tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8534241878819394082..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Christopher Monckton mixes things up @wattsupwiththat - the carbon budgetSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44474950641793073992015-07-09T02:36:39.693+10:002015-07-09T02:36:39.693+10:00CO2:
""He was a lead author"
Not ...CO2:<br /><br />""He was a lead author"<br /><br />Not "He was THE lead author" or "the principle scientist at the IPCC".<br /><br />If you can't read a CV, it's not surprising you can't understand physics.<br />dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40350165554240768282015-07-08T19:06:51.615+10:002015-07-08T19:06:51.615+10:00co2isnotevil said: "It's nearly impossibl...co2isnotevil said: "It's nearly impossible to publish anything contradicting the IPCC." This is rubbish. There is lots of denialist nonsense (i.e. contradicting the IPCC) published in science journals. <br /><br />For example: anything by Nils-Axel Morner, Albert Parker (a.k.a. Alberto Boretti), Willie Soon and various other members of the "it's all the sun" brigade, David Douglass and co, and quite a few more.<br /><br />Go ahead and publish! <br /><br />Neil<br />Neil Whitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3339936435295099272015-07-08T06:32:13.203+10:002015-07-08T06:32:13.203+10:00"...if the post albedo average input power ot...<i>"...if the post albedo average input power ot 239 W/m^2 instantaneously increased by 1 W/m^2 that this would not be considered forcing per the IPCC definition? [...] Do you think the output emissions magically increase by 1 W/m^2 or do you think the surface temperature must increase until 1 W/m^2 of new emissions are produced? "</i><br /><br />I cannot think of a clearer illustration of CO2isnotevil's errors on this thread than the line quoted above. Increasing GHGs do not increase the energy coming into the climate from the sun, they _decrease_ outgoing energy <i>(239->238 W/m^2, for example)</i>, leading to a TOA imbalance, leading to warming until the Earth is again emitting 239 W/m^2 to match incoming energy. <br /><br />"In" is not "Out", George - that's a <b>really</b> fundamental error on your part. Add to that the blatant conspiracy theories - and you are far beyond reason, logic, or science, and IMO evincing crack-pottery. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37558548094010757422015-07-08T05:54:35.690+10:002015-07-08T05:54:35.690+10:00CO2, you say "It's nearly impossible to p...CO2, you say "It's nearly impossible to publish anything contradicting the IPCC. "<br /><br />Have you stopped to consider why this might be so other than to clam some vacuous nonsense about funding or religion? Have you considered it is for the same reason that the nutters who claim to have overturned Einstein don't get published and why creationists and IDers have to use vanity publishing outfits to get theirs published?<br /><br />Strangely, deniers forget that healthy debate goes on in science all the time.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27770227203515834002015-07-08T05:51:45.054+10:002015-07-08T05:51:45.054+10:00co2's comment wasn't deleted. It was moved...<i>co2's comment wasn't deleted. It was moved to the <a href="http://www.hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery15.php#co2080715" rel="nofollow">the HotWhoppery. </a></i> <b>Sou</b>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75136665230938615942015-07-08T05:47:43.038+10:002015-07-08T05:47:43.038+10:00I'd be interested in understanding what a &quo...I'd be interested in understanding what a "perfect" gray body is.CCHolleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77585263673835980322015-07-08T05:37:24.270+10:002015-07-08T05:37:24.270+10:00I've seen deniers pull this nonsense before. ...I've seen deniers pull this nonsense before. He knows his 'great theory' is crap. But he will use the comments from anyone willing to engage with him to refine his crap and make it that bit less obviously craptastic to more naive people. Heck, he even asked us to check his spreadsheet for him. Could he be more obvious?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19628959547602909602015-07-08T05:22:58.283+10:002015-07-08T05:22:58.283+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.co2isnotevilhttp://www.palisad.com/co2/sensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64370565503313183142015-07-08T05:09:47.123+10:002015-07-08T05:09:47.123+10:00It's not me who is misunderstanding and no, hi...It's not me who is misunderstanding and no, his CV is not overstated. You just don't understand what the various roles are. (Lead authors for each chapter sit under Coordinating Lead Authors of each chapter. Above them are the Co-Chairs etc). I provided the evidence of the role he played in AR5, too.<br /><br />As for <i>It's nearly impossible to publish anything</i><br /><br />...is anyone keeping count of <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" rel="nofollow">how many points</a> co2 racked up?<br /><br />Kevin Trenberth is one of the world's leading climate scientists. For an unpublished denizen of denier blogs to claim he is "wrong" and you are right, and suggest he is hiding the truth makes you look even more foolish (and worse) than you already appear (if that's possible).<br /><br />If you want to keep talking, this <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/co2s-thread.html" rel="nofollow">thread is for you</a> to comment further if you want..There's been enough thread-hogging nonsense on this article.