Sunday, 11 December 2016

Gather ye climate data while ye may

A comment on Tamino's Gather ye climate data while ye may which appears paranoid to me.

William Connolley 
Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
> has appointed a host of the worst imaginable climate deniers
Really? How large, numerically, is this “host”?
> NASA and from NOAA. I fully expect that they will either be halted altogether, or worse yet, will be deliberately altered to hide the truth
That sounds like paranoia. In your last clause you seem to be veering off into the land of the Watties.

Friday, 9 December 2016

The gravy train is about to hit the buffers I'm afraid

A new comment on the post "Scott Adams is a tosser"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/12/07/scott-adams-is-a-tosser/

Author: Jim


Comment:
@Fergus Brown I hear he speaks well of you too.  I don't think Trump needs much persuasion.  The gravy train is about to hit the buffers I'm afraid.

P.S. I'm not getting any of the requested notifications of follow up comments, etc.  Maybe you'd care to have a look at this?

Feel free to sound off in your echo chamber for as long as it lasts

A new comment on the post "Scott Adams is a tosser"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/12/07/scott-adams-is-a-tosser/

Author: Jim


Comment:
Feel free to sound off in your echo chamber for as long as it lasts.  As of 20th January 2017, the countdown to complete and utter irrelevance begins.

Friday, 26 August 2016

Great modern theories? These are just Jew science fraud

A new comment on the post "Feyerabend?" http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/08/22/feyerabend/

Author: Graeme Bird
Comment:

"It appears especially stupid when laid against the great modern theories like relativity or QM."

Great modern theories? These are just Jew science fraud. They are not representative of the scientific method at all.

Saturday, 9 July 2016

ATTP: The Scientific Method

A comment I put at https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/the-scientific-method:

The article's two examples are flawed.

> When Socrates asked “What is justice?” there was never any doubt that his listeners knew what the word “justice” meant.

This isn't true; different participants to the dialogue have different views. One proposes "might is right" and "Socrates" (really Plato) has no coherent answer to that viewpoint. Interestingly, Justice is indeed very hard to define, unless you accept Hobbes's version, which is to define it as "all that is not unjust", and define *that* as breaking covenants, which I think is an excellent approach (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/01/30/justice-and-injustice/). This inversion is reminiscent of Popper's.

Meanwhile, the bit about Kepler is over-simplified at best, since motion around the orbit not just its shape was very important.

As to your question, do scientists need to study philosophy of science, I think I'd go for a Kuhn-like paradigm-type answer: 95%+ of scientists are doing factory-science and don't need that kind of stuff; its the 5% who are in some sense thought-leading and truely innovating who need it; but then again, they've already got it, or they wouldn't be there.

[See-also my: Science]

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

and that the NSA lied about this

Long Article on Snowden's Attempts to Raise His Concerns Inside the NSA says Bruce Schneier. I didn't find it convincing and said so:

> and that the NSA lied about this
That seems very strong, and not justified by the article. I confess I haven't read through all 800 pages of the PDFs, but there was nothing significant in the first 10-20 pages. To save us all trawling through the 800 pages, perhaps you could post some pointers to the bits you consider justify you claim of lies?

Socially constructed silence?

ATTP has an article on what I would call a really rather silly article called Socially constructed silence? Protecting policymakers from the unthinkable by PAUL HOGGETT and ROSEMARY RANDALL 6 June 2016. I commented there, and will record here for posterity since I'm pretty sure at least part of it will be redacted, the following:
The article seems to be wank to me. For example “after the fiasco of COP 15 at Copenhagen… climate change became a taboo subject among most politicians” is clearly drivel, as the most recent Paris summit showed. As to the poor dahling little scientist who was “attacked” by her colleagues – from what is quoted, you can’t tell if that was an “attack” or, as rather more likely, constructive criticism.
I think the article falls into the trap that many denialists do – that most “climate scientists” are working directly on the “big picture” of human-caused GW. But they aren’t; that’s a commonplace illusion, but its wrong. Most “climate scientists” are working on small pieces of the puzzle and would have nothing in particular to say to the meeja anyway. FWIW, when I was at BAS, mgt and the PR dept were desperately happy whenever anyone got their research into the press, or indeed any work-related activity, as long as it wasn’t buggering penguins.

