With apologies to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, here’s a a comment worth repeating from the Hit and Misses thread.
What I find interesting about the entire email corpus is the focus on the minutia of the statistics and the different proxies. In none of the emails from the core team members do we see any physics of radiation. It seems that if it were your role to “prove” the positive feedback of CO2 you would want to actually do some physics of radiative and convective transfer of energy in the atmosphere. This is where the rubber meets the road.
It seems that the entire consensus group have taken an assumption (positive feedback of CO2 increase) and are going deeper and deeper into the details of the proxies in order to show what the results of their assumption are.
I think that this is why as a discipline, more and more physicists are dismissing AGW.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
davidmhoffer says:
November 27, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Sorry, you can’t google either of those either.
=============================================
How convenient. I was on Bill Gates’ and Gordon Moore’s speed dial but you can’t google those either.
I guess you’ll just have to defend yourself with being provably correct about what you claim. You know, like I proved I was correct about how the emails weren’t collected from periodic backups. Waving your hands around claiming to be a CIA agent or whatever outlandish claim you’re making now won’t cut it, bubba. Cry why don’t you ya big baby.
[SNIP: Dave, this really has nothing to do with thread and is making the joint look bad. Can we cease and desist with this line? Please? -REP]
Oh my. I proved I was right about the emails with a quote from the UK government investigation saying the emails were stored exactly how I figured they were [SNIP: Dave, I asked you nicely. -REP] LOL
Dennis Ray Wingo:
Thanks for opening a window and bringing in fresh air. It was interesting reading while we are forced to watch David Springer and davidmhoffer kick themselves to pieces.
As further distraction, you said:
I assume you mean in the near future. What actual movement do you see in this commercial direction (other than low orbit thrill rides for multi-millionaires). Can you indicate a realistic timeline? GK
“Ian W says:
November 27, 2011 at 3:42 am
I suggest that you check your assumptions about saturated air and read http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html and use the formulae there”
A sentence at the bottom said: “Note! The latent heat due to evaporation of water is the major part of the enthalpy. The sensible heat due to heating evaporated water vapor can be almost neglected.”
In my post, I was NOT talking about any phase changes. I was assuming for example that you have two 20 liter containers full of dry air. Then you add enough water vapor to one to reach a 4% water vapor concentration. Then you find that it takes about 8% more energy to heat the one with the added water vapor to the same temperature increase as the dry air.
Your statement: “So the heat energy required to raise that volume of air increases by up to ~10 times.” left me with the impression you were just heating air with water and NOT causing any phase changes with water. I completely agree that incorporating phase changes affects all calculations.
Dave Springer says:
November 27, 2011 at 8:52 pm
[SNIP: Dave, this really has nothing to do with thread and is making the joint look bad. Can we cease and desist with this line? Please? -REP]
If you snip on a blog that holds itself above censoring you’re not really open. All my comments were about how, where, and why the climategate emails were collected and stored at UEA. I get a little testy when the ignorati force me to prove the obvious. How about thanking me for settling a dispute about an important matter by pointing to an obscure paragraph in the Muir UEA investigation. No one else mentioned it and it’s definitive. Either UEA was incompetent or dishonest in responding to FOIA requests for email correspondence from named individuals. All the information was routinely collected on a central server that could literally be queried using GREP for the responsive information. Yet if we take David Hoffer’s and/or Robert Brown’s word for things we’d be forced to believe that being responsive to the request really was a duecedly difficult job of sorting through 13 years of backup tapes. Maybe you should thank me for spoiling their credibility lest readers here take them seriously in the future. At least Brown didn’t put up a fight. Hoffer begged for a spanking and got one.
[REPLY: Dave, you are a valued contributor here, but being “open” does not extend to personal vilification. You can check the site policy on that matter if you wish. Your antagonist will be held to the same standard. We really don’t want to look like RC or OM, now, do we? -REP]
[SNIP: Dave, I asked you nicely. -REP]
You’re getting very, very sleepy. Your eyelids are getting heavy. I’m going to comment backward from ten. When I get to one you’ll be too tired to snip and fall into a deep, deep sleep.
