In Support of the A in AGW

[Wuwei]

Sure, and Ira G has written similar articles. Like I told Wuwei-, the problem with using variations of the equipartition equations is that THERE IS a temperature gradient! That THERE IS a difference in the type and amount of radiation that goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at any height you want to measure. And if that is not enough, then there is the potential energy being stored in the gravity field that is not 'detectable' as temperature change.

Tom Vonk's article in Macauleys world is very well written. He promotes using equipartition as a very important local phenomenon as I did, and he also has a caveat that he is concerned with one aspect of CO2 in the atmosphere. There was no intention by either of us to say that the concept explains everything from ground to space, it emphasizes that CO2 is what I call a scattering medium no matter what the altitude. Your objection about the temperature gradient is well taken, but that wasn't the point of my original comment. I was simply addressing SSDD's objection that it is improbable for the same CO2 molecule to absorb and emit the same radiation at it's resonance frequency. It is a statistical ensemble in a local volume that does that. However Tom focus was to address the fact that CO2 does not directly transfer heat to the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

I get the point of equipartition for a local area. Do you get my point that energy input by radiation does not equal energy output on the other side of any realistic slab of atmosphere? The energy difference cannot just disappear. If it does not directly increase temperature then it is in a different pathway that is an equivalent to temperature increase. Stored potential energy, increased convection through density change, or something else.

 

[Wuwei]

I get the point of equipartition for a local area. Do you get my point that energy input by radiation does not equal energy output on the other side of any realistic slab of atmosphere? The energy difference cannot just disappear. If it does not directly increase temperature then it is in a different pathway that is an equivalent to temperature increase. Stored potential energy, increased convection through density change, or something else.

If I understand you I think your point is similar to an integral in calculus which is a limit of a sum of thin areas before the differences approach zero. I was looking at the infinitesimals whereas you are looking at the deltas. So yes I agree if that is your point. Or maybe my example of calculus is a bit awkward as an illustration.

 

[IanC]

I get the point of equipartition for a local area. Do you get my point that energy input by radiation does not equal energy output on the other side of any realistic slab of atmosphere? The energy difference cannot just disappear. If it does not directly increase temperature then it is in a different pathway that is an equivalent to temperature increase. Stored potential energy, increased convection through density change, or something else.

If I understand you I think your point is similar to an integral in calculus which is a limit of a sum of thin areas before the differences approach zero. I was looking at the infinitesimals whereas you are looking at the deltas. So yes I agree if that is your point. Or maybe my example of calculus is a bit awkward as an illustration.

Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.

 

[Wuwei]

Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.

Many areas are polarized: religion, immigration, taxing, and of course politics. I see the polarization only getting stronger.

 

[IanC]

Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.

Many areas are polarized: religion, immigration, taxing, and of course politics. I see the polarization only getting stronger.

I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.

I am fascinated and mesmerized by American presidential politics. Can it be true that Trump and Clinton are the choices? How did it happen?

There seems to be a lack of adult supervision in our present world due to deference to popularity rather than wisdom. I'm having a hard time seeing the road back to reality. PC, religious and antireligion extremism seems to have replaced commonsense values. We used to laugh and scorn the USSR but somehow we have become them.

 

[Wuwei]

I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.

I am fascinated and mesmerized by American presidential politics. Can it be true that Trump and Clinton are the choices? How did it happen?

There seems to be a lack of adult supervision in our present world due to deference to popularity rather than wisdom. I'm having a hard time seeing the road back to reality. PC, religious and antireligion extremism seems to have replaced commonsense values. We used to laugh and scorn the USSR but somehow we have become them.

I saw the movie Idiocracy . It is happening today.

I think you hit it with the internet. One insidious factor is that the browsers are gleaning a profile of you. If it sees you go to conservative (or liberal) sites often, it will give those sites at the top of the page when you are browsing. That will just reinforce your stance and you won't see the other side. The internet is unintentionally manipulating your mind and polarizing everyone.

I stopped reading politics. Now my mind is mellower.

 

[Olde Europe]

You forgot the next sentence where it said that energy would not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

No, I didn't forget the next sentence. It is just an explication of the first, and the "energy" mentioned in the context was "heat". Secondly, you still don't understand what "spontaneously" means in this context. A photon is caused to be emitted by, say, a CO2 molecule going to a lower energy level. It doesn't move "spontaneously", as does heat along the temperature gradient.