Friday, 20 May 2016

Denialism is the opposite of believalism

A new comment on the post "The RICO 20: lessons in stupidity" is waiting for your approval
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/05/15/the-rico-20-lessons-in-stupidity/
Author: Brad Keyes
Comment:
Dr Connolley writes inline that:<blockquote>[...The antithesis of science is denialism, e.g. WUWT or Republican congresscritters -W]</blockquote>Um, not quite.

Denialism is the opposite of <i>believalism</i>.

Republican congresscritters is the opposite of <i>Democrat senatecritters</i>.

The opposite of science is <i>antiscience</i>: the active hostility to human discovery about nature. This hostility is exemplified when a supposed "scientist" says that if people he doesn't like ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, he'd rather destroy a priceless library of knowledge about climate and weather rather than send to anyone.

The point is that skeptics are constantly being accused of representing the interest of big oil in order to line their pockets

A new comment on the post "The RICO 20: lessons in stupidity" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/05/15/the-rico-20-lessons-in-stupidity/

Author: Tom C
Comment:

William has steered this discussion onto the question of "is it illegal?"  That could be true or not, but it is irrelevant.  The point is that skeptics are constantly being accused of representing the interest of big oil in order to line their pockets.  We are offered examples that are usually a few thousand dollars or so - typical consulting fees for a couple days work.  Here is a professor that has an institute with some vague purpose, with a name containing the high-minded words "global", "environment" and "society", staffed by his family and friends.  He gets $ 5.6 MM of government climate money to do, well, whatever it is that he does [can someone tell me what we got for this investment?].  This might be all legal, but it is still a scandal.

Thursday, 5 May 2016

Weird blog rules

A new comment on the post "Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/05/02/peabody-coals-contrarian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case/

Author: Tom C


Comment:
I. There shall be no criticism of John Mashey
II. There shall be no criticism of John Abraham

Weird blog rules

Thursday, 24 March 2016

Regardless of what you wankers may think... Salby is correct

New comment on your post "Murry Salby ha ha ha"
Author: Leah Salby 

Comment:
Regardless of what you wankers may think... Salby is correct. He has studied the subject for over 40 years.

For 40 years from now Salby will be correct in his study. Go back to when the world was flat. Think about that.

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

PROOF of GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT using Second Law of Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Gases

A new comment on the post "Le Hansen nouveau est re-arrive" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/03/13/le-hansen-noveau-est-arrive/

Author: Physics Shows What is Correct
Comment:

<b>PROOF of GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT using Second Law of Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Gases.</b>

In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

Now, for the numbers to be equal we note that the effect of gravity creates a slightly greater than 50% chance that net downward motion will occur during and also between molecular collisions. This means that there must be a higher density below the plane and a lower one above. So this explains how the density gradient evolves as a result of maximum entropy production (that is, dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials) in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And, for the temperatures to be equal, this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. <b>Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.*</b>

<b>Hence the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.</b>

Hence James Hansen and others are mistaken in thinking that temperatures at the base of planetary tropospheres (and in any solid surfaces there) are primarily determined by radiation of any form reaching that region.

* <a HREF="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics" rel="nofollow">Second law of thermodynamics</a>: <i>In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.</i>

Friday, 4 March 2016

Protecting Protectionism and Other Economic Inefficiencies

CIP invoked me in response to The WTO Just Ruled Against India’s Booming Solar Program?; I came.

I said:

So, you do think you're hard enough :-). Since you've quoted no facts, you won't insist on references in return.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are examples of nascent industries being protected by tariffs; but I'm pretty sure that most such "examples" aren't real; and that most tariffs imposed are imposed for stupid reasons, whatever pols may say or have said. its just too tempting for people. Most tariffs are just there to protect privileged and powerful incumbents; not for the good of the people.
Which is why your "nations are usually run not for the benefit of everyone, but for the benefit of elites" is so odd; its the elites that benefit from protectionism. As, I think, Smith warned you. So why are you in favour?
"might benefit more by damaging a rival" - is that a reference to dumping? Again, i think that's more imaginary that generally noticed; its more of a rallying cry for protectionist.
The correct tariff rate is zero. The good news: the correct strategy for all countries is to set this unilaterally; there is no need to wait for cooperation.