Ten…
[REPLY: Sorry, but there will be other moderators on duty even if I ….z z z z z z z
[REPLY: Dave, you are a valued contributor here, but being “open” does not extend to personal vilification. You can check the site policy on that matter if you wish. Your antagonist will be held to the same standard. We really don’t want to look like RC or OM, now, do we? -REP]
I read the rules. The consequence for being an asshat is getting comments deleted. I have no problem with that. Delete whatever you want. I’m not throwing a hissy fit about it. Holding everyone to the same standard is something that should always be done and often isn’t. It’s pretty much open season around here on characters like Hansen, Gore, Romm, Schmidt, and the rest of the usual suspects. R.Gates, Rattus, Lazy Teenager and many others don’t get treated equally either. What you’re really saying is you’d rather not see infighting among the anti-AGW cheerleaders. I know the drill just don’t expect me to follow it. Every camp has their share of dolts in it and I don’t play favorites. I’m an equal opportunity flamer. I write what I want and you snip what you want. That’s the way it works. Those are the rules.
Any questions so far?
You’re not in much danger of being confused with group-think heavily censoring sites like RC or OM but it takes people like me to keep you honest. I’ve been banned on many blogs who claim to entertain all critical views. It’s a real testament to the tolerance here that I haven’t been banned yet. I can drive a saint to swear, or so I’ve been told.
[REPLY: Not a saint and not swearing. Derailing a thread with OT personal attacks will be snipped. Those are the rules. Thanks. -REP]
I assume you mean in the near future. What actual movement do you see in this commercial direction (other than low orbit thrill rides for multi-millionaires). Can you indicate a realistic timeline? GK
While it is not getting any publicity companies are sending their own experiments to ISS for processing. That is a small market, today. Soon the Dragon will be going to ISS and that will open that market much wider. The GEO market is going to expand and Google X prize teams, though probably a stunt at this stage, is an amazing thing to have the possibility of the next landing on the Moon being commercial. Ideas like lunar mining are being spoken of in non science fiction settings now as well, based upon the recent findings of the LRO, Chandrayaan, and other missions.
There is a lot of analog lunar activity starting to build and though it is not public yet, interesting things are happening.
It is my hope that with the death of the climate scare we can focus more efforts on positive means to move off of the hydrocarbon economy, which means economic development in order to increase the wealth of all of our fellow citizens here on the Earth. This can best be served by exploiting the near infinite wealth of our solar system. That is the positive message to balance the doom and gloom negativity of the last 20 years of the great climate scare.
Werner Brozek says:
November 27, 2011 at 9:15 pm
“A sentence at the bottom said: “Note! The latent heat due to evaporation of water is the major part of the enthalpy. The sensible heat due to heating evaporated water vapor can be almost neglected.”
Yes. And you aren’t neglecting it.
“In my post, I was NOT talking about any phase changes.”
Neither is the Engineering toolbox. Enthalpy is total energy in the system. That includes both latent and sensible heat.
“I was assuming for example that you have two 20 liter containers full of dry air. Then you add enough water vapor to one to reach a 4% water vapor concentration. Then you find that it takes about 8% more energy to heat the one with the added water vapor to the same temperature increase as the dry air.”
Specific heat of dry air is approximately 1.0 kJ/kg.
Specific heat of water vapor is approximately 2.0 kJ/kg.
Specific heat of moist air (4% water vapor) is ((96*1.0) + (4*2.0))/100 or 1.04.
I’m not sure how you’re getting an 8% increase. 1.00 is a 1.04 is a 4% increase.
But it will also make the volume of air in question lighter which will cause it to rise within a parcel of dry air without any change in sensible temperature. If I recall this thread within the thread correctly wasn’t there some mention about the amount of added heat required for convection? Moist air will rise in dry air at the same temperature.
But the total energy in the moist air is orders of magnitude higher. Latent heat capacity of H2O is awesome. It’s one of best energy transfer fluids you can find which is why there are still steam pipes under the streets of many large cities providing cold weather heating to private and public spaces and the most efficient turbines are steam turbines. The amount of energy transported from the surface to the cloud layer through evaporation with no sensible heating of the atmosphere along the way is humungous and widely under-appreciated. All that latent heat drills straight through greenhouse gases as easily as it goes through non-greenhouse gases.
I suppose this is a good opportunity to once again point out that the global ocean gives up heat primarily through evaporation and because of that mechanism it is little effected by greenhouse gases. Land surfaces give up heat primarily through radiation and these are significantly effected by greenhouse gases. But since oceans comprise 70% of all surfaces it really relegates the greenhouse effect to only about a third of the role the greenhouse pundits try to attribute to it. It’s not that heat isn’t in the system over the oceans it just isn’t at the surface. It’s just rapidly moved to the cloud layer flattening out the lapse rate between ocean and cloud deck. Once the energy is released by condensation in the cloud deck it’s much closer to the heat sink of cold empty space and thus finds less resistive radiative path in that direction. Meanwhile the greenhouse gases that would otherwise slow cooling and hence raise temperature very near the surface now impede the radiant energy released by condensation in the cloud layer from making its way down to the surface.
