Oops! One wrong equation caused the #climate scare!

Posted: January 31, 2015 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, Analysis, climate, Idiots, Incompetence
Tags:

Reposted from the Climate Sceptic Party. H/T the Hockey Schtick

How did many usually sensible experts get “GLOBAL WARMING” so very wrong?

VERY SIMPLE…..

Oops! One wrong equation caused the climate scare!

feedback-equation

RED FACES all around among the profiteers of doom. A wrong equation that falsely triples the tiny direct warming caused by doubling CO2 concentration has been discovered and exposed in a major peer-reviewed paper just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences  (LINK – pdf), one of the world’s top peer review science journals.

No rogue equation means no climate crisis.

It says the amount by which climate scientists multiply the direct warming from, say, CO2 to allow for “temperature feedbacks” – changes to the climate because it has warmed that make it warm still further – is equal to the reciprocal of 1 minus a third of the sum of all the feedbacks.

They say the feedbacks, measured in Watts per square meter of the Earth per Celsius degree of direct warming, add up to 2. So the equation tells them to multiply by 3. Just 1 Celsius degree of warming from doubling CO2 in the air suddenly, wrongly becomes 3 degrees. A non-event becomes a crisis.

James Hansen – the former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (who once said anyone who questioned his math should be tried for “high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death) – had lifted the rogue equation, the Bode system-gain relation, from a 551-page tome by R.W. Bode about feedback amplification in electronic circuits, published 70 years ago.

Hansen, and the tiny handful of other climate scientists who realized the rogue equation came from electronic circuitry, had assumed it would work for all kinds of dynamical systems from electronic circuits to the Earth’s climate. But it doesn’t.

It applies only to certain systems whose output (in a circuit, the voltage) does not operate to bring the system back into balance after an overload. But in the climate rising temperature restores the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Warming acts against the feedbacks. It damps them down.

Also, in a circuit, when the feedbacks reach a threshold value the current suddenly changes direction and goes around the circuit the other way. A positive current instantaneously becomes a negative current. In process engineers’ jargon, the current flicks from the positive to the negative rail. But in the climate rising feedbacks cannot flick temperature down when they were driving it up just before.

Why does this matter? Because it means the true warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3 or 5 or 10 Celsius. All the scare stories have been wrong from the get-go. Scientists came up with these exaggerated predictions because, and only because, they were using the wrong equation.

Take the misplaced equation out of your computer model – as the paper by four leading researchers in the Science Bulletin demonstrates – and the climate “crisis” melts away. And it’s the only thing that will melt away. Just three months ago, the world had more sea ice than for 35 years. Also, despite record increases in CO2 concentration, there has been no global warming for 18 years 3 months.

Now we know why.

Not a single red cent need have been spent on making global warming go away. But in Paris this December world leaders – unless they and their advisers read the Science Bulletin – will approve a savage global-government treaty that will give the unelected UN unprecedented powers to tax and regulate elected governments in the name of Saving The Planet from Thermageddon.

And all because of one wrong equation.

Comments
  1. colliemum says:

    I’m just gob-smacked, a true jaw-hit-floor moment.
    What I’d like to know now is – did these ever so clever climate scientists, did Hanses, not realise their error, or did they genially waft over it, in the hope nobody would notice, because of the political agenda they were trying to push?
    Which then, inevitably, leads to the next question: if they did it wittingly – can we sue them and all who rode with them?
    Green Peace and WWF have huge sums in their coffers …

  2. M Simon says:

    Hansen also failed to note that if positive feedback predominates the system in question rails. Which it does every 100, 000 years (or about 15,000) sending us into an intergalcial or a glacial (15,000). Between the railing events negative feedback seems to predominate. So what we have is really a chaotic system with attractors.

    I’m a EE by trade.

  3. M Simon says:

    The name of the circuit for those interested is Schmitt trigger.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmitt_trigger

  4. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    When Reality Disagrees With Climate Change Theory Reality Is Not Whats False: Reality: No Warming For 18+Years; #Climate Alarmists Predictions Are B.S.; Green Energy Is Unreliable, High Cost, Whacks the Poor and Destroys Natural Habitats and Wildlife pic.twitter.com/8T1sjJDmJN

  5. M Simon says:

    Folks should stick to domains where they have some understanding. Analog computer modeling is not in Hansen’s bag of tricks.

  6. kuhnkat says:

    Hansen managed to cock up his model of Venus also, yet, no one took him on about it either. Why??

  7. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Only 97% of Scientists missed it.

  8. Bob Greene says:

    Reblogged this on JunkScience.com and commented:
    Does this explain some of the feedback adjustments?

  9. oldbrew says:

    Post: ‘Hansen, and the tiny handful of other climate scientists who realized the rogue equation came from electronic circuitry, had assumed it would work for all kinds of dynamical systems from electronic circuits to the Earth’s climate. But it doesn’t.’

    This James Hansen…

    Link: ‘There is one thing — and one thing only — that can be taken as gospel when the former NASA scientist talks about the perils of global warming: Every word will be wrong, misleading or just plain ludicrous’

    http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/

    Example: ‘Hansen warned that carbon dioxide driven global warming will lead to more tornadoes. So what does the evidence show?’

    ‘In 2012, NOAA released data for US tornadoes, indicating that the current number of tornadoes is very low by historic standards.’

  10. scute1133 says:

    “But in the climate rising temperature restores the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Warming acts against the feedbacks. It damps them down.”

    Do you mean the T^4 in SB laws? I really wonder whether the climate models take into account the enhanced T^4 effect during the SH summer. I think they use the 1/R^2 sun distance to adjust the 1AU value for TSI, but this higher power input that raises the SH summer temps then has a knock-on effect on the rate of outward radiation. Although the increase in outward radiation is fairly close to being linear for small increments in temp (1 degree more for SH summer than NH summer?) it isn’t exactly linear, especially being a fourth power.

    If this isn’t being accounted for then it’s where some of the missing heat is going- out into space during the SH summer.

  11. rod says:

    Never trust a “scientist” who speaks in absolutes, and is prone to using hyperbole.

  12. “the schmitt trigger”

    Any relation to Gavin..?

  13. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    If your using electronic theory for temperature then this link will help with radiation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation

  14. cg says:

    Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses and commented:
    Thanks for posting this article and links.

  15. Evan HIghlander says:

    Absolutely, Rod! _ I just HATE it when people agree with some statement ( usually made by Press Reporters asking some (stoopit ) Question ) – You are having a conversation with someone and all they can say in reply is THAT WORD.
    WHat I’d like to know, though, is ‘Will Society get a refund on the Salaries paid out to these clever guys who couldn’t “count” AND will Society get free shares in all the Subsidised schemes we’ve had to invest in and had Taxes drawn on us over the past umpteen years – yes what about taxes on Concrete and Building Aggregates too, etc etc, . Can’t quite see how we can get our money back on these false schemes -what about the Banking insurance schemes ( PPI’s )

    By the way, FWIW. , Where is all this Artic Storm that’s been spoken about all this week ? Yes it is cold here in N Scotland, but so cold ? almost positively warm! Certainly a chill factor to consider – but little snow and frost in the populated areas is minimal ( but ice on roads at +2C – o drivers beware ! )

    Can I suggest folks read the following article ‘The Madness of Crowds’ Gaagle or suggestion http://wisdomofcrowds.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/madness-of-crowds.html Enjoy and be frustrated whilst you Fizzzz !

  16. Steve C says:

    So, basically there seems to be a choice between two scenarios now for the Creatures in Control with their Culture of Entitlement.

    Scenario 1. We note that even just lately (a) Monckton et al have definitively illuminated a serious core flaw in all calculations used in support of AGW; (b) Paul Homewood et al have similarly illustrated that blatant bias in the warming direction has been systematically applied to “data” from around the world; (c) Pierre Gosselin has demonstrated how the changeover from mercury-in-glass to electronic measurement of temperature appers to have added 0.9 degrees to Germany’s average over recent decades … and, ah, well, actually, an embarrassing and growing amount of other stinky stuff about wthat we’ve been up to. It’s getting out of control. We need to start thinking about how we get out of this alive.

    Scenarion 2. Hang it. We own everything the general public’s going to see or hear about this anyway, so what is there to worry about? Just keep on banging the drum, lying through our teeth and charge the buggers even more to save them from the dragon. We’ve still got a fleet of experts to shout down anyone who tries to question it, don’t forget.

    Hmm. I wonder how that’ll pan out. Exciting. (/sarc, if really needed)

  17. John Silver says:

    I guess the Chinese says “crimate scientist”

  18. rishrac says:

    It was brought up but got hooted down, guess why. (2005) ” These isn’t electronics, your not a climate scientist “

  19. M Simon says:

    scute1133 says:
    January 31, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    Let us assume a surface at 300K and it rises to 301K. 301/300 = 1.00333_ OK. How much does radiation increase? about 1.34% so a .333% change in temperature causes about 4X that change in radiation. So even if you say linear for small changes you have to include the factor of 4.

  20. M Simon says:

    James Pickett says:
    January 31, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    I don’t think so. But I haven’t checked.

    ====

    The Schmitt trigger was invented by US scientist Otto H. Schmitt in 1934 while he was still a graduate student,[1] later described in his doctoral dissertation (1937) as a “thermionic trigger.”[2] It was a direct result of Schmitt’s study of the neural impulse propagation in squid nerves.[2]

  21. suricat says:

    Didn’t I say that Earth’s surface temps are under the controlling influence of H2O TB?

    A ‘Schmitt trigger’ can’t replicate the ‘latent’ functions for H2O!

    Earth’s surface is ‘cooler’ for the effect of water, but Earth’s atmosphere is ‘warmer’ for the effect of ‘WV’ (Water Vapour). It’s just too incredible that scientists haven’t investigated the ‘radiative properties’ of H2O when it’s the most ‘dominant’ ‘radiative gas’ in Earth’s atmosphere.

    I can only conclude that the influence of/from the IPCC is ‘political’, and prescribed by a UN directive via the WMO:

    https://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

    I’m a humble Universal Millwright, but ‘even I’ can see the inconsistency with the ‘scientific method’ here. Where are ‘attractors’ mentioned? Its impossible to have a ‘tipping point’/’hysteresis’ without ‘attractors’ battling for the last vestiges of energy into their systems.

    Best regards, Ray.

  22. suricat says:

    suricat says: February 1, 2015 at 12:04 am

    “IPPC”

    Scrub that. This should read “IPCC”.😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  23. TB,
    Do you really think this was a mistake o0n the part of algore and hansen? Yes 97% of the Climate Clowns are incompetent. That leaves 3% that actually run the scam!

