
I scanned over only three of the studies the “faith” seems to be in these studies belief in athropogenic global warming when the jury is still out on what effect if any at all. Now we don’t even want to get into adjusted temps. Show the proof that is all we ask.
This was the first suggestion in my lengthy post, “Notes from Skull Island”:
James Barker says: “Just found this site for the first time. Very interesting…”
Yes, especially this page:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/vocabulary.htm
London247 says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Maybe I am being simplisitic and I appreciate any constructive comments but if the Earth heats up will there not be an increase in precipitation? I accept that the climate changes but the root of the argument is that man-made production of CO2 is increasing the temperature beyond a natural variance.
If precipitation records are used then it avoids problems about UHI’s , thermometer anomalies etc. If it rains it rains. No need for homgenisation etc.
If there is increased evaporation then there will be an increased albedo from the clouds which will reflect solar radiation so to an extent there will be a lag between increased precipitation and increasing temperatures. Can anyone refer me to such an analysis?
To summarise if the earth heats up, rainfall increases?
_____
3 moisture related effects have been consistently found in all GCM’s when factoring in the increases in GHG’s:
1) An acceleration of the hydrological cycle
2) Increasing atmospheric water vapor levels
3) Greater rainfall in areas prone to rainfall
All 3 effects have been observed as happening, and 2010 was the wettest year in modern records. All this drives the AGW skeptics a bit crazy…
DirkH says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“Related to the notion that anthropogenic GHG’s and their related feedback’s could affect some of the natural ocean cycles, here’s a small sample of some of the studies being done:
[…]
cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.”
No, it’s knowledge.
____
Whose knowledge? Like I said, the certainty that increasing GHG’s have no effect on the natural ocean cycles amounts to a religious conviction, but certainly isn’t based on science.
Michael says: “Query, Can someone her give me a the size of the volume of the Earth in comparison to the volume of the Earth’s atmospheric climate?”
Yes. Try this link: http://www.ixquick.com/
Just put “Earth diameter” into the box and hit SEARCH, then see what you get.
Repeat with “atmospheric layers.”
London247 says:
“Maybe I am being simplisitic and I appreciate any constructive comments but if the Earth heats up will there not be an increase in precipitation? I accept that the climate changes but the root of the argument is that man-made production of CO2 is increasing the temperature beyond a natural variance.
“If there is increased evaporation then there will be an increased albedo from the clouds which will reflect solar radiation so to an extent there will be a lag between increased precipitation and increasing temperatures. Can anyone refer me to such an analysis?”
Disregard R. Gates. A warming planet will result in increased evaporation, and thus increased relative humidity – which will result in increased precipitation, all things being equal, no?
But this contradicts the claim of a warming global climate.
So who are you gonna believe? R Gates and his computer modelers? Or planet earth, and your lyin’ eyes?☺
Michael,
This graphic shows the relative amounts of atmosphere [on right], and total amount of water [on left], compared with the planet.
Michael says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Query,
Can someone her give me a the size of the volume of the Earth in comparison to the volume of the Earth’s atmospheric climate?
——–
It’s not that hard to work it out for yourself.
Google: radius of earth – any number of hits on the first page withh give you around 3960 miles.
What do you mean by “height of atmospheric climate”?
Google: atmosphere
Take your pick of the various layer heights according to your interest. A common value for “the edge of space” is about 60 miles.
Google: Volume of Sphere – 4/3 PI r^3
So Volume of Earth = 4/3 X 3.14159 X 3960 ^ 3 = 260,120,000,000 cu miles approx
Volume of sphere including stratosphere = 4/3 X 3.14159 X 4010^ 3 =
270,098,000,000 approx
Difference: 9,978,000,000
Comparison : 270,098,000,000 / 260,120,000,000 = 1.038
so the “atmospheric climate” is about 3.8% of the volume of the earth.
Of course, you could also work that out by realising that the difference between the two heights is 4010/3960 = 1.012626…. and since r ^3 is the only variable, the difference is 1.012626…. ^3 = 1.038 (approx)
Similarly for the square miles of the respective surfaces = 4 PI r^2
202,068,000 : 197,060,000 sq miles
In this case, the ration is 1.0126…^2
= 1.0254 ( the outer surface is 2.54% larger than the earth’s surface)
I will leave the similar calculations for the top of the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, exosphere et al as an exercise for the reader.