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87100183034370856442015-07-08T05:04:27.514+10:002015-07-08T05:04:27.514+10:00Not to mention that an application to Koch Industr...Not to mention that an application to Koch Industries should net him wealth beyond all dreams of avarice from grateful billionaires who will see billions of dollars of fossil fuel assets rescued from the scrapheap, and powerful backers who will make sure his paper receives the widest attention in the media.<br /><br />So if he believes in what he is claiming there is no explanation for his reticence to publish. And that leaves us with the obvious alternative, which deserves unkind remarks about our new bestest friend.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53650142994876024382015-07-08T04:53:54.790+10:002015-07-08T04:53:54.790+10:00Sou,
I must correct your misunderstanding, either...Sou,<br /><br />I must correct your misunderstanding, either that or his role is significantly overstated in his bio:<br /><br />http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/<br /><br />"He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC"<br />co2isnotevilhttp://www.palisad.com/co2/sensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46507901293949686672015-07-08T04:48:03.979+10:002015-07-08T04:48:03.979+10:00If anyone wants to read about the energy budget, t...If anyone wants to read about the energy budget, there are some references in <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/unbalanced-at-wuwt-earths-energy-budget.html" rel="nofollow">this article</a>. Also KR's comments and references in this thread.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13680740522621198682015-07-08T04:47:52.348+10:002015-07-08T04:47:52.348+10:00PL,
Exactly. So why isn't this true for the a...PL,<br />Exactly. So why isn't this true for the atmosphere which captures energy from the surface yet has twice the area over which to re-emit this energy? The same geometrica constraints must apply.<br /><br />It's nearly impossible to publish anything contradicting the IPCC. We are in an environment that can't handle the truth when that truth makes the careers of hundreds of scientists hell bent on proving the claims of the IPCC meaningless. Unfortunately, this comprises the population of scientists who would 'peer review' the work.co2isnotevilhttp://www.palisad.com/co2/sensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40591030820847412732015-07-08T04:41:33.238+10:002015-07-08T04:41:33.238+10:00The mask is slipping further.
No. Trenberth has t...The mask is slipping further.<br /><br /><i>No. Trenberth has the size of the transparent window wrong. Keep in mind that he is the principle scientist at the IPCC and responsible for insuring that the science doesn't contradict the IPCC's reason to exist (i.e. CAGW). </i><br /><br />co2, is that your version of "<a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/anthony-watts-takes-exception-and-posts.html" rel="nofollow">Tom Wigley is Ruler of the World</a>"?<br /><br />I'd get that problem checked. The D-K-itis is getting worse by the minute. It's morphing into Tim Ball-itis.<br /><br />(AFAIK, Kevin Trenberth was a contributing author to one chapter and a review editor of another in AR5. The IPCC WG1 reports science. WG2 and 3 report impacts, adaptation, vulnerability and mitigation. That's all.)<br /><br /><a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#" rel="nofollow">https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/wg1authors.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/wg1authors.pdf</a><br /><br />PS I looked up "post albedo input power" and <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm#38326" rel="nofollow">found this comment</a>, which I presume to be from our visitor, and the link to his own website. Nothing else, which shouldn't surprise anyone.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48301656613510193882015-07-08T04:34:50.945+10:002015-07-08T04:34:50.945+10:00The average solar input is 1/4 the radiative flux ...The average solar input is 1/4 the radiative flux from the Sun at our distance from the Sun, because of the geometry of an illuminated sphere.<br /><br />As others have said: Publish your work. The world waits.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90415830453162128352015-07-08T04:27:36.549+10:002015-07-08T04:27:36.549+10:00I particularly enjoyed the "incremental post ...I particularly enjoyed the "incremental post albedo input power" statement.CCHolleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75874615167303077252015-07-08T04:18:56.117+10:002015-07-08T04:18:56.117+10:00KR,