Once you accept this is how the physics works out in the big picture all the observations fall neatly in place. We live on a water world and water has some really unique characteristics that make it far different in the way it warms and cools compared to land. The instrument record that everyone argues about is almost exclusively a land record and a northern hemisphere mid-latitude non-Asian record at that. It’s pretty much just a record of the United States and Wester Europe. Coverage is absymal elsewhere. This is the primary problem with the temperature record. We don’t anything that passes the giggle test for a *global* average temperature until the satellite era beginning in 1979 and that simply isn’t far enough in the past to establish global climate trends. There are numerous known natural warming and cooling cycles in the northern hemisphere that operate over periodic intervals much longer than 30 years and furthermore these cycles are not in constant phase relationships with each other, are little understood, interdependent, and the resulting harmonics make both local and global predictions quite impossible to model which is precisely why the climate change cheerleaders are in a state of vast disarray because they can’t explain why atmospheric CO2 has continued its exponential rise for the past decade but global average temperature stopped rising in lockstep with it.
[REPLY: Not a saint and not swearing. Derailing a thread with OT personal attacks will be snipped. Those are the rules. Thanks. -REP]
I understand. Snip away. The next mod to take up the watch may be more or less strict. I don’t try to read minds or figure out who’s got the helm. Most of the time what I wrote tonight wouldn’t get snipped. But that’s okay. I don’t expect the moderators to indistinguishable clones. No hard feelings.
G. Karst says:
November 27, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Dennis Ray Wingo:
Thanks for opening a window and bringing in fresh air. It was interesting reading while we are forced to watch David Springer and davidmhoffer kick themselves to pieces.
========================================================
Forced? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Try using your arrow key or mouse wheel and scroll past my name to the next one in line. I promise I won’t be offended.
davidmhoffer says:
November 27, 2011 at 3:09 pm
What? Are you the same David Hoffer who wrote the following? The guy who makes the second in command of the North American Radar Defense system threaten to court martial a Provost Marshall for disrespecting you? The guy who called up what must have been a member of the board of directors at Dell to get some little female FAE who disrespected you to “be quiet and listen to you”?.
Surely this ain’t the same guy begging Anthony Watts to let him post an article on this blog?
Non-sequitur.
Oh I know! Make one of those awesome phone calls to people in high places and get your article published in the Wall Street Journal or something like that then Anthony will link to it and sing your praises in the process! Oh I have an even better idea! Give Ann Coulter a ring. I mean she takes calls from a couple of right wing professors I know in the Intelligent Design circles so surely she must take your calls too, right? Get her to get you an interview on the Sean Hannity show. You’re just WAY TOO IMPORTANT to be pleading in public for blog space here.
SO non-sequitur. ROFLMAO
And REP, notice there was NO name calling involved here. No villification. Just making helpful suggestions to Hoffer for getting a “high level” dissertation of email policies to consider in figuring out what happened at UEA.
Oh wait. I already gave that dissertation and proved I knew what I was talking about with a direct quote from the Muir report which specifically the emails were stored in the manner and place I assumed along was the case. Nevermind. I guess I wasn’t being helpful after all.
To Dennis Ray Wingo and Robert Brown they were two of the most enlightening posts I have read of late and the following comments relating to them were of enormous interest. You guys give me a great deal of hope. Thank you.
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
November 27, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Gail: “One of the crucial assumptions seems to be that CO2 is “uniform” through out the atmosphere. As a chemist who dealt with real world mixing problems in industry, I have a major problem with that assumption.
Can you shed any light on that point???”
From what I understand wet chemists have found considerable variation in CO2 concentrations in laboratory experiments, from the low 200′s to the 500 ppm range. Indeed early measurements of CO2 atmospheric concentration were done by wet chemists and they have major variations in concentration. In the 1964 DARPA book that I referenced in a previous email I read that the military’s measurements of CO2 concentrations found that below 100 meters altitude there is a wide variance in CO2 levels that would tend to confirm the work of wet chemists.
