tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2738675153932510952..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Peter Ward Plays PinataEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76749572891702917212016-04-21T22:11:57.817-04:002016-04-21T22:11:57.817-04:00While you have a little of the story right, the is...While you have a little of the story right, the issue is do you want to discuss science and learn or just keep your blindfold on and play piñata?<br /><br />The greatest warming of air in the atmosphere clearly occurs in the stratosphere, heated by solar ultraviolet radiation. The basic reason is that when a molecule of gas is dissociated, the molecular pieces fly apart at high velocity. Since gas temperature is proportional to average kinetic energy of all gas molecules and kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared, dissociation converts all of the energy in the bond directly into a temperature increase.<br /><br />When a gas molecule absorbs energy too low to cause dissociation, that energy is absorbed by the bonds and we need to assume the energy gets converted to kinetic energy via collisions. This conversion does not appear to be efficient. It has never been proven experimentally that greenhouse gases absorbing such energy actually warms air significantly. That is the reason for my climate challenge (whyclimatechanges.com/challenge/).<br /><br />Radiant energy (E) is well known among atmospheric chemists to equal the Planck constant (h) times frequency (v, Greek letter nu). The highest frequency solar radiation reacts first. It takes high energy to ionize molecules, forming the ionosphere. As we approach the top of the stratosphere the highest energy available is able to dissociate oxygen. The higher the energy, the higher the bond strength, the higher the velocities of molecular pieces, the higher the temperature increase upon dissociation. This is why the upper stratosphere is warmest and why it has trivial amounts of ozone. In your diagram showing actinic flux as a function of wavelength, note that the greatest absorption of energy between 40 and 50 km, the upper part of the stratosphere, is around 242 nm, the “wavelength” of the energy required to dissociate oxygen, which is in the ultraviolet-C range. <br /><br />As we go lower in the stratosphere, ozone begins to form and be dissociated. This is at a maximum in the ozone layer because an average molecule of ozone only lasts around 8.3 days. The ozone layer is where the Chapman cycle works most efficiently typically absorbing most UV-B solar radiation energetic enough to dissociate ozone. The ozone layer is in the lower part of the stratosphere where the temperatures are lower. The UV-B radiation necessary to dissociate ozone is lower energy that UV-C, so the temperature in the lower stratosphere is cooler than in the upper stratosphere.<br /><br />The basic problem with the Trenberth diagram is that he shows 333 W/m2 back radiation from greenhouse gases which is twice the 161 W/m2 of radiation coming from sun and absorbed by Earth’s surface. Does this make sense to you? Do you get warmer standing in sunlight or outside at night absorbing back radiation?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303567920380862641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61471720884598823702016-04-15T18:32:10.825-04:002016-04-15T18:32:10.825-04:00Thankyouthankyou. I sure hope for more there, the...Thankyouthankyou. I sure hope for more there, there, eventually.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9423768691246512762016-04-14T10:44:37.654-04:002016-04-14T10:44:37.654-04:00Ankh,
There is a story
http://www.somesnarksareb...Ankh,<br /><br />There is a story<br /><br />http://www.somesnarksareboojums.com/blog/?p=175<br /><br />Rising from the earth’s damp clutch, shaking off clods and looking around dumbly, the blog attempted to form a thought. “Me … alive?”<br /><br />If you found your way here, you know that this blog’s domain is now “somesnarksareboojums.com” and not “someareboojums.org.” Long story. Let me just advise that, before you sign up with an ISP run by a guy out of your cousin’s mini-storage, do some comparison shopping, ferchrissake. Live and learn. Anyway, recently I felt the need to re-start this thing. I have a whole herd of new bêtes noire now, and a bunch of them are about to calve. Something had to be done. We all know that I’m not a post-every-day kind of guy, so we’ll see how it goes.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82750476288553688542016-04-13T20:06:38.537-04:002016-04-13T20:06:38.537-04:00Entirely aside to Eli -- sidebar death to report, ...Entirely aside to Eli -- sidebar death to report, SomeAreBoojums is now owned by some credit mortgage crap merchant. A link to the Archive copy would be good if it's there.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62861381672984402062016-04-13T10:30:07.937-04:002016-04-13T10:30:07.937-04:00Omigosh, there's a third P in the cautionary &...Omigosh, there's <a href="https://critical-angle.net/2016/04/04/james-powell-is-wrong-about-the-99-99-agw-consensus/" rel="nofollow">a third P in the cautionary "when 'oogling, don't P yourself</a> collection.<br />-----<br /><br />> points aren't additive<br /><br />Extra credit for <a href="http://marty-green.blogspot.com/2012/02/yesterday-i-asked-if-there-was-some.html" rel="nofollow">doing your own addition for yourself</a>Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86321014266745320862016-04-13T02:13:02.283-04:002016-04-13T02:13:02.283-04:00Windchasers,