No. Trenberth has the size of the transparent...KR,<br /><br />No. Trenberth has the size of the transparent window wrong. Keep in mind that he is the principle scientist at the IPCC and responsible for insuring that the science doesn't contradict the IPCC's reason to exist (i.e. CAGW). <br /><br />Line by line simulations show that for the clear sky, about 47% of the Planck emissions from the surface pass into space with no attentuation. Ask Trenberth where he gets 20 W/m^2. I have and he has no answer. Its basically curve fit to what he wanted to see. and I understand why you acused me of curve fitting when you are so used to that from the pseudo-science purporting to support CAGW.<br /><br />The transparent window comprises those photons that traverse in a straight line from the surface to space at the speed of light. Any photon that doesn't do this is absorbed by either GHG's or clouds and whose energy is eventually either emitted out to space or returned back to the surface. Please tell me what is it about this consequence of physics that you don't get? GHG's and clouds absorb power from half the area across which its emitted. Do you understand why the average solar input is 341.5 W/m^2 and not the 1366 W/m^2 measured at high noon when the Sun is directly overhead in the tropics?<br /><br />As I've said before, you seem perpetually confused from the obfuscation by Trenberth of conflating energy transported by photons with energy transported by matter., This obfuscation seems to have had the desired result.<br /><br />Are you trying to say that if the post albedo average input power ot 239 W/m^2 instantaneously increased by 1 W/m^2 that this would not be considered forcing per the IPCC definition? I suggest you go and read the various AR's published by the IPCC. Do you think the output emissions magically increase by 1 W/m^2 or do you think the surface temperature must increase until 1 W/m^2 of new emissions are produced? If this causes a surface temperature increase, how is this different then sensitivity to forcing, as defined by the IPCC?<br />co2isnotevilhttp://www.palisad.com/co2/sensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22476090477283208662015-07-08T04:04:39.870+10:002015-07-08T04:04:39.870+10:00Sorry - that should be "lack of time IS an ex...Sorry - that should be "lack of time IS an exceedingly flimsy excuse"FLwolverinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714397414422766313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28876138194597560242015-07-08T04:03:08.798+10:002015-07-08T04:03:08.798+10:00Re co2isnotevil (g. white): I don't have the ...Re co2isnotevil (g. white): I don't have the background to decipher these statements or find the failings, but here is my question: if White's argument is as good as he claims and proves definitively (as he claims) that climate science is all wrong, then why isn't he publishing this? Lack of time is not an exceedingly flimsy excuse. Something this important should be widely known. The Heartland institute for one should be glad to provide funding while White polishes his argument and article. As far as I'm concerned, failure to pursue publication (peer reviewed or not) is the tip off that the theory and arguments are bogus - which is what the more science-informed commenters here have been arguing right along.FLwolverinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714397414422766313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4666520448837499952015-07-08T02:18:52.674+10:002015-07-08T02:18:52.674+10:00"This can be translated into a change in the ...<i>"This can be translated into a change in the size of the transparent window which corresponds to incremental energy added to or removed from the atmosphere. [...] Only about half of any decrease in the transparent window will be returned to the surface to effect its temperature."</i><br /><br />* I see a repeat of your 'window' misconception again. Increases in CO2 result in a broadening of all absorption peaks at the tropopause, with only minor changes in the 40 W/m^2 'atmospheric window'. <br /><br />* The 'halving' you claim is just nonsense - the TOA forcing for doubled CO2 is ~3.7 W/m^2, the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation, not half that. <br /><br />* Also note that <i>"incremental post albedo input power"</i> is a nonsense term - GHG increases have essentially _no_ effect on insolation, just on outgoing radiation to space. <br /><br />Your posts and claims Dunning-Kruger writ large - a complex construction based upon fundamental misconceptions about radiative physics and atmospheric energies. I would strongly suggest reading some good references, such as Pierrehumberts <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Planetary-Climate-Raymond-Pierrehumbert/dp/0521865565" rel="nofollow">Principles of Planetary Climate</a>; you might find them informative. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25444645155873099812015-07-08T02:18:28.720+10:002015-07-08T02:18:28.720+10:00Ligne,
Yes. The spell checker works just fine in...Ligne,<br /><br />Yes. The spell checker works just fine in other Firefox text windows, although its a relatively new installation and I haven't bothered to replace the UK dictionary with the American one yet.co2isnotevilhttp://www.palisad.com/co2/sensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63085907961091738482015-07-08T01:27:01.969+10:002015-07-08T01:27:01.969+10:00KR,
The IPCC defines forcing as an intantaneous d...KR,<br /><br />The IPCC defines forcing as an intantaneous difference at TOA *BEFORE* the system has adapted. In the steady state, forcing is zero.<br /><br />MODTRAN will compute the change in optical depth that occurs from an instantaneous change in GHG concentrations. This can be translated into a change in the size of the transparent window which corresponds to incremental energy added to or removed from the atmosphere. This is about 3.7 W/m^2 when CO2 is doubled.<br /><br />The real problenm is that the IPCC defines forcing in an ambiguous manner and this contributes to one of the many factor of 2 errors in the consensus analysis. An instantaneous change in post albedo input power is an instantansous change at TOA and forcing per the IPCC. An instantaneous decrease in the power passing thorugh the transparent window is also considered forcing per the IPCC., but has a significantly different result. The reason is that the atmosphere is transparent to incremental post albedo input power and all of this forcing affects the surface. Only about half of any decrease in the transparent window will be returned to the surface to effect its temperature.