No need...you wouldn't question your faith if God himself told you that the greenhouse hypothesis was bullshit.

Ah, so we have another case of SSDD throwing in unsupported "stuff" he picked up somewhere in the denialist blabbosphere, and from a source of which even he is too ashamed to acknowledge. That's disappointing, and the claim isn't worth a shrug, and dismissed.

The greenhouse effect is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence for it is being observed and measured, your shrieking to the contrary notwithstanding. All the earth's major, human-generated greenhouse gases show up with their signature wavelengths, both in the earth's lowered irradiance and in the back radiation. Your proving to be quite resourceful at throwing in distracting sideshows does not prove a thing, other than your willingness to undergo a daily routine of self-humiliation that is quite startling to behold.

 

[jc456]

I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.

I am fascinated and mesmerized by American presidential politics. Can it be true that Trump and Clinton are the choices? How did it happen?

There seems to be a lack of adult supervision in our present world due to deference to popularity rather than wisdom. I'm having a hard time seeing the road back to reality. PC, religious and antireligion extremism seems to have replaced commonsense values. We used to laugh and scorn the USSR but somehow we have become them.

I saw the movie Idiocracy . It is happening today.

I think you hit it with the internet. One insidious factor is that the browsers are gleaning a profile of you. If it sees you go to conservative (or liberal) sites often, it will give those sites at the top of the page when you are browsing. That will just reinforce your stance and you won't see the other side. The internet is unintentionally manipulating your mind and polarizing everyone.

I stopped reading politics. Now my mind is mellower.

How do you figure you can make a difference if you ignore politics?

Ignoring politics is today's issue. It's why we're where we are today.

 

[IanC]

Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.

Many areas are polarized: religion, immigration, taxing, and of course politics. I see the polarization only getting stronger.

I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.

I am fascinated and mesmerized by American presidential politics. Can it be true that Trump and Clinton are the choices? How did it happen?

There seems to be a lack of adult supervision in our present world due to deference to popularity rather than wisdom. I'm having a hard time seeing the road back to reality. PC, religious and antireligion extremism seems to have replaced commonsense values. We used to laugh and scorn the USSR but somehow we have become them.

And liberals want men to pee in front of little girls

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

 

[Olde Europe]

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

You know what's funny about that? Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things. It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.

 

[IanC]

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

You know what's funny about that? Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things. It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

 

[Olde Europe]

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

There is no comparison, just making fun of the weird and scurrilous things happening at the time, like things not seen but ardently believed, such as self-identified female transgender people "peeing in front of", or preying on, "girls", or climate scientists engaged in an earth-spanning conspiracy.

And no, climate scientists do not exaggerate wildly, and are not being seen erring on a daily basis - the denialist blabbosphere, however, is where you can find exactly that.

 

[IanC]

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

There is no comparison, just making fun of the weird and scurrilous things happening at the time, like things not seen but ardently believed, such as self-identified female transgender people "peeing in front of", or preying on, "girls", or climate scientists engaged in an earth-spanning conspiracy.

And no, climate scientists do not exaggerate wildly, and are not being seen erring on a daily basis - the denialist blabbosphere, however, is where you can find exactly that.

I suppose we will just have to disagree. Is WUWT part of the denialist blabbosphere? the first story at that site right now is The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York .

it shows how a 2012 paper using outdated data to 2009 showed high SLR for NYC,NY and Washington, DC. and it also used a bizarre method of looking only at the rising portion of cycles to make the SLR appear even more pronounced.

by simply adding another six years of data the whole thing falls apart. cherrypicking dates and methodologies to produce a desired result is both a mistake and an exaggeration.

I read both sides, perhaps you only read one side. without being exposed to the criticisms that all papers receive I dont think you can come to an informed position on the importance and reliability of any report.

 

[Olde Europe]

I suppose we will just have to disagree. Is WUWT part of the denialist blabbosphere? the first story at that site right now is The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York .

it shows how a 2012 paper using outdated data to 2009 showed high SLR for NYC,NY and Washington, DC. and it also used a bizarre method of looking only at the rising portion of cycles to make the SLR appear even more pronounced.

by simply adding another six years of data the whole thing falls apart. cherrypicking dates and methodologies to produce a desired result is both a mistake and an exaggeration.