If this is true, and have have no reason to not believe this as it is from two separate disciplines of experimental findings, then the computer models have a major problem when assuming uniformity, especially at the crucial ground/atmosphere interface.
I think that Anthony had something on this here on WUWT a couple of years ago and I know that Chris Monckton was interested in this as well.
============================================
I do wish someone with real science expertise would get interested in it.. I’ve been trying to point out that the basic physics of AGW are science fiction, in this one: ‘the CO2 well-mixed in the atmosphere’ is based on the fantasy that oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide are ideal gases, i.e., that they have no volume or weight and are zipping around at tremendous speeds in empty space knocking into each other in elastic collisions and so, ‘carbon dioxide is uniformly mixed thoroughly in the atmosphere’.
Seriously, I asked about this of a PhD teaching the subject, and examining on it, he was adamant,(once I got him to admit that CO2 pooled by giving real world examples), that CO2 ‘having pooled on the floor in a room without any work being done to change the conditions (open window, fan) would spontaneously begin diffusing and zipping through the air in the room bashing into the other molecules it would become sooooo thoroughly mixed that it couldn’t become unmixed without work being done’. The examples from the AGWScience Fiction department given to argue this is ‘real physics’ are ‘scent diffusing through a room and ink dropped into a glass of water’. They do not have convection. This is a fictional physics to describe their fictional world, in which radiation rules supreme.
The AIRS data, which has not been fully released, no lower or top of atmosphere results and no proper detail of the mid which they released a picture or two, came to the conclusion, and oh that bloody suprise again, how surprised they were to find carbon dioxide was not thoroughly mixed, but lumpy.
I’ve given the story before, wish I could find the link to it.., about the AGWSF-educated scientist who hearing the argument from real physics that molecules have weight and so heavier than air will always sink displacing air and lighter will always rise, and mines in real life are given as examples, decided to go to a mine to check this out. He found that the methane he’d introduced layered at the top of the mine and didn’t diffuse into the air. He couldn’t believe it, sent his team to search for hidden sources which he thought could be adding to the layered at the ceiling and so spoiling the diffusion into well-mixed. They couldn’t find any such source. He concluded that they had missed it..
This is an absolutely huge teaching from the AGWScience’s production department of fictional/fantasy physics and they have been extremely successful introducing it into main stream education.
There’s a whole generation of people who think the atmosphere above us is empty space, they have no grasp of the fluid gaseous volume of air above us..
When you try to explain real physics about this to them they come back with ‘then carbon dioxide would sink into a layer at the low points like the Dead Sea’ or ‘layer as in a cake’ – they have no grasp of the dynamics of life cycles (they exclude the Water Cycle completely in their ‘energy budget’ KT97 and its ilk. But a warning, don’t expect any internal coherence in their explanations, that was never the point of the AGWSF world physics, so for example, if they’re stumped with you rejecting the ‘ideal gas claim’, they’ll give you Brownian motion for CO2 mixing thoroughly, suddenly they have fluid gas volume but exclude CO2 from it.. 🙂
They have no sound in their world. They can’t hear you.
They have no sound in their world. They can’t hear you.
Cargo Cult Science.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf
Dennis Ray Wingo,
The amount of private moneys going into private ventures for space based business and habitats are not completely available to the public. Nor should it be.
Based on discussions that can be Googled . . . . the interest in non-earth business and habitats is accelerating. Therefore one can also reasonably think the amount of private money going to those areas is growing significantly.
The non-scientific agendas supporting alarming/concernist AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels actually may have stimulated private space development.
John
mods ~ to set the record straight:
NORAD doesn’t stand for North American Radar Defense, it stands for North America Aerospace Defense Command (Formerly North America Air Defense Command)
PM in the context of a large IT project stands for Project Manager.
No civilian “makes” a Lt Colonel with launch control “do” anything he doesn’t want to do.
I don’t know what an FAE is. I don’t make phone calls into the key technical people in an organization to get people in trouble, I do it to ensure that I have the most accurate technical information possible before making a decision.
It is not helpful when someone without in depth technical experience in large scale email, backup, and archive systems reads the word “archive” and assumes that it means the same thing as a totally different technology in a totally different technical scenario that he also doesn’t understand very well.
“design win” for Intel doesn’t mean designing Intel products. It means working with companies who design things and have to choose which components from which manufacturers are most suited to the task.
Pleading. Begging. LOL. I volunteered.