  24. linneamogren says:

    Were they trying to use the Gay Lussac Law ??

  25. The Quadfather says:

    Enter your comment here…A Schmitt trigger, eh? Seems they chose that one for it’s properties. You see, a Schmitt trigger’s output remains in one state until the input voltage reaches the trigger point at which the output swings all the way the other way. Get the picture?

  26. M Simon says:

    The Quadfather says:
    February 1, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    And thus they can run the “tipping point fear” scam. i.e. “You won’t know until it is too late. Act now while you still have a chance.’

  27. suricat says:

    linneamogren says: February 1, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    “Were they trying to use the Gay Lussac Law ??”

    Pass. AFAIK the Gay-Lussac law implies/requires no phase change and is often considered to be a manipulation of the ‘ideal gas laws’, but the ‘law’ often seems to be used WRT the alcohol content of liquid libations.😉

    Here’s a ‘101’ intro:

    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/What-Is-The-Formula-For-Gay-Lussacs-Law.htm

    I’m sure you realise that ‘phase changes’ for H2O at Earth’s ambient temp./pressure completely ‘mask’ any ‘ideal gas law’ manipulation, so I doubt they used it. However, I can’t be sure until I find the time to read more on this.

    Best regards, Ray.

  28. linneamogren says:

    @Suricat

    Thank you so much! I was debating on another page and one member was trying to tell me the mistake was not intentional because using Gay Lussacs Law often is troublesome when calculating. It made no sense to me! But I thought I ask.

  29. suricat says: February 2, 2015 at 1:32 am

    “I’m sure you realise that ‘phase changes’ for H2O at Earth’s ambient temp./pressure completely ‘mask’ any ‘ideal gas law’ manipulation, so I doubt they used it. However, I can’t be sure until I find the time to read more on this.”

    Ray,
    Do you really think this was a mistake on the part of algore and hansen? That was not an issue, the only issue was to blame all “bad” on CO2 somehow. Plants fired by coal, nowdays produce only only CO2 as a by-product. How do we get power companies to buy natural gas if the Coal suppliers and rail-roads offer 70 year contracts at a fixed price for “all” the energy needs. We cannot do that as we do not know how much N-gas we even have, or what it costs to get at it. No conspiracy, only a very good business plan! It is the incompetent 97%, and all those luke-warmers, which only do CYA, that keep it going, with almost no need for direction. Trough feeding!

  30. tallbloke says:

    James Delingpole has posted a strongly worded article on surface temperature adjustments on Breitbart

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

  31. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 2, 2015 at 6:05 am

    “Ray,
    Do you really think this was a mistake on the part of algore and hansen?”

    Yes I do! However, whether it was intentional or not, I couldn’t/wouldn’t say (netiquette prevents this).😉

    ‘Temperature’ isn’t a good ‘measuring stick’ when keeping tabs on ‘energy’ (enthalpy) and its transfer/transport.

    There are two main ‘enthalpy’ categories for Earth’s atmosphere. ‘Sensible’ (you see what you get for/from temperature) and ‘latent’ (for H2O, this is the latent ‘heat’ absorbed/released for a phase change, in either direction, between the ‘solid/liquid/gas’ phases) where enthalpy hides some energy from the ‘sensible temperature scale’.

    The ‘least’ latent enthalpy is held by the ‘solid phase’ and the ‘most’ latent enthalpy is held by the ‘gas phase’, but there’s an odd contradiction for what you’d expect with their ‘densities’ (mass/vol).

    The ‘solid phase’ density for H2O is ‘between’ the densities of the liquid and gas states. IOW, the ‘liquid phase’ possesses the heaviest density of the three phases and is totally unlike most other compounds with which the ‘solid phase’ possesses the greatest/heaviest ‘mass per volume’ (density).

    NB. There are extensions to the ‘phase state’ that include the ‘combustion of materials’ (ionic phases [e.g. (Q). Propane has a higher calorific value than acetylene, but you can ‘weld’ with acetylene when you can’t with propane! (A). the ‘latent heat’ needed to ‘break’ the molecule, so as its ready to recombine, is ‘low’ for acetylene, but ‘high’ for propane. Thus, acetylene ‘burns’ quicker to supply a ‘small’ region of the flame that releases enough calories at a rate where a ‘weld’ can be executed within a ‘favourable environment]), but these aren’t applicable at the ‘normally’ lower temperatures encountered. However. There are ‘two’ ‘calorific values’ for ‘fuels’. The most quoted is the value left after ‘latent energy’ is ‘spent’ for a direct ‘recombination’ (combustion), and the other is the ‘potential’ of the fuel if the ‘latent energy’ wasn’t needed to ‘ionise’ the fuel, but I digress.

    The ‘science community’ has always remarked that ‘clouds are difficult to understand’, and I reflect that conclusion Will. The main problem seems to be associated with the nomenclature of a ‘wet’, ‘moist’, or ‘saturated’ atmosphere. For many ‘disciplines’ (weather forecasting in particular) this is second nature to their purpose in life, is ‘clear cut’ and determinant for ‘outcomes’. I, for one, couldn’t ‘second guess’ what they think/thought.

    IMHO Will, a ‘dry’ atmosphere is an atmosphere that holds ‘NO’ liquid water, but includes ‘WV’ (Water Vapour). Others would have this ‘otherwise’, so be careful. Tons of liquid water can be present/absent for a ‘comparison’ with the one against the other where atmospheric densities are ‘assumed’ ‘identical’ (remember that WV ‘supports’ liquid water at saturation levels)!

    Policy remits are not in my region of interest Will. However, they do trouble me.

    Best regards, Ray.

  32. M Simon says:

    suricat says:
    February 3, 2015 at 1:57 am

    One of the best short explanations of that subject matter I have ever seen. Excellent!

    And water is truly unusual. That point is quite important in so many ways. It is densest in the liquid phase at 4degC. 0degC water will float on 4degC water. And of course ice floats.

  33. suricat says:

    M Simon says: February 3, 2015 at 3:14 am

    “That point is quite important in so many ways. It is densest in the liquid phase at 4degC. 0degC water will float on 4degC water. And of course ice floats.”

    Thanks for your ‘supporting post’ M Simon, but can you expand upon the ‘cloud’ problem?

    A ‘cloud’ has the ‘RH’ (Relative Humidity) of 100%. However, the amount of ‘liquid water’ that it contains depends on its density. Can you help with this problem?

    Best regards, Ray.

  34. suricat says: February 3, 2015 at 1:57 am
    Will Janoschka says: February 2, 2015 at 6:05 am

    (“Ray, Do you really think this was a mistake on the part of algore and hansen?”)

    “Yes I do! However, whether it was intentional or not, I couldn’t/wouldn’t say (netiquette prevents this). ;)”

    I guess I do not get your idea of “mistake”! Had no scientific merit, I agree.
    Please review if the “good business plan” worked out better than deemed possible.

    “The ‘science community’ has always remarked that ‘clouds are difficult to understand’, and I reflect that conclusion Will. The main problem seems to be associated with the nomenclature of a ‘wet’, ‘moist’, or ‘saturated’ atmosphere.”

    This whole condensation process is in an atmosphere where temperature, pressure, density, composition are at best partial differential equations of everything. In addition, hydrodynamic forces can support a whole aircraft against the force of gravity. Such a process can only be guessed, with no possibility of verification.

    “For many ‘disciplines’ (weather forecasting in particular) this is second nature to their purpose in life, is ‘clear cut’ and determinant for ‘outcomes’. I, for one, couldn’t ‘second guess’ what they think/thought.”

    You must be writing of Meteorology. I have no problem with folk trying to deduce deterministic behavior from the random. Hard to do and fraught with error. I do have a problem with the attitude. Trust me, I are scientist! No one that I have communicated with, will even consider that EMR flux to space from the atmosphere can possibly exist. All consider that the tropopause is an isotherm that will absorb any amount of sensible heat with no change in temperature.
    None accept that 15C surface air with 1% WV by mass must increase the temperature of that air-mass by 22C before precipitation can occur, but for that sensible heat powering continuous IR exitance to space from the atmosphere, not the from ground..

    “IMHO Will, a ‘dry’ atmosphere is an atmosphere that holds ‘NO’ liquid water, but includes ‘WV’ (Water Vapour).”

    OK monomeric WV! Such would have a “dry” lapse rate until temperature lowers with altitude and forces a saturated condition. Only then does condensation or supersaturation occur. Such condensation may only proceed if the sensible heat produced at that time and location is indeed radiated to space. This limited conversion rate is the only reason for the lesser saturated lapse rate.

    “Others would have this ‘otherwise’, so be careful. Tons of liquid water can be present/absent for a ‘comparison’ with the one against the other where atmospheric densities are ‘assumed’ ‘identical’ (remember that WV ‘supports’ liquid water at saturation levels)!”

    Anything that can keep a 747 suspended can also support any amount of multimeric WV.. Such is still transparent in the visible (small clouds), but obvious at 4 microns (large clouds), in the same place. As far as I can tell there is little stability in such mulimers, (clumps). They freely exchange H2O molecules upon collision, no necessary elastic collision. All speculation with no discovered means for verification. Heresy say some. Have you a better SWAG?

    -will- All the best 🙂

  35. anng says:

    Correction to previous post:-

    In 2008 Andrew Dessler of NASA used satellite data to show water vapour doubled the warming you get from [carbon-dioxide]. But I believe that before then, it had been assumed water vapour tripled the warming. Whatever, this gave the “runaway warming catastrophe”.
    I think water’s cleverer than that. It’ll snow and alter albedo, or create lots of low-lying clouds to reflect back sunlight way before there’s a runaway warming problem.
    However, I think there are satellite analyses which show water vapour in the atmosphere declining – this would be natures way of preventing catastrophe.
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

  36. Guam says:

    Posted on PH Rog, nice article🙂

  37. anng says: February 3, 2015 at 11:06 am

    “In 2008 Andrew Dessler of NASA used satellite data to show water vapour doubled the warming you get from [carbon-dioxide]. But I believe that before then, it had been assumed water vapour tripled the warming. Whatever, this gave the “runaway warming catastrophe”.
    I think water’s cleverer than that. It’ll snow and alter albedo, or create lots of low-lying clouds to reflect back sunlight way before there’s a runaway warming problem.
    However, I think there are satellite analyses which show water vapour in the atmosphere declining – this would be natures way of preventing catastrophe.”