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

What’s Wrong with Wikipedia?

Heartland are sad. I asked them if they needed any help:

Hi. I thought I really ought to show up and tweak you a bit, it would be a shame not to.
Are there any aspects of wiki policy that you'd like clarified?

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

I have studied the IPCC AR's in great detail and this is why I know for a fact that they are wrong

A new comment on the post "Economist watch: Cruz denies climate change"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/02/06/economist-watch-cruz-denies-climate-change/
Author: co2isnotevil
Comment:

WIlliam,

FYI, I have studied the IPCC AR's in great detail and this is why I know for a fact that they are wrong. The mechanism established by the IPCC to determine the sensitivity is seriously flawed.  We can start with the ambiguity in defining forcing, where 1 W/m^2 of post albedo incremental solar input power is considered 1 W/m^2 of forcing, while a 1 W/m^2 instantaneous increase in surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere is also considered forcing.  The later assumes that all power absorbed by the atmosphere is returned to the surface to warm it, as the an entire W/m^2 of solar forcing does, while the data clearly tells us that about half of atmospheric absorption by GHG's and clouds ultimately escapes into space and has no warming effect on the surface.  Otherwise, clouds would not emit any power into space.

At the very least, you must concede that the sensitivity of an ideal black/gray body is given by the slope of the SB relationship, which is quantified as 1/(4*e*o*T^3), where e is the emissivity (.62 for a gray body representation of Earth and 1.0 for an ideal black body), o is the SB constant and T is the temperature of that body.  To achieve a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2, e must be only 0.23.  Given planet emissions of 239 W/m^2, this requires the surface to be emitting over 1039 W/m^2 of Planck radiation which corresponds to a temperature close to the boiling point of water.  Obviously, this is not the case, so the only other possibility is that the T^3 dependence of sensitivity on T must be about T^3.23 since e and o are otherwise known.

Please answer this question:
What physics do you propose can change the dependency of the sensitivity on temperature from T^3 to T^3.23, bearing in mind that this also requires that the radiant emissions of the surface go as T^4.23, rather than the T^4 otherwise dictated by the laws of physics?  Please be specific and cite the precise physical law or laws.  Arguments to authority are insufficient to establish this much deviation from first principles physics which is basically all you have done in #68 and others.

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

Consensus climate science obsesses over superfluous complexity

A new comment on the post "Economist watch: Cruz denies climate change"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/02/06/economist-watch-cruz-denies-climate-change/
Author: co2isnotevil
Comment:
and then ...,

I understand the basics just fine.  One of the basic laws of physics is that the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW is immutable.  Consensus climate science obsesses over superfluous complexity which gets in the way of understanding that the only effects this complexity can have is to 1) vary the effective emissivity (currently 0.62) and 2) vary the albedo (currently 0.30).  The SB sensitivity (what you seem to refer to as the Planck sensitivity) is completely deterministic and a function of temperature and emissivity given by, 1/(4*o*e*T^3), where 'o' is the SB constant (5.67E-8 W/m^2 per K^4) and 'e' is the equivalent emissivity (measured to be 0.62).

As an exercise, you should try to find some combination of albedo and emissivity that results in the claimed sensitivity.  Such a combination that fits the data simply doesn't exist unless the surface temperature is only 176K or the effective emissivity is only about 0.23, neither of which is consistent with the data.

Another exercise you can do is start with an ideal gray body whose emissivity is 0.62 (which maps to the data extraordinarily well) and morph it in a way that the power to temperature relationship is as measured while the sensitivity is as high as claimed.  Again, you will never be able to do this because the claimed sensitivity is impossibly high.