I read both sides, perhaps you only read one side. without being exposed to the criticisms that all papers receive I dont think you can come to an informed position on the importance and reliability of any report.

For crying out loud!

Of course, WUWT is a central part of the denialist blabbosphere. That article was particularly funny, criticizing a scientific paper for choosing 40-, 50-, and 60-years periods to determine trends in sea level rise (cherry-picking!), and then using a six-years timeframe, and the noise in the system, to "determine" a "trend" in order to counter that paper. No cherry-picking start and end dates here.

Honestly, IanC, did the guest blogger's nick - Giordano Bruno - give you no hint that this silly blog post was just another denialist blabbosphere joke?

 

[IanC]

Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597

This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.

As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down.

The logic of Sallenger & co. was based on the comparison of the rate of rise of sea levels over the first and second half of time windows of 60, 50 and 40 years, i.e. the comparison of the rate of rise over the first and the last 30, 25 and 20 years respectively of these 60, 50 and 40 years windows.

This did not make any sense to me, as if you do have sinusoidal oscillations of periodicity 60 years, positive and negative phases of 30 years, and you select the end of the time widows at the end of one positive phase, this way you will always have “positive acceleration” even if there is none, and everybody knew about periods and phasing of the natural oscillations.

has the extra six years of data regressed to the mean and broken the claims of 'highest evah', or not?

do you blame any academic for using a nickname when writing criticism against orthidoxy? Bruno is actually pretty clever. obviously he does not want to get burned at the stake.

 

[IanC]

from WUWT on the 28th is a piece on NOAA tide gauge data update. it shows no acceleration.

with the satellites proclaiming that the oceans are rising faster than the coasts it is interesting to inspect Hawaii. is it ocean or coast? whatever it is, it is showing less than 2mm/yr SLR

 

[jc456]

Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.

Many areas are polarized: religion, immigration, taxing, and of course politics. I see the polarization only getting stronger.

I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.

I am fascinated and mesmerized by American presidential politics. Can it be true that Trump and Clinton are the choices? How did it happen?

There seems to be a lack of adult supervision in our present world due to deference to popularity rather than wisdom. I'm having a hard time seeing the road back to reality. PC, religious and antireligion extremism seems to have replaced commonsense values. We used to laugh and scorn the USSR but somehow we have become them.

And liberals want men to pee in front of little girls

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

Exactly, so why do they need to use the women's?

 

[Olde Europe]

has the extra six years of data regressed to the mean and broken the claims of 'highest evah', or not?

do you blame any academic for using a nickname when writing criticism against orthidoxy? Bruno is actually pretty clever. obviously he does not want to get burned at the stake.

Oh, the high drama, "burned at the stake", no less, and pretty crisp, presumably.

And no, six years of anything with cherry-picked start and end dates don't (dis-) prove a thing, particularly not a long-term trend. Of course, you could have read the paper I linked, realized the complex analyses, the methodology clearly described, the theoretical background outlined, the provenance of the data given, and the possible causes discussed (changing ocean currents, mostly), and such, and all that missing from an insultingly stupid WUWT blog post. What that oh-so-very smart "Bruno" did was so enormously original, the denialist blabbosphere did that for more than a decade, blabbing about the high temperatures in 1998 (el nino!), and detecting flat or even falling temperatures. That is, they exploit a system in which the noise in the data, because of national variation, is an order of magnitude bigger than the trend, in order to hoodwink the gullible. Clever, and so originial!

Next...

with the satellites proclaiming that the oceans are rising faster than the coasts it is interesting to inspect Hawaii

... to counter a detected Sea Level Rise Hot Spot at parts of the U.S.'s Atlantic cost, you come up with a comparison with Hawaii. Hawaii...

... however, seems a bit removed from the Atlantic coast, or rather in another ocean. But hey, you could have read the paper I linked, and figured that out all on your own.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

The earths atmosphere is 5.148x1018 kg in weight and they claim something which has 1/1,000,000,000,000 of that weight is capable of warming it uncontrollably..