    From your article:

    “Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

    Are you not “GLAD” that Dr. Dressler can tell you what you agree to
    ..

  38. Hmmm… So, 1 wrong equation about 1 gas makes radical climate change unreal? Again, hmmm… Something seems rather stinky there as well. I’m not the only one noticing the effects of multiple interacting positive feedback loops causing rather uncomfortable effects for many folks in many locales around the globe. So, my question is: If it isn’t CO2 causing extremely radical climate change, including more rapidly rising sea levels and accelerating glacial meltdowns, then what is it or, rather, what are the multiple interacting causal factors. One bloke (name forgotten, sorry), wrote a book back in the ’70s pointing to our release of heat (our heat pollution) as a cause for some concern. Other folks seem to think that CO2 levels are connected to or indicative of global methane increases, over 20 times more potent than CO2 – and not readily reabsorbed by organisms. I suppose that some folks now losing their tropical beach-front homes (or whole islands) would be happy to hear that we’re on the brink of a resurging 20,000 year Ice Age, instead of a 1 million year ultra-Hot Age (that wipes out 95% of all Life with rains of ‘aqua regia’). Yet, at the pace our 17th Century minds do mass-political decision making (for short-term ‘profits’), either whatever causes one or the other within the next century or so, seems worthy of classification as a crisis-in-progress, at least for humane beings with a compassionate view for the sake of our descendants (if any). Oh, yes, sure, those ever cautious yet industrious Nederlanders did wonders with their dykes. Still, that’s no evidence of equal intelligence, prescience, or compassion being equally distributed around the world or among UN Reps, Banksters, Wall Street Weasels, or other “Free Market” privateers of ecocidal obliviousness. Even if it were otherwise, how long do y’all think it will take for a majority of the Movers & Shakers to decide it IS time to start preparing for a major reorganization and/or relocation of most cities & most infrastructure of technocratic society?

    [Reply] This comment contains so many unsupported claims it comes with a talkshop warning. Start supporting these claims with links to data or get ready to be ridiculed.

  39. suricat says:

    Hi Will. Just seen your post of: February 3, 2015 at 7:28 am.

    I can’t find the “good business plan”, but can well imagine what it may contain.

    (“The ‘science community’ has always remarked that ‘clouds are difficult to understand’, and I reflect that conclusion Will. The main problem seems to be associated with the nomenclature of a ‘wet’, ‘moist’, or ‘saturated’ atmosphere.”)

    “This whole condensation process is in an atmosphere where temperature, pressure, density, composition are at best partial differential equations of everything. In addition, hydrodynamic forces can support a whole aircraft against the force of gravity. Such a process can only be guessed, with no possibility of verification.”

    Disagree. ‘Operation Cloud Lab secrets of the skies’ physically disclosed the weight of water supported within ‘a cloud’. This may well be a ‘singular observation’ Will, but is also an observation where no other previous was possible. Its a ‘first’, and as such, is significant.

    IMHO the video provides insight into the buoyancy effect that keeps a heavier medium at the altitude where it’s apparent. If the local medium sinks, it warms adiabatically and increases the WV content (thus, increasing the ‘buoyancy coefficient’). If the local medium rises, it cools adiabatically and reduces the WV content (thus, reducing the ‘buoyancy coefficient’).

    The clue is in ‘specific gravity’ and ‘altitude’. All taken with the consideration of ‘regional’ to ‘local’ considerations (rising/falling gasses).

    I’ll leave it at this for now Will.

    Best regards, Ray.

  40. suricat says: February 6, 2015 at 1:21 am

    “I can’t find the “good business plan”, but can well imagine what it may contain.”

    Ray and others,
    The “good business plan” Had nothing to do with climate, the only issue was how to blame all “bad” on CO2 somehow. Plants fired by coal, now-days produce only only CO2 as a by-product. How do we get power companies to buy natural gas if the Coal suppliers and rail-roads offer 70 year contracts at a fixed price for “all” the energy needs. We cannot do that, as we do not know how much N-gas we even have, or what it costs to get at it. It is the incompetent 97%, and all those luke-warmers, which only do CYA, that keep the plan going, with almost no need for direction. Trough feeding!

    “Disagree. ‘Operation Cloud Lab secrets of the skies’ physically disclosed the weight of water supported within ‘a cloud’. This may well be a ‘singular observation’ Will, but is also an observation where no other previous was possible. Its a ‘first’, and as such, is significant.”

    I did not see the two parts or what might be meant by cloud weighing in situ. It seems that the density inside the cloud was 200 G/m^3 less than the surrounding air mass free of clouds. Even for a tiny 1 Km^3 cloud, the surrounding air mass would support the equivalent of 2 x 10^8 litres of liquid water.
    The unanswered question is “by what process in the atmosphere and how quickly does the density of H20 increase by 10^5?” Have you a density vs. time graph? This answer is still a long long way off.

    -will- All the best🙂

  41. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 6, 2015 at 4:08 am

    “This answer is still a long long way off.”

    No it isn’t. It lives in the realm of ‘first principles’ Will.

    Best regards, Ray.

  42. suricat says: February 7, 2015 at 6:33 am
    Will Janoschka says: February 6, 2015 at 4:08 am

    (“This answer is still a long long way off.”)

    “No it isn’t. It lives in the realm of ‘first principles’ Will”.

    OK! Perhaps your have first principles unknown to mere earthlings. Please explain how and why this atmosphere with its variable WV acts as it does?

    With this atmosphere:
    1LTD does not apply at all, open system!
    2LTD (modern) does not apply, Spontaneous “stuff” moving downhill need not happen. The modern definition of (HEAT) is the spontaneous “movement” of stuff, never what is moved!
    In 2015 a refrigerator with work, can move “internal energy” to a higher potential temperature, but it never moves “heat”, as “heat” is now a verb!
    3Gravitational potential energy, vs kinetic ( Newton, Kepler), does not apply, as fluid dynamics of a compressible fluid override all! Stuff way to dense, floats!
    4Work, construction, with any mistook, is automagically spread over the whole county. (entroy)
    I am convinced earthlings have only “first fantasies”.
    Time to shitcan the equations, and carefully flip each leaf over, to find then discover first principle bugs. Yummy! Close “ALL” so called institutions of higher learning,. They are only a scam. Some hard nosed Guilds, where folk with skill can develop such skill, would be nice. Education an idiot to be a pompous idiot, is of no value.

    “Best regards, Ray.”
    -will- All the best🙂

  43. wayne says:

    James Delingpole:

    “Take, for example, the Urban Heat Island effect. This is where weather stations, over time, have become surrounded by buildings or other heat sources and which therefore record hotter temperatures than they used to. You’d expect, as a result of this, that recent (ie late 20th century) raw temperature readings from urban areas would be adjusted downwards in order to make them more accurate. Rarely though, is this the case. More usually, the adjustments appear to have been made in the other direction, so that the late twentieth century readings are made hotter still – while the early twentieth century readings have been adjusted to make them look cooler.”

    At: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/ thanks to the Tallbloke..🙂

    Yes, yes, yes, James Delingpole sure has it right on the money in his article — this ‘fraud’ is all in these ‘adjustments’. Few realize that there is code from a published scientific paper, peer-reviewed yet the computer code that implements is deemed proprietary, private and un-published that all temperature record must pass through at the very bottom level of adjustments or that is what I understood after reading about it’s existence. See, it is very hard to see the real, real raw records without going all of the way back to the very papers it was recorded on in reality. I still have a suspicion it is more in the attempt of TofObs adjustments that to me make no real sense averaged over long periods of time and I think that is primarily what that one paper was addressing so you will never know what is really in that code it seems.

  44. suricat says:

    Okay. Now that I’ve read the paper again I’m persuaded that the problem is most likely to come from a GCM’s lack of resolution (besides the fact that small mistakes are always multiplied with each iteration)!

    A ‘convection column/plume’ that, usually, leads to a cumulus cloud formation at altitude always has a smaller horizontal cross-section area than the cloud that it forms. However, we know that a ~well developed cumulus can measure as small as ~1 kilometre x ~1 kilometre in horizontal cross-section. Now look at the resolution that modern GCM’s have achieved to date:

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_models.php

    The first graphic on the linked page shows model resolutions available for the first, second, third and fourth ‘assessment reports’ and shows ‘cell/pixel’ resolution of ~500km, ~250km, ~180km and ~110km respectively.

    We know that our ‘target cumulus cloud’ is ~1km radius section in the horizontal and that the ‘convection column/plume’ is smaller. Given that the highest resolution in AR4 is ~110km x 110km area, this makes our ~1km x 1km cumulus cloud ‘invisible’! In fact we need ~500m x 500m resolution to achieve any sort of ‘definition’ to our ‘cloud’, and probably ~100m x 100m resolution to achieve ‘definition’ to our ‘convection column/plume’. Whilst supercomputers could achieve this, the ‘runtime’ is so excessive that the weather/climate would probably give a result in less time than the computer.

    Modellers attempt to overcome this ‘runtime’ problem by using/employing ‘parametrisation’ ([English] parametrisation). The ‘perametrisation’ of a ‘cell/pixel’ involves making an ‘educated guess’ upon what is really happening within its boundaries (this is where ‘mission creep’ is most evident. The behaviour of the GCM is virtually ‘controlled’ by these ‘parametrisations’ due to ‘lack of resolution’).

    Its ‘impossible’ to ‘preconceive’ ‘changing conditions’ for a parametrisation!

    Thus. A model that outputs a solution from data that it can’t ‘resolve’ is a model that outputs the ‘solution’ it was programmed to output. Though I’ve not got into ‘altitude’ considerations properly yet, perhaps another time.😉

    You may well have assumed that I have a ‘problem’ with GCMs! Your ‘assumption’ would be correct.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  45. suricat says:

    Last post attributed to Rog. However; suricat says: February 7, 2015 at 6:33 am:

    This ‘answer’ is in ‘density disparity’ Will.

    The ‘RH’ within a cloud is always ‘100%’ Will. Outside of that ‘cloud’ the ‘density’ is ‘whatever it is’! There’s ‘little temp difference’, only ‘density disparity’ ‘within the mix of water and vapour’.

    Vapour is ‘light’, water is ‘heavy’. How much ‘water’ can be ‘floated’ by ‘WV’ in an ‘unsaturated region of atmosphere’?

    I’m talking ‘convection cells’ and their ‘eventual effect’.