And then there are things that weigh...Windchasers,<br /><br />And then there are things that weigh the same as other things <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g&nohtml5=False" rel="nofollow">which float on water</a>.<br /><br />Hank Roberts,<br /><br /><i>I haven't tried to add up all that.</i><br /><br />You can't. Points aren't additive.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16482610566739518982016-04-13T00:50:17.502-04:002016-04-13T00:50:17.502-04:00PPS, indeed thanks to Eli for the brief and clear ...PPS, indeed thanks to Eli for the brief and clear explanation.<br />I'd like to be able to find it later -- it ought to be pinned somewhere.<br />It should be a supplement to Weart's AIP History, which doesn't explain this bit.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46972860643717923662016-04-12T22:26:43.834-04:002016-04-12T22:26:43.834-04:00If it's cold, Russell, why are you running a f...If it's cold, Russell, why are you running a freon compressor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-92037071825331362782016-04-12T21:01:47.090-04:002016-04-12T21:01:47.090-04:00Heat cannot physically flow from cold to hot. You ...Heat cannot physically flow from cold to hot. You do not stand next to a cold stove to get warm.<br /><br />IT'S COLD TODAY; I THINK I'LL GO WARM MY HANDS OVER THE BACK OF THE REFRIGERATOR THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87000824964971958692016-04-12T20:31:45.610-04:002016-04-12T20:31:45.610-04:00Or, to embrace a wider field of bad examples:
When...Or, to embrace a wider field of bad examples:<br />When 'oogling <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/15/another-pielke-train-wreck/" rel="nofollow">don't P yourself ...</a><br /><br />Yeah, other searches turn up .... stuff. I found a New Z. zoology BA who believes the flashes from atmospheric nuclear tests were so much brighter than sunlight that they made self-sustaining persistent ozone holes that, over decades, slowly migrated to Antarctica. But he left out the quantum part.<br /><br />I suspect in hindsight we'll observe that <br />-- extremely expensive hand-lettering preserved civilization but inhibited its spread; <br />-- moderately expensive letterpress-to-Linotype printing favored widespread literacy and progress; and <br />-- electronic media drowned civilization in an overwhelming froth of ignorance and nastiness.<br /><br />It's so hard to get these balances right.<br />As Arthur Clarke wrote, "I remember Babylon"Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53774353746107347842016-04-12T20:23:40.657-04:002016-04-12T20:23:40.657-04:00Disambiguation is important for 'oogling, reme...Disambiguation is important for 'oogling, remember.<br /><br />"Peter L. Ward" and climate -- will find you one Peter Ward<br />"Peter Ward" and "Green Sky" and climate -- will find you a different Peter Ward<br /><br />Under the "Search Tools" button change to "Verbatim" to improve on that.<br /><br /><a href="https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/how-to-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/" rel="nofollow">When 'oogling,</a> be very <a href="http://norvig.com/oreskes.html" rel="nofollow">careful you don't Peiser yourself</a>.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52217980330787405462016-04-12T20:02:41.649-04:002016-04-12T20:02:41.649-04:00A useful wrong hypothesis is something like the Yo...A useful wrong hypothesis is something like the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which wrong or right has propelled several diverse fields in geophysics, paleontology and condensed physics forward dramatically.<br /><br />With regards to ozone, every academic crackpot should consult wiki first, which could save them a lot of embarrassment. The only really interesting result I could find in this field is <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.2531.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The rest of it is just splitting very thin greenhouse gas forcing and feedback hairs.<br /><br />It's amazing what a small amount of ozone can do, but it's transient.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91766126233419588922016-04-12T16:47:08.043-04:002016-04-12T16:47:08.043-04:008C
As RayP said about Lindzen, some people are al...8C<br /><br />As RayP said about Lindzen, some people are always wrong, but some of them are wrong in interesting ways. Ward's perambutations provide a platform for interesting explications which are hopefully useful to otherbunnies.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88229587488837783442016-04-12T15:15:43.571-04:002016-04-12T15:15:43.571-04:00Windchaser,
You should read the comment thread on ...Windchaser,<br />You should read the comment thread on Walter's post. This was tried. Ward claims it's simply not possible due to flaws in our current understanding of radiative physics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9047016340871396492016-04-12T15:14:35.663-04:002016-04-12T15:14:35.663-04:00Windchasers said...
I guess the logical question f...<i>Windchasers said...<br />I guess the logical question for Ward would be to ask him how he'd calculate an energy flux, given a set of frequencies and their intensities. </i><br /><br />Peter would say that intensity is a linear function of frequency only, and some other nonsense about addition doesn't make sense.<br />Walter Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978224550408375061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83811003914061613252016-04-12T15:07:27.489-04:002016-04-12T15:07:27.489-04:00I guess the logical question for Ward would be to ...I guess the logical question for Ward would be to ask him how he'd calculate an energy flux, given a set of frequencies and their intensities. <br /><br />If the known equations are wrong, then what's the right one? How would you convert between (wavelengths + intensities) and energy? Windchasershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554275410734284781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88810617788563527462016-04-12T15:03:28.082-04:002016-04-12T15:03:28.082-04:00So is that not the motivation for your blog now?