I have no patents to my name. If I did, I certainly wouldn’t put my bosses name on them if he did zero work on them just to curry favour with him Doing so would suggest to others that perhaps some of the patents I was named on actually had zero input from me, I was just taking the kudos for someone else’s work in return for giving them a raise later. I wouldn’t want to discredit my own work by doing that.
I have no academic papers to my name, so google scholar is unlikely to cough up my name.
I don’t even have a university degree so googling my professional credentials probably won’t work either.
I don’t know anyone at the board of directors at Dell. If I wanted an accurate technical answer regarding how the kernel code in a time slicing operating systems deals with interrupts from single threaded processes compared to how a time shared operating systems deals with the same issue, I’d be more interested in talking to a kernel engineer familiar with the product then someone on the board of directors.
It is clearly evident that CRU had an email archive. It is not evident that the archive was used properly to service FOIA requests, in fact the opposite.
Gee Dave, that’s easily fixed:
It was interesting reading while we are NOT forced to watch David Springer and davidmhoffer kick themselves to pieces.
I read all of YOUR comments as well as davidmhoffer’s because you are both intelligent and fact filled individuals. I am stimulated by new ideas and perspective. I enjoy spectator fights as much as the next guy. But even boxing matches have an end. If a KO doesn’t end the fight it is called after 3, 4, 6, 8,10 or 12 rounds depending on club and fight/level. They are not allowed to bite off ears or disembowel each other! What would be the fun in that? Both of you should back off the personal animosity, return to your corners… wait for the bell! GK
davidmhoffer & Dave Springer
Stop squabbling already!
I always enjoy and value comments from both of you! Let’s get back on-topic.
REPLY: I agree, I’m about to put you two guys into the troll bin. Chill – Anthony
re post by: Gail Combs says: November 27, 2011 at 8:02 am
Apologies if this has already been addressed, but I just read down to this comment, and the incomplete mixing issue had occurred to me earlier as well. Primarily in terms of wondering how much it might affect the sort of study suggested by Dennis Ray Wingo – but then I figured, when the work was initially done there would also have been similar mixing issues, so perhaps not all that much? Unless, of course, somehow the mixing dynamics is noticeably changed between 300 ppm & 380 ppm, which is where some actual scientific research would come in handy {VBG}.
Anyhow, the information I’d wanted to share is that I’m certain there have been one or more published studies showing that CO2 is generally not at all well mixed in the atmosphere. I’m sorry I don’t have link(s) handy, but they’d be either on a different computer or different FF user profile (I’ve had some recent stubborn computer problems). I’m pretty certain one referred to CO2 being ‘clumped’ in the atmosphere rather than uniformly mixed as is generally assumed.
So if no one has had some handy links for you, you might be able to find the papers fairly easily using google scholar – or even searching here at WUWT since there’s a very good chance that such studies wound up with posted articles (tho I have to note, I seem to have much better luck using google w/ “site:wattsupwiththat.com xyz” than just using the WUWT site search for “xyz”).
re post by: JPeden says: November 27, 2011 at 8:30 am
Coffee? Banished?!!??!!!
OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!!
Good lord man, don’t you know any basic nutrition? Coffee is one of the 4 major food groups, along with Chocolate, Fat, and a really good Cheesecake.
re post by: kim2ooo says: November 27, 2011 at 9:00 am
Ok, ok, we can ban coffee from within spew range of computer keyboards, I’ll grant Jpeden that much. (re post November 28, 2011 at 9:02 pm, wherein I threatened decapitation for the crime of suggesting that coffee be banned {VBG} )
@ur momisugly Crosspatch
@ur momisugly Jean Parisot
@ur momisugly Gail Combs
How much funding for AGW is the USAF actually involved in, especially whichever branch your grant application went to? In other words, I suspect/wonder if a denial on the part of the USAF might not be far more based on “doesn’t meet our current needs” than any concern over upsetting the AGW applecart/pandora’s box.
Try submitting to NASA instead. /half serious, half sarc, & totally disgusted with current state of NASA.
re post by: J Martin says: November 27, 2011 at 9:34 am
Don’t be too hard on your police – but on your lawmaker’s instead. Be especially hard on them if they haven’t rectified this problem by now. Apparently there were no FOI obstruction/evasion charges ONLY because the problem was brought to the attention of authorities long after the utterly ridiculously short FOI 6 month statute of limitations had expired. They would have had to discover the crime within 6 months of it being actually committed in order to prosecute!!