    Best regards, Ray.🙂

  46. M Simon says:

    suricat says:
    February 10, 2015 at 12:42 am

    Nice. That has been a peeve of mine for years. There “accurate physics models” have no physics controlling clouds. Science! Is Very Scientific!

  47. “Last post attributed to Rog. However;
    suricat says: February 7, 2015 at 6:33 am”:

    “This ‘answer’ is in ‘density disparity’ Will.”

    Any ‘‘density disparity’ cannot provide any buoyancy force! Roy.

    It is the force of gravity, acting on a volume with high density that displaces upward a similar volume with lower density. There is no work done whatsoever in this displacement, only a spontaneous, and reversible, rearrangement of volumes, under the force of gravity.
    This volume can be of any magnitude including that of a single gas molecule. It is the viscosity of the compressible fluid that provides the apparent structure, or lack thereof for ‘clouds’. Like an aircraft wing, it is them pressure difference, (under – over) that supplies the buoyant force! This force tends to destroy structure, except for, (you fill in the property). No physics only engineering.

    “The ‘RH’ within a cloud is always ‘100%’ Will.”

    The RH of any cloud volume can take on any value, including much much more than 100 %. Clouds are vicious entities that can have supersonic mass velocities within them.

    “Outside of that ‘cloud’ the ‘density’ is ‘whatever it is’! There’s ‘little temp difference’, only ‘density disparity’ within the mix of water and vapour’. “Vapour is ‘light’, water is ‘heavy’.”

    Now you sound like Jim McGinn. Nothing but undefined words. A fixed volume, with a fixed mass, within a fixed gravitational field, indeed has a downward force (weight). Where ever, when ever, are those three conditions met, in this atmosphere, leading to some weight.

    ” How much ‘water’ can be ‘floated’ by ‘WV’ in an ‘unsaturated region of atmosphere’?”

    Since the acceleration of falling rain is limited by viscosity of the fluid, any amount of liquid is supported or ‘floated’!

    “I’m talking ‘convection cells’ and their ‘eventual effect’.”

    Indeed, True Meteorological nonsense! Please indicate the max, min, mean, volume of such a imaginary cell, and its molecular composition, especially its latent heat.
    Again,“This answer is still a long long way off.” Interesting discourse!

    “Best regards, Ray.🙂 ” -will- All the best🙂

  48. suricat says:

    M Simon says: February 10, 2015 at 3:34 am

    I’m not sure of what you mean there M Simon, but ‘GCMs can’t resolve clouds’, I concur with.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  49. linneamogren says:

    According to Accu-Weather it’s not the “error” which caused differences, it was random fluctuations.

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/climate-model-error-not-the-re/41751173

  50. M Simon says:

    linneamogren says:
    February 12, 2015 at 4:29 am

    The few comments I read are more useful than the article. Here is one I posted (for your amusement):

    If the models were any good there would be one. Not 114.

  51. M Simon says:

    suricat says:
    February 10, 2015 at 6:23 am

    The modelers claim the models are first principles physics based. Clouds are parametrized. Which means they are not ” first principles physics based”. That is the “man behind the curtain”.

  52. M Simon says:

    linneamogren .

    Another comment I left there:

    If the sun controls climate and not CO2 the “pause” is easy to explain. The sun is getting quieter. Now of course there is a problem. How the sun (sunspots esp.) couple to climate is not understood. But we do have examples such as the Maunder Minimum. The Dalton Minimum. etc.

    “If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.” – Thomas Pynchon.

  53. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 10, 2015 at 5:24 am

    “Any ‘‘density disparity’ cannot provide any buoyancy force! Roy.”

    Who’s Roy? I’m Ray, Ray Dart. The ‘o’ is at the opposite end of the keyboard to the ‘a’ and on a different line of keys, so this isn’t a ‘typo’ Will. We’ve been in dialogue for some time now Will, this must have been a ‘failure’ of logic?🙂

    If you float a ‘submarine’ on the water’s surface, then fill the ‘ballast tanks’ with water, the submarine will ‘sink’. After the ‘vessel’ (submarine) has ‘sunk’, when you ‘blow the tanks’ (blow air into the ballast tanks to eject the water in them), the submarine re-surfaces again.

    This is associated with the ‘Archimedes Principle’ where the weight and volume of a body determines its density. I’m sure you don’t want me to relate his ‘Eureka Moment’, so I’ll not torture you with this (any other reader can ‘Google it’ if they need to do so).🙂

    “It is the force of gravity, acting on a volume with high density that displaces upward a similar volume with lower density. There is no work done whatsoever in this displacement, only a spontaneous, and reversible, rearrangement of volumes, under the force of gravity.”

    Spot on. I concur!

    “This volume can be of any magnitude including that of a single gas molecule.”

    Disagree, ‘molecules’ are subjected to the ‘diffusion laws’ and as such, any ‘diffusion’ needs to be taken into consideration for the inaccuracy of ‘the gas laws’ on a microscopic level.

    “It is the viscosity of the compressible fluid that provides the apparent structure, or lack thereof for ‘clouds’. Like an aircraft wing, it is them pressure difference, (under – over) that supplies the buoyant force! This force tends to destroy structure, except for, (you fill in the property). No physics only engineering.”

    So who ‘engineered’ the ‘physics’??? I see this going into a ‘bad’ place Will.

    Aircraft ‘wing structure’ requires properties that include a ‘force’ that overcomes the ‘skin resistance’ of the ‘wing’ (the overall description would be ‘penetration’). We have ‘cord’, ‘angle of attack’ and ‘surface property’. WTF! Aircraft cause ‘turbulence’ because of the way they ‘fly’! I ‘don’t understand your point’ here Will. Post again if you’re serious.😦

    “The RH of any cloud volume can take on any value, including much much more than 100 %. Clouds are vicious entities that can have supersonic mass velocities within them.”

    Disagree. It depends on your definition of “100%”! 100% ‘condensate’ is just ‘water’! I concur that where the variant implies that the ‘RH’ (Relative Humidity) is ‘100% RH’ the ‘WV’ (water vapour) ‘saturation point’ for the regional atmosphere holds its ‘maximum WV content’. “supersonic mass velocities” are more associated with ‘electro-static events’.

    “Now you sound like Jim McGinn. Nothing but undefined words. A fixed volume, with a fixed mass, within a fixed gravitational field, indeed has a downward force (weight). Where ever, when ever, are those three conditions met, in this atmosphere, leading to some weight.”

    As I’ve previously said, ‘The Archimedes Principle’ Will! However, water ‘in the atmosphere’ ‘evaporates’ and ‘condenses’ in collusion with the ‘local properties/conditions’ (who’s “Jim McGinn” [no response required]). The ‘water’ in a cloud is supported by its associated ‘100% RH vapour’ in contrast with the surrounding region’s density.

    “Since the acceleration of falling rain is limited by viscosity of the fluid, any amount of liquid is supported or ‘floated’!”

    ??? ‘Falling’ has little to do with the ‘energy’ of a ‘system’ Will, in fact in this case its an indicator for ‘systemic transfer’ (energy transport). My ‘best guess’ is that the ‘falling rain’ may partially indicate the current ‘rate’ of the local atmospheric hydrological cycle. However, the rate of precipitation is also an indicator of the entropy for the location.

    My thoughts were more in the direction of a sustainable environment where ‘water’ is ‘supported’ in the atmosphere.

    “Indeed, True Meteorological nonsense! Please indicate the max, min, mean, volume of such a imaginary cell, and its molecular composition, especially its latent heat.”

    I’m an engineer, not a weather forecaster. Why would I make “Meteorological” sense? My dialogue is about atmospheric behaviour, not weather.

    Ray (not ‘Roy’).😉

  54. suricat says:

    linneamogren says: February 12, 2015 at 4:29 am

    “According to Accu-Weather it’s not the “error” which caused differences, it was random fluctuations.”

    Thanks for the link, however, its hard to get a ‘random fluctuation’ if you have a ‘full resolution’ of the system under observation and understand ‘all’ of the attractors involved linneamogren.

    Personally, I think the team that forwarded this paper is ‘clutching at straws’ to find an excuse why models don’t reflect reality (trying to improve confidence in models).

    For a ‘hind cast’ the correct parametrisations can be ‘loaded’ for the ‘run’ (the ‘variables’ are ‘historic’), but a ‘fore cast’ requires ‘intuitive programming’ (the ‘variables’ must be ‘assumed’ by the programmer).

    A model can only accurately/truly represent its counterpart in the real world when there are ‘no’ variables. This is why short range weather forecasts are much more accurate than long range weather forecasts. There are ‘variables’ in the ‘model’ which accumulate ‘greater error’ with ‘increasing time’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  55. suricat says: February 12, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Will Janoschka says: February 10, 2015 at 5:24 am

    (“Any ‘‘density disparity’ cannot provide any buoyancy force! Roy.”)

    Sorry, Ray, Got problems, perhaps with girlies, and some Roy.

    I will get back in a bit. Please consider that buoyancy is dependent on a gravitational field.
    Mass nor density is not. 😉

  56. From a different Blog try this :

    D Appell says: February 11, 2015 at 1:05

    It was only a matter of time until the self appointed Dr. David Appell reared ugly!

    (“Cold cannot heat hot.”)

    “1) All objects radiate electromagnetic radiation, per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation”

    As per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, all thermal electromagnetic flux is strictly limited by any opposing thermal “radiance”. This is the difference enclosed by the very necessary mathematical parentheses, of the demonstrated S-B equation.

    “2) This radiation carries energy (whether you think of it as a wave or a photon)”

    The allowed thermal electromagnetic flux transports only “action”, (energy within a time interval). .

    “3) When that radiation strikes another objects and is absorbed, the object gains that energy (and hence, temperature per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation).”

    Thermal electromagnetic flux, transporting “action”, that encounters “mass” may have that action differentiated into absorption, transmission, or reflection. Mathematically the proportions are
    reflectivity, transmissivity, absorptivity always summing to unity. Please note that for any mass at any frequency, area, and direction, your emissivity value is precisely that value of the fractional absorptivity. The “action” absorbed by “mass” may be converted to any other action not involving sensible heat or temperature.
    Many forms of conversion of Solar transmitted “action” have nothing to do with temperature.
    Other forms may be electrical, charging of battery, electrical conversion to linear or angular momentum. On this Earth most forms of conversion are chemical. Reduction of oxidic process.
    to useful hydrogen, and carbon, along with the automagical construction of trees. This is obvious to squirrels. Why never to incompetent Climate Clowns, Physicists, Meteorologists, Politicians, or “The Media”.