The idea that the SB law is mutable arises from Schlesinger's broken feedback analysis where he incorrectly positions the SB law as the open loop gain in order to convert surface emissions (the power output of the modeled system) into a temperature output and presumes that positive feedback to result in a temperature dependence slower than T^4 and negative feedback makes the temperature dependence faster than T^4.  This is absolutely incorrect and the only effects feedback, the lapse rate and any other climate system attribute can have is to increase or decrease the effective emissivity or albedo while the T^4 relationship remains intact.

Unless you can show first principles physics that overrides the T^4 relationship between power density and temperature, every argument you make is unsupportable by the laws of physics.

G

Cutting comments that are demonstrably true just because you don't like the consequence is completely unprofessional

A new comment on the post "Economist watch: Cruz denies climate change"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/02/06/economist-watch-cruz-denies-climate-change/

Author: co2isnotevil
Comment:
William,

Cutting comments that are demonstrably true just because you don't like the consequence is completely unprofessional.  It tells me that the truth is so scary to you that you can't help but deny it.  The reason it's so scary is because the political implications are so incredibly devastating to the Democratic party and anyone with strong ties to the left simply can't handle the truth, especially those on the green bandwagon.  Scientists should rise above this and decouple politics from the consequences of the scientific method.  Unfortunately, climate science doesn't accept the results of the scientific method when they dispute the narrative.

The consensus denies the applicability of the SB LAW to the radiative balance of the planet,  denies the applicability of COE relative to available feedback power and denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics relative to the net effect of the planet's water evaporation/condensation driven heat engine that manifests weather.  Moreover; the consensus denies the obvious conflict of interest at the IPCC which became the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science.  Meanwhile they call people like me deniers, yet can't cite a single law of physics that we are supposed to be denying.  Apparently, the consensus does not understand the difference between denial and dispute.  I certainly dispute the conclusions of the IPCC, especially the high sensitivity it claims, but I deny no physical laws.

At this point you have two options.

1) You can remain part of the problem and be crushed as the house of cards you call climate science collapses around you.

2) You can rise above the politics, come to grips with the actual science, enable a constructive discussion and be a hero by mitigating the political damage of the truth to your political party.

Unfortunately, I suspect you will choose option 1) and will bet any amount of money that you will eventually wish you chose otherwise.  If you should choose option 2) I will be more than happy to help you.

G

Tuesday, 9 February 2016

The C in CAGW stands for Castrophic AGW

A new comment on the post "Economist watch: Cruz denies climate change"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/02/06/economist-watch-cruz-denies-climate-change/

Author: co2isnotevil
Comment:
W,

Cruz may not be able to articulate what he believes about climate science to your satisfaction, but I know full well the position of the witnesses he relied on in his Senate hearing and can infer his true position from what his expert witnesses testified.

For the record, I don't think Cruz would make the best President among the various contenders and that there are others who could bring the sides of the politics closer together, although there are also others who are even more politically polarizing then he is.  Do you really think the DNC would allow a committed socialist like Sanders to be the nominee, even if Clinton is indicted?  The super delegates will surely draft someone else instead.

The C in CAGW stands for Castrophic AGW whose  over stated claims are speculatively harsh enough to  justify the IPCC's agenda of promoting climate reparations as the solution to the otherwise demonstrably insignificant warming consequential to CO2 emissions.  What insanity drove us to allow the IPCC to become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science as they became the authority to which your sides predictable arguments to authority refer to?

This conflict of interest is stunningly obvious and what's even more stunning is that consensus climate science fails to recognize that a conflict of interest even exists.  This is the manifestation of living in a bubble of misinformation whose eminent collapse is beyond the perception of those within the bubble.

Expressing sensitivity and feedback with dimensional values obfuscates the underlying requirements, Bode prescribes gain

A new comment on the post "Economist watch: Cruz denies climate change"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/02/06/economist-watch-cruz-denies-climate-change/
Author: co2isnotevil
Comment:and then ...

The 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback power comes from COE.  If 1 W/m^2 of forcing raises the average surface temperature of 287.5K up to 288.3 (0.8C rise), the average surface emissions must increase by 4.3 W/m^2 since in LTE, the surface must be receiving as much power as it's emitting.  If 1 W/m^2 comes from the initial forcing, the remaining 3.3 must come from the feedback.  You can redefine this in terms of an equivalent temperature change per W/m^2 since the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW trivially relates EQUIVALENT temperature to TOTAL power, but this doesn't change the required behavior in the power domain.