“Michael says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Query,
The square miles of the earths surface and the square miles of the Earth’s outer atmosphere would be nice also.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
Earth’s area:
510,072,000 km2[9][10][note 5]
148,940,000 km2 land (29.2 %)
361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %)
This from our former “green jobs” czar :
http://www.ted.com/talks/van_jones_the_economic_injustice_of_plastic.html
Uncle Joe says tings they be gettin worse before they gettin any better.
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/44657/bastardi-forecast-for-rest-of.asp
brrrrr.
R. Gates
“Maybe I am being simplisitic and I appreciate any constructive comments but if the Earth heats up will there not be an increase in precipitation? I accept that the climate changes but the root of the argument is that man-made production of CO2 is increasing the temperature beyond a natural variance.
If precipitation records are used then it avoids problems about UHI’s , thermometer anomalies etc. If it rains it rains. No need for homgenisation etc.
If there is increased evaporation then there will be an increased albedo from the clouds which will reflect solar radiation so to an extent there will be a lag between increased precipitation and increasing temperatures. Can anyone refer me to such an analysis?
To summarise if the earth heats up, rainfall increases?
_____
3 moisture related effects have been consistently found in all GCM’s when factoring in the increases in GHG’s:
1) An acceleration of the hydrological cycle
2) Increasing atmospheric water vapor levels
3) Greater rainfall in areas prone to rainfall
All 3 effects have been observed as happening, and 2010 was the wettest year in modern records. All this drives the AGW skeptics a bit crazy…”
That’s models. Try reality.
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_r/0112/global/latest.gif
Mark Cooper says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm
“Once again a prominent AGW proponent is claiming he is the target of death threats. (The Moonbat)”
Reminds me of a primetime tv movie from the late Fifties/early Sixties starring Don Knotts and Phil Silvers as the “slowest guns in the West.” When one of them showed up, all the gunslingers left town for fear of being challenged by the slowest gun in the West.
jorgekafkazar says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm
James Barker says: “Just found this site for the first time. Very interesting…”
Brilliant site! Certainly love the vocabulary page. Thanks Jorge and James.
Hmmmmm, agreed that Anthony deserves a day off. I wonder about the “with the family” part, unless they are all NFL fans. Of course, this could be a coincidence or, perhaps, an anomaly. Guess that it is OK as long as a plot of Watts’ family interest in NFL playoffs doesn’t resemble a hockey stick.
can’t quite make up their minds!
23 Jan: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Some Himalayan glaciers advance, despite warming
Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing despite an overall retreat, according to a study on Sunday that is a step toward understanding how climate change affects vital river flows from China to India…
“Our study shows there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover,” scientists at universities in Germany and the United States wrote in the study of 286 glaciers…
Elsewhere in the Himalayas “more than 65 percent of the monsoon-influenced glaciers are retreating,” they wrote in the journal Nature Geoscience of the satellite study from 2000 to 2008. Some glaciers that were stable in length were covered by a thick layer of rocky debris.
“Overall in the Himalayas, the glaciers are retreating,” Dirk Scherler, the lead author at the University of Potsdam in Germany, told Reuters…
Worldwide, most glaciers are shrinking from the Alps to the Andes in a trend blamed by the IPCC on greenhouse gases from human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels….
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70M1RC20110123
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.
=======================================================
Gates, that was funny….
Did you actually read any of the articles you linked?
The only ‘science’ there is trying see how many “can”, “might”, “could be”, “quite likely”, “may be”…………and on and on and on……they can fit into just one paper.
R. Gates, have you read any of the papers which you linked to?
I made the mistake of downloading the first one on your list and scanned it. It purportedly used 15 computer models to model the behavior of ENSO and SSTs through some sort of PC analysis.
The first inkling of a problem was that the first formula in the paper (for the standard deviation) had a very obvious typo. How many peer reviewers did you say reviewed the paper carefully to ensure that the science was good – and missed the obvious typo? Must of have concentrating on the other portions of the paper.
Reading the results section indicated that most of the models didn’t seem to show anything (discussed with a lot of arm waving). This excerpt seems to sum up the paper:
What a waste of time! I didn’t look at the next one.
Maybe you should read the material first and use your apparent expertise to cut them down to a smaller number that claim to have actually showed something.
Brilliant –
jorgekafkazar says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm
James Barker says: “Just found this site for the first time. Very interesting…”
Yes, especially this page:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/vocabulary.htm
‘Wind turbine A white elephant surrounded by dead birds’