    “The hot object is thus warmer than it would be in the absence of the cold object, because its net loss of radiative energy is lower.”

    So what? Can your non described term “warmer” ever have understanding for those digging in the artifacts of stupid earthlings?
    Reply

  57. linneamogren says:

    Hi Ray!

    “A model can only accurately/truly represent its counterpart in the real world when there are ‘no’ variables. This is why short range weather forecasts are much more accurate than long range weather forecasts. There are ‘variables’ in the ‘model’ which accumulate ‘greater error’ with ‘increasing time’.”

    You have no argument from me on that point. I posted the blog not out of support but rather disgust in his attempt to cover bad science with speculation and excuses for erroneous data. Accu are pushing ocean warming as evidence for AGW.

    Looking at the data from 1969-2008 the oceans rose by 0.17C. From 1955 to 1998 equals a linear trend of less than 0.009 deg C/ Decade. We know EL Nino effects ocean temperatures especially regarding circulation in the atmosphere.

    Looking at the North Pacific Index, you don’t see any evidence of warming caused by AGW from the mid to late 50s into the late 80s. There should be a rise there if C02 amplification was a cause, rather we actually see a decline. There’s a fast incline from the late 80s to about the early 90s, but it suddenly drops off again by around 2000 period.

  58. linneamogren says:

    It would be interesting to study the solar data during that spike from the late 1980s to early 1990s in the North Pacific El Nino was very strong in 1988 ( moderate from 86-87 as well as 91 )

  59. Brett Keane says:

    @Will Janoschka says:

    February 13, 2015 at 7:55 am: I guess you might be thinking of the likes of “p=m/V, where if m=0/V, all bets are off. Has this been done experimentally, and how is it relevant? Personally, I’ll ponder it as something new in the ring, always stimulating if it leads somewhere…..

    @linneamogren says:

    February 13, 2015 at 3:46 pm: Great to see the new generation backing-up Bob Tisdale! In this way are the walls breached. Brett

  60. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 13, 2015 at 5:44 am

    “Please consider that buoyancy is dependent on a gravitational field.”

    I concur. Without a ‘gravitational field’ ‘buoyancy’ is neutralised. However, taking this to the ‘extreme’, every ‘mass entity’ possesses its own gravitational and electrostatic field.

    “Mass nor density is not.”

    Huh? Neither ‘mass’ or ‘density’ isn’t what? Buoyant? Dependent on a gravitational field?

    ‘Does not compute’! I can’t understand your statement Will, please re-phrase this.

    Best regards, Ray.

  61. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 13, 2015 at 7:55 am

    Okay, it seems you need time to ‘reflect’, however, this ‘subject matter’ is ‘OT’ (Off Thread). Nevertheless, I’ll respond.🙂

    Let’s ‘take this by the numbers’:

    1) “All objects radiate electromagnetic radiation, per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation”

    Conditional no! SB equations relate to ‘solid surface properties’ for a ‘black body’, but there are ‘modifications’ to the SB equation that I’m not conversant with. ‘Grey body’ applications exist, but I’m unsure of their validification/validity.

    2) “This radiation carries energy (whether you think of it as a wave or a photon)”

    I concur.

    3) “When that radiation strikes another objects and is absorbed, the object gains that energy (and hence, temperature per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation).”

    Aargh! This is the ‘grey area’ (and the logic in the statement isn’t too clear either [objects, object’s])!

    Surely, any EM radiation in the void is just ‘there’ for any ‘mass entity’ that can ‘interact’ with it.

    That said, ‘resonance’ is an important factorial for ‘energy transmission’ between ‘attractors’. EM radiation doesn’t ‘interact’ with ‘other EM radiation’ (it ‘overlays’). However, EM radiation ‘does interact’ with a ‘resonant mass’. Thus, surely, mass is the ‘interpolator’ for EM ‘energy’.!?!?.

    Along these lines of logic, a ‘hot body’ will cool ‘quicker’ in the proximity of a ‘cool body’ (the ‘longer wave lengths’ of the ‘cooler body’ will subdue the ‘resonant activity’ within the ‘hotter body’). Its a puzzle that needs confirmation.

    “The hot object is thus warmer than it would be in the absence of the cold object, because its net loss of radiative energy is lower.”

    I’m no specialist in this, but I tend to concur with the dialogue Will. EM emission works both ways for interacting masses

    Best regards, Ray.

  62. suricat says: February 14, 2015 at 12:01 am
    Will Janoschka says: February 13, 2015 at 5:44 am

    “Please consider that buoyancy is dependent on a gravitational field.
    Mass nor density is not.”
    dependant on a gravitational field!!!

    suricat says: February 14, 2015 at 4:01 am
    Will Janoschka says: February 13, 2015 at 7:55 am

    “Okay, it seems you need time to ‘reflect’, however, this ‘subject matter’ is ‘OT’ (Off Thread). Nevertheless, I’ll respond.🙂 ”

    Off topic only if you think there was only “one wrong equation”. Every equation used by NASA Goddard is deliberatly misused.

    Let’s ‘take this by the numbers’:

    (Appell 1) “All objects radiate electromagnetic radiation, per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation”)
    (WJ As per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, all thermal electromagnetic flux is strictly limited by any opposing thermal “radiance”. This is the difference enclosed by the very necessary mathematical parentheses, of the demonstrated S-B equation.)

    “Conditional no! SB equations relate to ‘solid surface properties’ for a ‘black body’, but there are ‘modifications’ to the SB equation that I’m not conversant with. ‘Grey body’ applications exist, but I’m unsure of their validification/validity.”

    The S-B equation can never be used for flux through a dispersive media such as this atmosphere.

    (appell2) “This radiation carries energy (whether you think of it as a wave or a photon)”)
    (WJ)The allowed thermal electromagnetic flux transports only “action”, (energy within a time interval).

    “I concur.”

    With what? What is “allowed thermal electromagnetic flux”? Is radiation flux or radiance?

    (Appell3) When that radiation strikes another objects and is absorbed, the object gains that energy (and hence, temperature per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation).”)

    (WJ) Thermal electromagnetic flux, transporting “action”, that encounters “mass” may have that action differentiated into absorption, transmission, or reflection. Mathematically the proportions are
    reflectivity, transmissivity, absorptivity always summing to unity. Please note that for any mass at any frequency, area, and direction, your emissivity value is precisely that value of the fractional absorptivity. The “action” absorbed by “mass” may be converted to any other action not involving sensible heat or temperature.
    Many forms of conversion of Solar transmitted “action” have nothing to do with temperature.
    Other forms may be electrical, charging of battery, electrical conversion to linear or angular momentum. On this Earth most forms of conversion are chemical. Reduction of oxidic process.
    to useful hydrogen, and carbon, along with the automagical construction of trees.)

    “Aargh! This is the ‘grey area’ (and the logic in the statement isn’t too clear either [objects, object’s])!”

    Indeed and Appell is way off base in claiming Thermal EMR flux is some sort of “heat” energy!

    “Surely, any EM radiation in the void is just ‘there’ for any ‘mass entity’ that can ‘interact’ with it.”

    There is no, nada thermal EM flux in a direction of a higher radiance. If that radiance is higher than the radiance of this Sun, even far away, and moving, This Sun can only absorb EM flux from that radiance.

    “That said, ‘resonance’ is an important factorial for ‘energy transmission’ between ‘attractors’. EM radiation doesn’t ‘interact’ with ‘other EM radiation’ (it ‘overlays’). However, EM radiation ‘does interact’ with a ‘resonant mass’. Thus, surely, mass is the ‘interpolator’ for EM ‘energy’.!?!?.”

    The CO2 molecule absorbs some 1.5 micron and 2.5 micron flux from the Sun. That same molecule radiate to space entirely from a single resonance near 14.5 microns depending on temperature. H2O radiates to space in a continuum from 14 to 200 microns. If EM flux is absorbed it is always up to that mass as to what to convert the EMR action into, including changing frequency and re-radiating that new action in any direction that has a lower radiance. The Earth’s atmosphere radiates all of its heat, both sensible and latent to space in a more efficient manner that the surface can possibly do.

    “Along these lines of logic, a ‘hot body’ will cool ‘quicker’ in the proximity of a ‘cool body’ (the ‘longer wave lengths’ of the ‘cooler body’ will subdue the ‘resonant activity’ within the ‘hotter body’). Its a puzzle that needs confirmation.”

    If thermal EMR is the only power transfer the maximum cooling rate is where there is no opposing radiance!

    (Appell “The hot object is thus warmer than it would be in the absence of the cold object, because its net loss of radiative energy is lower.”)
    (WJ)So what? Can your non described term “warmer” ever have understanding for those digging in the artifacts of stupid earthlings?)

    “I’m no specialist in this, but I tend to concur with the dialogue Will. EM emission works both ways for interacting masses”

    If the higher temperature object has a power source, anything that interferes with the dissipation of that power must spontaneously adjust temperature so exactly that power is dissipated. Exactly the same thing happens if the emissivity of that object decreases, interfering with dissapation. Did that also “cause warming”?

    Ray, from a different thread
    The S-B equation has nothing to do with energy! The result Is a power per unit area, an EMR flux to or from a unit area and its hemispherical environment. The terms inside the parenthesis, are the temperature part of opposing “radiances” If the environment has higher temperature than the area That equation is still correct but the flux includes a minus sign indicating that the calculated flux is to the given area rather than from that area.
    One way of considering the physical effect is to consider “radiance” as a pressure (force per unit area) The gas mass flow through a limiting orifice is proportional to the difference in pressure on either side of that orifice The flow of gas does not consist of two opposing gas mass flows from the two absolute pressures to a pressure of zero kPa, resulting in some “net” flow. The mass flow between two pressures, like that of thermal EMR flux, are always self cancelling with no potential difference quite independent of the absolute of the pressure.

  63. Brett Keane says: February 13, 2015 at 10:46 pm

    @Will Janoschka says: February 13, 2015 at 7:55 am:

    “I guess you might be thinking of the likes of “p=m/V, where if m=0/V, all bets are off. Has this been done experimentally, and how is it relevant? Personally, I’ll ponder it as something new in the ring, always stimulating if it leads somewhere…..”

    No! the (T1^4-T2^4) is the same concept as (P1-P2) for a one way gas mass transfer rate. A two way
    Thermal electromagnetic flux has never been detected, observed, nor measured. The two stream approach is used by the Climate Clowns, only to confuse the people and government. Yes they all know better!