<br /><br />There's no curve fitting involved. It's a top down model based on physical laws with a small number of measureable parameters. The model converges to a unique result across a wide range of conditions which match the satellite data almost perfectly and confirm that the planet acts as a nearly ideal gray body whic temperature is the surface temperature with an emissivity resulting from an atmosphere that slows down some fraction of surface emissions.<br /><br />I'm sincere about my position because every prediction of the theory has been validated and many 10's of gigasamples of data from satellites further validates it, moreover; every prediction of the consensus theory fails. This is the scientific method, which relative to consensus climate science seems to have been replaced by political correctness conforming to a narrative. A truely sad state of affairs.<br /><br />The idea that incremental effects are completely orthogonal to LTE effects is another thing that the IPCC's self serving consensus has wrong. Incremental effects are the slope of the change in LTE effects and why this basic tenent of system analysis is beyond most climate scientists is a testament to a significant knowledge deficit about the behavior of causal systems.<br /><br />Regarding Venus, its solid surface is not in equilibrium with the Sun. The planet is completely enveloped by clouds and its the cloud tops that are in equilibrium with the Sun. Unlike Earth, where the hydro cycle allows us to consider clouds tigtly coupled to the surface through evaporation and rain, Venusion clouds are completely disconnected from its surface comprising a unique thermodynamic system. Are you aware that the bottom KM or so of the Venusian atmosphere is supercritical fluid where CO2 is acting more like a liquid than a gas? One attribute of this is that extreme collisional broadening morphs the CO2 line spectrum into a broad band absorber/emitter in the same way that this occurs during the transition from a gas to an ordinary liquid.<br /><br />Going forward, I will periodically chech back and addres serious scientific questions, but don't expect to bait me with the typical bombastic rhetoric that characterizes the CAGW side of the debate., Please stick to the science.<br /><br />BTW, the debate is all about the magnitude of the sensitivty, nothing more and nothing less.co2isnotevilhttp://www.palisad.com/co2/sensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11936835246930926422015-07-07T23:46:39.577+10:002015-07-07T23:46:39.577+10:00CO2isnotevil - Your analysis has multiple errors f...CO2isnotevil - Your analysis has multiple errors from the very start. <br /><br />IIRC from our previous discussions, you're halving the top of atmosphere (TOA) forcing <i>(utterly misunderstanding MODTRAN outputs, as that forcing is already the _difference_ between incoming and outgoing radiation)</i>, using a constant scalar to relate TOA and surface forcing <i>(when that's determined by the atmospheric lapse rate and the local height of the tropopause)</i>, not understanding that there is an energy imbalance as long as the TOA values don't match and that the climate will gain/lose energy accordingly until temperatures and emissions negate that imbalance. Your unique math and curve-fitting do not make up for the lack of physics in your arguments. <br /><br />Now you've thrown in the gravity canard <i>(if adibatic temperatures and thus emissions left the Venus TOA out of balance, the Venusian atmosphere would cool/warm until that was no longer the case - and the 'V' of PV = nRT would change accordingly)</i>, invoked <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract" rel="nofollow">conspiracy theories WRT the IPCC</a>, and are continuing to argue for unrealistically short ocean thermal adjustment times. <br /><br />There is quite frankly little, if anything, correct in your arguments. <br /><br />You seem quite sincere about your position - but it's simply wrong. You're On occasion lone investigators have overturned the mass of scientific thought - but those occasions are few and far between, with the vast majority simply lacking sufficient background frameworks and <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" rel="nofollow">fooling themselves with their pet theories</a>. I suggest you reflect upon that. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26551891682012601182015-07-07T21:41:36.641+10:002015-07-07T21:41:36.641+10:00Mr. White (co2) reminds me of a guy at a different...Mr. White (co2) reminds me of a guy at a different website who insists that long wave radiation hitting the oceans can't warm them because it only penetrates a few microns. Where does the energy go? He has no answer. Mr. White is a similar kind of D-K clown who knows a few buzz words and echoes party line rhetoric but falls flat on his face when it comes to articulating the science. <br /><br />Robert MurphyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52447090342239930632015-07-07T17:03:22.043+10:002015-07-07T17:03:22.043+10:00spell-checking is working fine for me (Firefox on ...spell-checking is working fine for me (Firefox on Debian). are you sure you've actually got it enabled?<br />lignenoreply@blogger.com