...<i>So is that not the motivation for your blog now?</i><br /><br />Yes, it still is, although I've somewhat expanded what I write (there's only so many times you can rebut what's promoted on "skeptic" sites).<br /><br />What I should have said in my response is that it was my motivation and I thought that nice simple explanations would convince those who seemed to dispute the mainstream position. The latter is the bit that I no longer regard as viable. I guess I can't say how it might have influenced lurkers, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who publicly disputed the mainstream positions, who's then changed their mind after reading something I've written.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79558562528521321952016-04-12T14:50:24.644-04:002016-04-12T14:50:24.644-04:00OpenID andthentheresphysics said... "That was...<i>OpenID andthentheresphysics said... "That was the motivation behind my blog, when I started it."</i><br /><br />So is that not the motivation for your blog now?<br />Walter Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978224550408375061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4510680354173421582016-04-12T14:44:03.045-04:002016-04-12T14:44:03.045-04:00My idea for that post and others like it was to ju...<i>My idea for that post and others like it was to just have a clear/simple explanation of skeptic errors to help fight the online information war and avoid personal attacks.</i><br /><br />That was the motivation behind my blog, when I started it. <br /><br /><i><br />I know there are plenty of sites with the same info out there (with better written articles) but it can't hurt to have more explanations out there.<br /></i><br /><br />Absolutely. The more the merrier.<br /><br /><i><br />Maybe it's a fool's errand, idk. <br /></i><br /><br />Depends on your goal. If you're hoping to convert the unconvertable, then, IMO, yes it is. If your goal is to simply provide another site with credible information to counter all the nonsense out there, then no it is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63879785769168106182016-04-12T14:09:02.680-04:002016-04-12T14:09:02.680-04:00@8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df
My idea for...@8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df<br /><br />My idea for that post and others like it was to just have a clear/simple explanation of skeptic errors to help fight the online information war and avoid personal attacks. The post about Peter Ward shows up at the top of the second page of the google search results for "Peter Ward Climate", which seems pretty good considering how much stuff he has written online. I would hope pages like these could eventually fill up the first page of search results, so anyone looking for info on someone's crazy ideas will at least have some alternate viewpoints to consider. <br /><br />Tt also serves to address common misconceptions that people have. I know there are plenty of sites with the same info out there (with better written articles) but it can't hurt to have more explanations out there. <br /><br />Maybe it's a fool's errand, idk.Walter Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978224550408375061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68135553224958038832016-04-12T13:48:49.477-04:002016-04-12T13:48:49.477-04:00I almost feel sorry for the guy. Really. Some snip...I almost feel sorry for the guy. Really. Some snippets from hannahlab blog: <br /><br />Ward: "Flux is calculated by integrating spectral radiance as a function of wavelength (wavenumber or frequency). Watts, in this formulation, is on the y-axis, so y is the amount of watts available at each frequency. But watts is a function of frequency (E=hv) and no matter how much IR you have, you will not be as hot as a little UV."<br /><br />Ward: "But thermal energy is not additive."<br /><br />The guy is getting the energy of individual photons confused with the energy flux. I.... wow.<br /><br />It reminds me of this. No, seriously, watch it: <br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwr6_015ROo <br />Windchasershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554275410734284781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16007086713382477872016-04-12T13:41:29.713-04:002016-04-12T13:41:29.713-04:00What I am left wondering is why not one but two sc...What I am left wondering is why not one but two science bloggers would give an obvious idiot emeritus gigliologist the time of day, let alone a comprehensive blog post. Is this be nice to science cranks day or what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34908918651979830962016-04-12T13:13:09.228-04:002016-04-12T13:13:09.228-04:00I suspect Ward would reply that, because the photo...I suspect Ward would reply that, because the photons which cause O2 to disassociate are higher-frequency than those for ozone, they must be primarily responsible for heating the stratosphere. He seems to reject the mainstream understanding of concepts like 'flux', 'intensity', and 'two things with positive energy have more energy than either on its own'.MartinMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12378483250151121375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51209905407922232232016-04-12T13:04:45.542-04:002016-04-12T13:04:45.542-04:00Well, other numbers to consider, you know where th...Well, other numbers to consider, you know where these are from:<br />...<br />10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).<br />...<br />10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory....<br /><br />I haven't tried to add up all that.<br /><br />I did suggest over there that PLW ask his Field Medal friend to propose an experimental test of PLW's revision of quantum mechanics.<br /><br />So far it's "can't be CO2, therefore must be O3, therefore quantum mechanics must be amended" -- backwards reasoning?<br /><br />Just a spectator here myself.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2217904777385280292016-04-12T12:59:41.838-04:002016-04-12T12:59:41.838-04:00Walter,
I suspect that there is a very good reason...Walter,<br />I suspect that there is a very good reason why he is reluctant to produce some kind of surface energy flux diagram based on his theory. He can't; at least he can't produce one that would be remotely consistent with observations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com