    The S-B equation has nothing to do with energy! The result Is a power per unit area, an EMR flux to or from a unit area and its hemispherical environment. The terms inside the parenthesis, are the temperature part of opposing “radiances” If the environment has higher temperature than the area That equation is still correct but the flux includes a minus sign indicating that the calculated flux is to the given area rather than from that area.
    One way of considering the physical effect is to consider “radiance” as a pressure (force per unit area) The gas mass flow through a limiting orifice is proportional to the difference in pressure on either side of that orifice The flow of gas does not consist of two opposing gas mass flows from the two absolute pressures to a pressure of zero Pa. resulting in some “net” flow. The mass flow between two pressures like that of thermal EMR flux are always self cancelling with no potential difference quite independent of the absolute of the pressure.

  64. Brett Keane says:

    Will Janoschka says:

    February 14, 2015 at 1:05 pm: My mistake, Will. Was referring to the earlier buoyancy/gravity comment. In my real work (Soil and Plant science)I handle energy gradients and mass transport in scales from geologic to microscopic, so no argument there! I’m just looking at gravity as a fictitious force….Brett

  65. Brett Keane says:

    Will, further to my last, when working with geologic-scale gradients, back-forces would surely be noticeable. Anyway, I’ve started my experiments, which could take years of course. Brett

  66. suricat says: February 12, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Will Janoschka says: February 10, 2015 at 5:24 am
    (“The RH of any cloud volume can take on any value, including much much more than 100 %. Clouds are vicious entities that can have supersonic mass velocities within them.”)

    “Disagree. It depends on your definition of “100%”! 100% ‘condensate’ is just ‘water’! I concur that where the variant implies that the ‘RH’ (Relative Humidity) is ‘100% RH’ the ‘WV’ (water vapour) ‘saturation point’ for the regional atmosphere holds its ‘maximum WV content’. “supersonic mass velocities” are more associated with ‘electro-static events’.”

    RH is the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapor to the equilibrium vapor pressure of water at the same temperature. 100% RH is when the WV partial pressure equals that equilibrium vapor pressure.
    At this point condensation “can” begin, but implies no liquid water or even WV multimers. Above 100% WV the air is called supersaturated and very unstable. Vertical air speeds inside of clouds easily exceed 1200 fps up or down!

  67. Brett Keane says: February 14, 2015 at 11:28 pm

    “I’m just looking at gravity as a fictitious force….Brett”

    “Will, further to my last, when working with geologic-scale gradients, back-forces would surely be noticeable. Anyway, I’ve started my experiments, which could take years of course. Brett”

    I don’t consider gravitational attraction a gradient about this planet. That 6400 km starting radius makes most distances trivial. The, temperature, pressure, and density gradients in the atmosphere make gravitational force more obvious than mass itself, to me! How many people think that half the weight of this atmosphere is above 1/2 surface pressure (50kPa), or 5..6 km? This atmosphere has nothing that can be considered a constant, every product or ratio is a partial differential equation to everything else. Try to fix any one variable and you have fixed both time and space! Such will never repeat!
    What is a geologic-scale gradient? Why should any potential (force) necessarily have an opposing potential (force)? Pushing on a wall is a force that self-creates an opposing force, denying action.

  68. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 14, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    ““Please consider that buoyancy is dependent on a gravitational field.
    Mass nor density is not.”
    dependant on a gravitational field!!!”

    Ah! That makes sense Will, but I disagree. ‘Atmospheres’ are ‘unbounded’ where the ‘only constraint’ is ‘gravity’.

    They’re ‘open systems’, whereas compressors, CI engines, steam engines and receivers (and the like) are ‘closed systems’ where ‘mass and density’ are confined by the system’s ‘fixed’ boundaries. Nevertheless, oil still floats on the water that collects in the receiver of a compressed air system, due to ‘gravity’.

    “Off topic only if you think there was only “one wrong equation”.”

    I see you point. My apologies.🙂

    “The S-B equation can never be used for flux through a dispersive media such as this atmosphere.”

    Concur, ‘black body’ and ‘vacuum’ only for ‘S-B per se’. Any mass media between the bodies adds complexity, and also, any body not conforming to a true ‘black body’ is ‘grey’.

    “(“I concur.”) With what? What is “allowed thermal electromagnetic flux”? Is radiation flux or radiance?”

    Flux is the effective sum between radiances, radiation may well be particle bombardment.

    You’re making me think hard here Will, please remember that I’m unqualified in this area. However, ‘flux’ for ‘energy transport purposes’ is dependant upon the ’emissivity’ and ‘absorptivity’ values for each body and they ‘subtract’ where their spectra don’t coincide. Any mass medium in the path of ‘energy transport’ between the bodies must be assessed separately for its permittivity, so as to indicate any attenuation within the mean path between bodies. That being established, a ‘power factor’ can be realised for the emissions and absorptions of each body. Subtraction of the lesser value from the greater value reveals the ‘energy transported’ (flux) to the body with the lesser value. Moreover, the difference between the ‘power emitted’ (separate calculation) by the body transmitting energy and the power ‘absorbed’ by the receiving body reveals the efficiency of the ‘energy transfer’.

    Okay, now tell me what I forgot and where I went wrong because I probably did.🙂

    I concur with your statements below this mark of your post and hope I’ve also answered your comments from another thread. However, the confusion is still out there.

    Best regards, Ray.

  69. Brett Keane says:

    Will,relax, neither do I in this context. What I said, at 11.11pm yesterday, referred to .energy and mass transport, and was not directly relevant to gravity…. What I was really stating was that I have not found “back radiation”, but must keep looking empirically/experimentally until I have a reasonable understanding of the atmosphere, if possible. Brett.

  70. suricat says:

    suricat says: February 15, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    Erratum/corrigendum.

    “That being established, a ‘power factor’ can be realised for the emissions and absorptions of each body.”

    Should read: “That being established, a ‘power factor’ can be realised for the emissions and absorptions between each body.”

    Best regards, Ray.

  71. suricat says: February 15, 2015 at 11:02 pm
    Will Janoschka says: February 14, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    (“Please consider that buoyancy is dependent on a gravitational field.
    Mass nor density is not. dependent on a gravitational field!!!”)

    “Ah! That makes sense Will, but I disagree. ‘Atmospheres’ are ‘unbounded’ where the ‘only constraint’ is ‘gravity’”.

    This Earth’s atmosphere is bounded almost, and open only to EMR transfers. The rest of the planet “may” have other unknown means of energy transfer, electromotive, magneto-motive, and of course the strict conservation of angular momentum with all other members of this Solar system, and perhaps beyond.
    In the troposphere the Mean Free Path is so tiny, because of the combined (exterior mass column x gravitational force) on this compressible fluid, that each molecule is interchangeably bounded by all other molecules comprising walls of the vessel. In the stratosphere the MFP grows large enough for each molecule to be considered in some elliptical orbit about the center of mass of the Earth, at least until such re-enter the troposphere. Some H2 but few H2O molecules, may gain sufficient Newtonian kinetic energy to become comets, or fun for astronauts!

    “Flux is the effective sum between radiances, radiation may well be particle bombardment.”

    At any point in space and time, at any frequency, all individual radiances may be considered a field strength or Poynting vector summing to a single Poynting flux, if there is sufficient energy to produce the action of that now detached radiation. Two equal vectors at right angles, sum to one flux at 45 degrees and a root two magnitude. If you be smart, for gamma rays and neutrinos, you leave for Madam Curie to play with. I have had enough with “Do not look into laser beam with remaining eye”!

    “You’re making me think hard here Will, please remember that I’m unqualified in this area. However, ‘flux’ for ‘energy transport purposes’ is dependant upon the ‘emissivity’ and ‘absorptivity’ values for each body and they ‘subtract’ where their spectra don’t coincide. Any mass medium in the path of ‘energy transport’ between the bodies must be assessed separately for its permittivity, so as to indicate any attenuation within the mean path between bodies. That being established, a ‘power factor’ can be realised for the emissions and absorptions of each body. Subtraction of the lesser value from the greater value reveals the ‘energy transported’ (flux) to the body with the lesser value. Moreover, the difference between the ‘power emitted’ (separate calculation) by the body transmitting energy and the power ‘absorbed’ by the receiving body reveals the efficiency of the ‘energy transfer’. Okay, now tell me what I forgot and where I went wrong because I probably did.🙂 ”

    That is very good, as is the admission of unqualified, as we are all unqualified. Some with PHd’s fail to recognize such. For simplification, the S-B equation has only one emissivity, that of the emitter, as the opposing radiance is always in three parts summing to unity. A partial radiance from the first absorber, a part from the radiance transmitted, and the remaining part from whatever is reflected.
    The intended first absorber automagically sorts that all out, then tries to figure what to do with what is absorbed, conversion to sensible heat usually has the lowest work function. So far it appears that all partitioning is done between groups of actions, leaving each action whole. Some call this photons, but the gauge Boson photon (singular) is that that supervises the partitioning. I’m sure you know how the QC guys work. How come I refuse to acknowledge “photons”?

    All the best 🙂 -will-

  72. Brett Keane says: February 15, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    “What I was really stating was that I have not found “back radiation”, but must keep looking empirically/experimentally until I have a reasonable understanding of the atmosphere, if possible.” Brett.

    OK,
    Please do keep looking and testing, as that is the only route to learning, understanding, and finally being comfortable and skilled with what you know. I cannot help you with finding “back radiation”, and still retain my personal integrity! The claim is that both single stream and two stream give the same result for any textbook problem, and this is very true. With a dispersive atmosphere, you get to decide what may be attenuated by such atmosphere, and if there is one attenuation or an attenuation in each direction.

    I put up on Suggestions-9 Will Janoschka says: February 10, 2015 at 9:11 am TABLE
    This table involves the error in the Willis shell game! This has my calculations for 100% emissivity with two powers and many shell combinations. I actually tested three shells in 1969 with an assumed emissivity of 95%. FAIL! The final effective emissivity for each surface was less than 87%. demonstrated using the original S-B equation and solving for emissivity from the measured temperatures. We could not get the emissivity to 90% after much “what to try next”. You may wish to determine for yourself why a additional shell does indeed demand that a powered inner surface spontaneously increase in temperature. There is no back radiation involved!

    BTW this atmosphere was designed to be incomprehensible to whatever top predator may be current.

    All the best🙂 -will-

  73. Roger Clague says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    February 15, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    I don’t consider gravitational attraction a gradient about this planet. That 6400 km starting radius makes most distances trivial.