Expressing sensitivity and feedback with dimensional values obfuscates the underlying requirements,  Bode prescribes gain (where climate science calls the incremental gain the sensitivity) as ratios of quantities with common dimensions (volts per volt, W per W, W/m^2 per W/m^2), sensitivity as the ratios of a proportional change in gain per change in some parameter and feedback as the fraction of the output added to the input before being applied to the gain element, where the input and output have the same dimensions.

In Schlesinger's paper, he converts between temperature and power with an unspecified function and its inverse, which in fact is just the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW.

I should note that in Hansen's original feedback paper (which Schlesinger 'corrected'), Hansen had the units of feedback and gain properly ascribed.  He assumed unit open loop gain and mislabeled the closed look gain and feedback fraction, which Schlesinger 'corrected' by adding more errors.

The climate system can never experience run away feedback unless there's an implicit infinite source of power driving the modeled gain element.  Otherwise, the maximum gain is limited to only 2 W^2 of output emissions per W/m^2 of input forcing, which itself is less than the IPCC lower bound of 2.2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing (0.4C per W/m^2).

Venus is not a case of runaway GHG, but one of runaway clouds, where its the clouds that are in direct equilibrium with the Sun.,  The surface temperature follows as the lapse rate of its dense CO2 atmosphere dictates relative to the equilibrium temperature of the clouds.  Why do you think gas giants get hotter as you get deeper into their atmosphere?  Venus is just a much smaller scale version of a gas giant whose CO2 atmosphere weighs about as much as Earth's H2O oceans.


Comment:You said,
  "Water vapour is positive, clouds are probably positive, "

Water can only be considered by its end to end effect, which includes latent heat, GHG effects and clouds.  Weather is a heat engine whose source of heat is the surface.  The end to end effect of water is best illustrated by a Hurricane which leaves a path of cold water in its wake.    As the maximally efficient version of the heat engine driving weather, its clear that the end to end effect of water feedback is negative.  The Second Law has something to say about this as well, which is that a heat engine can not warm its source of heat.

I'm also well aware of the consensus terminology regarding sensitivity and feedback and the mis application of terms is part of the problem since consequences are presumed based on the  meanings of the terms per Bode.

Sunday, 31 January 2016

Lukes and warmists have no proof from physics

A new comment on the post "Puzzle picture"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/01/29/puzzle-picture/

Author: Atmospheric Physicist
Comment:

Lukes and warmists have no proof from physics and no physical evidence for their underlying assumption (as Roy Spencer also wrote) that there would be isothermal conditions in a planet's troposphere but for "greenhouse" gases.  As Dr Hans Jelbring pointed out, even the large gas planets exhibit a temperature gradient close to <i>-g/cp</i> and yet have no water vapor or carbon dioxide.  Nikolov and Zeller said likewise.

The temperature gradient is a direct result of the force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions, and the process of entropy maximization described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  I have cited about half a dozen others who have agreed in writing about this, and there are hundreds, maybe thousands more who don't speak up but have probably understood the explanation based on standard physics.  There is also evidence of similar radial temperature gradients due to centrifugal force, such as in any vortex cooling tube.

It is surely a fundamental requirement of any hypothesis that it be proven from the laws of physics and supported by empirical evidence which never refutes it.

<b>Every planetary troposphere and every vortex tube and the Second Law of Thermodynamics all refute the basic underlying assumption of the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture.</b>

The other assumption that solar and atmospheric radiation can be compounded is also false and easily refuted with simple experiments. The conclusion that water vapor warms by about 20 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere is easily shown with real-world data to be incorrect.

Thursday, 21 January 2016

You are an evil piece of shit and there's a hit out on you, I guarantee it

A new comment on the post "Science advances one funeral at a time"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/01/19/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time/
Author: Fight evil alarmist scum

You are an evil piece of shit and there's a hit out on you, I guarantee it.
They'll find you and make you suffer before you beg for death and they rip your guts open and leave you to die slowly.