    I think there is a significant gravitational gradient ( g/h ) in the atmosphere.
    To make the maths easy let troposphere h =12km, radius of earth r = 6000km
    h/r =12/6000 = 2/1000 = 0.002
    assuming g depends on distance gravity decreases to 0.998g at 12km Is this trivial?

    Consider the effect of 0.002g on a molecule of air.
    V = change of velocity (and therefore change of temperature)
    V^2 = 2gs Newtons Laws of Motion
    = 2 x 0.002 x 10 x 12 000
    = 480
    V = 22m/s^2

    This is gravitational atmospheric thermal enhancement. Known as the Greenhouse Effect

  74. Will Janoschka says: February 15, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    (“I don’t consider gravitational attraction a gradient about this planet. That 6400 km starting radius makes most distances trivial.”

    “I think there is a significant gravitational gradient ( g/h ) in the atmosphere.
    To make the maths easy let troposphere h =12km, radius of earth r = 6000km
    h/r =12/6000 = 2/1000 = 0.002
    assuming g depends on distance gravity decreases to 0.998g at 12km Is this trivial?”

    Yes always, in a compressible fluid within a gravitational field! You are claiming that the atmosphere “must” collapse under the force of gravity. Go outside and watch it not collapse!! Your eyes are much more accurate than any meteorology book can be! It would help if you could understand Newton’s laws of motion. They are not symbols in an equation.

    “Consider the effect of 0.002g on a molecule of air.
    V = change of velocity (and therefore change of temperature)
    V^2 = 2gs Newtons Laws of Motion
    = 2 x 0.002 x 10 x 12 000
    = 480
    V = 22m/s^2”

    “This is gravitational atmospheric thermal enhancement. Known as the Greenhouse Effect”

    What nonsense…, any attractive force of gravity is completely offset by the buoyancy of the airmass at any altitude. The force of gravity is never allowed to act or accelerate any airmass. The meteorological nonsense of conservation of energy in this atmosphere is meaningless. Even a raindrop is limited in velocity to under 8 meters/second because of the viscosity of the airmass. A rock on a shelf also has no potential energy until pushed from the shelf and allowed to accelerate. No sensible or latent heat in the atmosphere is ever returned to the surface. All is radiated to space via EMR.

  75. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 16, 2015 at 1:29 am

    ” How come I refuse to acknowledge “photons”?”

    Probably because of this Will:

    “At any point in space and time, at any frequency, all individual radiances may be considered a field strength or Poynting vector summing to a single Poynting flux, if there is sufficient energy to produce the action of that now detached radiation. Two equal vectors at right angles, sum to one flux at 45 degrees and a root two magnitude.”

    IOW, you’re ‘classical’ outlook is similar to mine.🙂

    Niels Bohr is partly to blame with his sponsorship of ‘energetic thresholds for interaction’ (even though Albert tried to assure him that “God does not play dice”). Erwin Schrödinger reinforced Niels’s ‘energetic threshold’ assumption, which finally lead to his assumption of ‘complimentarity (values?)’ (the ‘wave/particle’ duality). Thus, the ‘PHOTo’ (photographic ‘EM energy’) and ‘electrON’ (particle energy of the electron) ‘PHOTON’ was born.

    The ‘photon’ is a level of measurable energy that forms a ‘packet’ that is comparable to either an ‘EM interaction’, or a ‘particle interaction’. IOW, an amount of energy that produces the equivalent effect of/for ‘mass particle interaction’! Einstein got a Nobel from this for his paper on ‘photoelectric effect’. Thus, ‘EM energy’ can ‘move mass’. Well who knew it.😉

    The acceptance of the ‘photon’, and ‘quantum physics’, has ‘buggered’ the dividing line between ‘EM energy’ and ‘ballistic particle energy’!😦

    Sorry to end on a sour note and a bit OT.

    Best regards, Ray.

  76. suricat says:
    February 17, 2015 at 2:43 am

    “Niels Bohr is partly to blame with his sponsorship of ‘energetic thresholds for interaction’ (even though Albert tried to assure him that “God does not play dice”). Erwin Schrödinger reinforced Niels’s ‘energetic threshold’ assumption, which finally lead to his assumption of ‘complimentarity (values?)’ (the ‘wave/particle’ duality). Thus, the ‘PHOTo’ (photographic ‘EM energy’) and
    \‘electrON’ (particle energy of the electron) ‘PHOTON’ was born.”

    It is not God playing dice, It is much like falling overboard, or not. I think Niels Bohr was correct. I have observed the work function in cooled semiconductor lattice structure with a electron microscope. A “hole (a defect)” appear to move! However, this is now considered a four-space action (energy within an interval), that only occurs, or not, after the EMR (whatever) is absorbed.
    Each cycle of EMR carries the action of one Planck constant, thus “action” is proportional to frequency. Well who knew it. ;)PEverything must arrive within a 4-D volume which then “can” generate a photoelectric event, or not, but nothing in between. The question is “does the Albert emitted electron have any energy”? Only after electron “emission” can such mass “accelerate” in an electric field to get to EV. Well who knew it.🙂 Nowhere does EMR flux (in transit) act like bullets. -will-

  77. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 18, 2015 at 3:23 am

    “It is not God playing dice, It is much like falling overboard, or not.”

    That’s ‘the cat scenario’ Will.

    “I think Niels Bohr was correct. I have observed the work function in cooled semiconductor lattice structure with a electron microscope. A “hole (a defect)” appear to move! However, this is now considered a four-space action (energy within an interval), that only occurs, or not, after the EMR (whatever) is absorbed.”

    Are you sure the observation was ‘UN-compromised’ by ‘electron bombardment’ from/by the device used for ‘observation’? I wasn’t aware that an electron microscope could resolve to an electron hole in a ‘P doped’ semiconductor silicon lattice, besides the problem with electrons from the observing media swamping the ‘holes’.

    Any ‘PN junction’ is excited by ‘electron bombardment’. Particle irradiation ‘buggers’ semiconductor activity!

    “Each cycle of EMR carries the action of one Planck constant, thus “action” is proportional to frequency.”

    Disagree. Each ‘cycle’ (Planck sample/cycle/~wavelength) of EMR carries the ‘weighting’ for the amplitude of the multiplexed frequencies within the EMR. However, the shorter the wavelength, the greater the effect for/at the same amplitude when a ‘microscopic mass’ interacts. The ‘teleconnection’ with/between a ‘charged mass’ and EMR is mostly dependant upon the ‘resonance’ between the ‘EMR wavelengths’ and the ‘mass value’ (a good analogy for ‘resonance’ is the pendulum of a grandfather clock with Min energy input, but Max mass movement).

    However, where ‘amplitudes’ are ‘high’, interaction may occur in the ‘wings’ (‘side bands’ near the central ‘Planck wavelength’) of the EMR under observation. This would normally lead me into an ‘OP Amp’ (OPperation Amplifier) ‘slew rate’ analogy, but I’m already way OT.🙂

    “Everything must arrive within a 4-D volume which then “can” generate a photoelectric event, or not, but nothing in between.”

    Yes! Photons pop in and out of the void! This is just a manifestation of interacting ‘wavelets’ that can only be observed as ‘photons’ when a ‘coincident node’ peaks at an amplitude that conforms to the energy equivalent of ‘a photon’ and has nothing/little to do with ‘photo-electric effect’.

    “The question is “does the Albert emitted electron have any energy”? Only after electron “emission” can such mass “accelerate” in an electric field to get to EV.”

    True. Once the electron is ’emitted’ from its normal ‘shell’ orbit, the ‘electrostatic’ charge influences its inertia. Thus, 1 electron gains 1 EV, but with almost no capacity for power.

    ” Nowhere does EMR flux (in transit) act like bullets.”

    I concur Will, but EMR can have the ‘power’ to ‘fire bullets’.😉

    In an attempt to bring this thread back to the OP, I had a link into a ‘GCM’ that I’ve now lost. Does anyone have a link to such a beast? It would be good to discus the ‘programming procedures/inclusions’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  78. suricat says:
    February 20, 2015 at 1:47 am

    Will Janoschka says: February 18, 2015 at 3:23 am

    (“It is not God playing dice, It is much like falling overboard, or not.”That’s ‘the cat scenario’ Will.

    “I think Niels Bohr was correct. I have observed the work function in cooled semiconductor lattice structure with a electron microscope. A “hole (a defect)” appear to move! However, this is now considered a four-space action (energy within an interval), that only occurs, or not, after the EMR (whatever) is absorbed.”

    “Are you sure the observation was ‘UN-compromised’ by ‘electron bombardment’ from/by the device used for ‘observation’? I wasn’t aware that an electron microscope could resolve to an electron hole in a ‘P doped’ semiconductor silicon lattice, besides the problem with electrons from the observing media swamping the ‘holes’.”

    Not at all Ray. The trial was to observe the acceptance of a Insb wavelet at 3.5 micron upon a MCT detector 0.1 mm x 0.1 mm With peak 12 microns acceptance cooled to 27 Kelvin. Never was observed a 3 formation of any fault activation. We know nothing! Good to know that others are observing and claiming Bull Shit! I wrote down my numbers. Try to adjust my numbers, and my Kitten must eat your face off!

  79. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 21, 2015 at 3:29 pm

    “Try to adjust my numbers, and my Kitten must eat your face off!”

    I wouldn’t want to adjust the numbers in your observation Will, but I would like to draw your attention to some of the problems that may be involved with such an observation.

    Firstly, I’ve little/no experience in the field of ‘observational metering’ (other than process control). However, this does include Si and Se diode manufacture, and I do have other ‘private/personal’ interests in furthering my education/understanding on the subject.

    Secondly, an “MCT detector” needs a continued re-calibration regimen. Details here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_cadmium_telluride

    Lastly, an ‘old paper’ that recognises some of the problems:

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262956.pdf

    I’m a sceptic Will. What else would you expect!🙂

    Perhaps I misunderstand something.😦

    I’m still looking for that old link to a GCM that I had.

    Best regards, Ray.

  80. Pat Hackett says:

    This article is flawed in many ways. “It applies only to certain systems whose output (in a circuit, the voltage) does not operate to bring the system back into balance after an overload. But in the climate rising temperature restores the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Warming acts against the feedbacks. It damps them down.” First the equation CAN be used for negative feedback as well as positive feedback in electronics. Second it implies (in these last two sentences that I quote) that climate models do not take into account of the Planck effect. This is standard established physics whereby via the stefan boltzmann equation warmer (planets) will radiate more heat and cooler less. This is built into every climate model. It is negative feedback. Negative feedbacks do not exclude the possibility of positive feedbacks and vice versa. The article also claims that tiny effect can turn into a crisis by multiplying by 3. So claims that a 3C would be a crises. I probably agree but how many of those commenting here would agree. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking that the climate will adjust no matter what…as if climates couldnt possibly become unsuitable for mankind.

  81. suricat says: February 23, 2015 at 1:20 am

    “Lastly, an ‘old paper’ that recognises some of the problems:
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262956.pdf
    I’m a sceptic Will. What else would you expect!🙂
    Perhaps I misunderstand something.😦
    I’m still looking for that old link to a GCM that I had.
    Best regards, Ray.”

    Thanks for the paper. Amber engineering is now owned by FLIR Systems where I also worked for a while! That is a “new” paper Ray! The MCT microscope stuff was early 1970s while still trying to see if the stuff could do “anything” useful. The Phds at research, would let you “look” at anything with any equipment under their watch, if you had a valid charge number!! The detector is not a junction, just stuff from three deadly metals with the physical consistency of a banana at room temperature. Only Doris could make the ball bond stick without smuching. Getting the stuff cold enough and to still observe with the SEM, was quite challenging. Aparently there are both minority (hole) and majority (electron) mobilities and lifetimes which produce significant gain in the material itself, with the major noise being GR noise from the minority carrier activation. The structure valence “electron lack of charge” moving slowly backward toward sweepout was what we “think” we observed.
    I cannot find GCM references that would interest you. Perhaps with some dates and other clues?? The misuse of the HiTran database by Hanson and NASA, was something I was aware of only by rumour. The Air Force Cambridge Lab folk were truly pissed!

    BTW My measurements that I own, are those made in the heat and mosquitos that others tried to “correct” from their desks! -will-

  82. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 23, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    “That is a “new” paper Ray!”

    ‘Tempus fugit’. When a paper is published, another is waiting in the ‘wings’ (the peer process).🙂

    “I cannot find GCM references that would interest you.”

    TBH. There isn’t a ‘GCM’ that would interest me Will! I’m looking for the link to show how ‘impotent’ the ‘concept’ really is/isn’t! Although I’ve saved ‘previous content’ from ‘redundant systems’ to this lap-top, I can’t identify historic dialogue. I intend to resurrect the ‘infra-net’ that I had to find this link. Watch this space for an update on this subject.

    “BTW My measurements that I own, are those made in the heat and mosquitos that others tried to “correct” from their desks!”

    This is just another reason why critics need to have ‘field experience’ before formulating a ‘paper’!

    Best regards, Ray.

  83. craigm350 says:

    It’s not just the equations, there could be a problem with the code too –

    10 PRINT “CARBON POLLUTION=THERMAGEDDON”
    >20 GOTO 10
    >RUN

    😀

  84. craigm350 says: February 27, 2015 at 3:49 am

    “It’s not just the equations, there could be a problem with the code too –

    10 PRINT “CARBON POLLUTION=THERMAGEDDON”
    >20 GOTO 10
    >RUN
    “———————————————————
    That one is easy, The CODE that is actually used is “left over” 1960 FORTRAN with all the clever “from the next input card” formatting or worse choices!
    No one at NASA or NOAA has any idea of what this code does. Now, no one that wishes to remain employed will even ask what this code does or means. This is the complete structure of all the many GCMs. 🙂 -will-

  85. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 27, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    Er, I think craigm350 used sarcasm there will! That ‘programme’ makes sense in BASIC.

    In the dark, deep recesses of my mind, ‘FORTRAN 78’ – ‘FORTRAN 98’ rings a ‘bell’ (though I may be confusing ….98 with ‘Windows’). However, this is of little import. Many ‘subroutines’ were written in ‘other languages’ for ‘GCMs’ (COBOL [occasionally], ‘PYTHON’ to name but two). These ‘other languages’ require an ‘interpreter’ that uses more ‘runtime’ for the processing of information across platforms. The GCM is a ‘programmer’s nightmare’ and an abortion of programming protocols. ‘One runtime’, ‘one language’!

    I’ve searched my archives for the ‘link’ that I want to post, but to no avail. I now need to resurrect a dead computer (PC) that may contain the ‘link’ that I’m looking for on its HD. If anyone out there has a ‘link’ to the GCM that ‘cobbly worlds’ made on the ‘channel 4 Eve website’, please come forward.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  86. tchannon says:

    suricat, emailed you a link to suricat

  87. suricat says: March 1, 2015 at 2:06 am

    “Er, I think craigm350 used sarcasm there will! That ‘programme’ makes sense in BASIC.”

    GRIN🙂

    “In the dark, deep recesses of my mind, ‘FORTRAN 78′ – ‘FORTRAN 98′ rings a ‘bell’ (though I may be confusing ….98 with ‘Windows’). However, this is of little import. Many ‘subroutines’ were written in ‘other languages’ for ‘GCMs’ (COBOL [occasionally], ‘PYTHON’ to name but two). These ‘other languages’ require an ‘interpreter’ that uses more ‘runtime’ for the processing of information across platforms. The GCM is a ‘programmer’s nightmare’ and an abortion of programming protocols. ‘One runtime’, ‘one language’!”

    Ray, Think 1960s FORTRAN, (still supported). One group of the skillful, willing to defend ownership of correct code. We once did a LISP interpreter in FORTH, (SCHEME). Faster than the original at displaying 500! (factorial), Lotsa zeeros, each 5 factor had many 2 factors! -will-

  88. suricat says: March 1, 2015 at 2:06 am

    “I’ve searched my archives for the ‘link’ that I want to post, but to no avail. I now need to resurrect a dead computer (PC) that may contain the ‘link’ that I’m looking for on its HD. If anyone out there has a ‘link’ to the GCM that ‘cobbly worlds’ made on the ‘channel 4 Eve website’, please come forward.🙂 ”

    Try: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/comment-page-15/

  89. suricat says:

    tchannon says: March 1, 2015 at 2:52 am

    “suricat, emailed you a link to suricat”

    Thanx Tim, you’re a star!🙂

    When C4 closed their ‘Eve’ discussion site, some of ‘us’ (the posters) migrated to:

    “www.gagajoyjoy.com” [mod: possible malicious site content –Tim]

    However, it would seem that the ‘destination’ of my ‘link’ has been removed from the Internet!

    My link was:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/gcms.html

    From the page;

    “www.gagajoyjoy.com/topic/more-empirical-falsifications-of-anthropic-global-warming?reply=122595734166684322” [mod: possible malicious site content –Tim]

    several years ago.

    I no longer have a connection to a ‘GCM’! The ‘source’ has discontinued its connectivity!

    My apologies.

    Best regards, Ray.

  90. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: March 2, 2015 at 12:11 am

    Many thanx for your research Will, but it seems that my ‘reference’ has ‘evaporated’ from the web.

    The ‘source/destination’ is ‘unobtainable’!

    Best regards, Ray.

  91. suricat says:

    tchannon says: March 2, 2015 at 3:34 am

    I’ve been there recently Tim. DON’T download the “PepperZip” file!!!

    I’ve spent most of the last 24hrs ‘trying’ to eradicate the ‘bundle download’ ‘trojan’ that my laptop seems to have been infected with by this file.😦

    GCMs ain’t ‘worth it’! I give up.

    Best regards, Ray.

  92. tchannon says:

    Ouch!
    Safe removal instructions are always hard to find. (many are themselves malicious)
    http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/549436/malware-not-in-program-list-to-uninstall/

    Or maybe simplest try this first. You might need to download and install the trial full version.
    http://www.eset.com/int/home//products/online-scanner/

  93. suricat says:

    tchannon says: March 4, 2015 at 4:24 am

    Thanks Tim, but its already gone. A full scan with ‘Microsoft Security Essentials’ (4hrs. to scan) got the blighters. Exploit:HTM/Axpergle.M, two SoftwareBundler:Win32/WinOptimiser and a BrowserModifier:IeEnablerCby.

    I ‘dumped’ all ‘quarantined’ items, deleted all unknown programmes from the programme list, then came the job of tracing the destination of all the links that had been placed on the Desk Top to delete all the other installed files and folders. It took a while.😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  94. suricat says:

    Tim.

    Its a long time since I tried to investigate GCMs, but I’m quite sure that my ‘source’ was from the UK Met Office. The site was re-organised some time ago (Met Office) and the link that you (Tim) provided shows my ‘last resort’ link to a GCM following the reconstruction of the UK Met Office site.

    The final ‘outcome’ implies ‘obfuscation’!

    Not only has the UK Met Office hidden relevant data, but the USA based NASA site has included measures to prevent pertinent data acquisition (I can’t believe that NASA is oblivious to the ‘virulent content’ of their ‘download’)!

    Again, is it ‘worth it’?

    Best regards, Ray.

  95. suricat says: March 5, 2015 at 2:38 am

    ” (I can’t believe that NASA is oblivious to the ‘virulent content’ of their ‘download’)!”

    Who do you think put it there? Perhaps time for a different OS! Even Ubuntu has updates more than once a week. I prefer SUSE, it helps to be comfortable with linux. So far malware affects Firefox, and some others, but updating to the latest is an easy repair.

  96. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: March 5, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    I see where you’re coming from Will. Super-computers are ‘UNIX’ based systems and ‘Linux’ is a system based on ‘UNIX’ code.

    However, ‘UNIX’ code is never offered for download to ‘any’ ‘downloader’ without a ‘warning’! There’s no ‘warning’ on the site so I doubt this is the problem.

    WRT O/Ss. My introduction to an ‘O/S’ was made by learning to address the CPU with a ‘Compiler language’. I’ve ‘constructed’ a language based on my own requirements for ‘CNC’ (Computer Numeric Control) needs. WRT other established languages in the ‘UNIX’ category, I’ve had experience with Red Hat, Caldera e Desktop 2.4, Suse Linux <9.2, Ubuntu (this product is 'tamed' for the consumer) and an excellent 'Studio 64' (which is a brilliant 'sound studio' for sound recordists).

    IOW, my infestation wasn't caused by a 'clash' between O/Ss. It was caused by the 'content' of the 'download'! DON'T download "the “PepperZip” file!!!". BTW, I'm running Win 7 just now.

    Before you say it, I know that a UNIX system is immune to many of the viral attacks that affect Win systems. However, webmasters also know this! The 'registry' of a 'windoze' system is/becomes the 'directory' within a 'UNIX' system! The result is 'manipulation' of the 'windoze' system by the 'UNIX' system. I can't say more just now. I'm off to bed.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.