tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post69130107654365210..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Eli can Retire Part XI - A bunch of denial deniedEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42829037036317775112010-05-08T03:51:19.202-04:002010-05-08T03:51:19.202-04:00The latest tenor in Calgary is that CO2 has essent...The latest tenor in Calgary is that CO2 has essentially no effect. A CO2 denier talk has made it into <a href="" rel="nofollow">http://www.geocanada2010.ca/program/program-schedule/tuesday/pm-2/climate-change-through-time.html>next week's GeoCanada 2010:</a><br /><br /><br />We are running a small but fine blog taking on these deniers with something they do not have: humour.<br /><br />Check it out and pass us on to their friends and colleagues - and join us:<br />http://friendsofginandtonic.org/page1/page1.htmlFriends of the Friends of Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10340271943028887975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11492965999162379922010-05-07T11:07:46.733-04:002010-05-07T11:07:46.733-04:00I believe that Lubos used to quote Lindzen as sayi...I believe that Lubos used to quote Lindzen as saying that we are 70% of the way to a doubling. When I asked Lubos where Lindzen's number came from, the answer was pretty obscure and unsatisfying (so I am glad to see him back away from it in the comment above).<br /><br />I, like Arthur, think that it comes from adding up the radiative effect of all the GHGs together and comparing this to the radiative effect of doubling CO2. Of course, the negative radiative effects of aerosols are ignored, as is the issue of any warming still in the pipeline. And, it begs the question of how we are going to get methane and other GHG levels back down to their pre-industrial values by the time we double CO2.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06510687524626136184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76796114300222750482010-05-04T16:35:39.879-04:002010-05-04T16:35:39.879-04:00For some time, I have thought that the right fract...For some time, I have thought that the right fraction is slightly less than 50%.<br /><br />After all, ln(391/280)/ln(560/280) = 0.48 and the logarithmic dependence is pretty accurate.<br /><br />I corrected my previous figure for the percentage by a factor of 3/2.Luboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33117057079386547922010-05-03T21:29:22.027-04:002010-05-03T21:29:22.027-04:00Frankly Eli thought it was the Crazy Czech hisself...Frankly Eli thought it was the Crazy Czech hisselfEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31961656249368924312010-05-03T17:36:17.990-04:002010-05-03T17:36:17.990-04:00So ... I guess it was Lindzen (after all, Motl get...So ... I guess it was Lindzen (after all, Motl gets all his best ideas from Lindzen).<br /><br />But you must admit the Eschenbach/Archibald variation has a certain charm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18360965235438969662010-05-03T11:37:17.769-04:002010-05-03T11:37:17.769-04:00http://joshreads.com/images/10/04/i100430famcirc.j...http://joshreads.com/images/10/04/i100430famcirc.jpgHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58654491494323146462010-05-03T09:22:48.394-04:002010-05-03T09:22:48.394-04:00The 75% assertion originated with Lindzen.
Motl h...The 75% assertion originated with Lindzen.<br /><br />Motl has been known to quote it as "2/3", so as not to "drive enviros too crazy" (or something to that effect).<br /><br />Horatio actually tracked the source down (<a href="http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/2" rel="nofollow">"A climate of alarm"</a>) at one point and commented on it <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/06/lubos-explains-it-not-greenhouse-effect.html?showComment=1183593724915#c6924816397048051223" rel="nofollow">here.</a>Horatio Algeranonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988805467080448954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52307543571377133182010-05-03T09:04:39.734-04:002010-05-03T09:04:39.734-04:00"We agree that 'carbon dioxide is heavier..."We agree that 'carbon dioxide is heavier than air' but disagree with the assertion by commenters that "as a result, it sits at the bottom of gofer holes and hence has no warming effect". <br /><br />Commenters provided no peer-reviewed literature to support this contention [Wegman does not count] and the assertion is not consistent with the extensive scientific literature on gofers, prairie dogs, ferrets, woodchucks and CHUD (Wood, Charles et al, 2007)"Horatio Algeranonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988805467080448954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8620694777501475192010-05-03T08:43:29.392-04:002010-05-03T08:43:29.392-04:00I'll go with Lubos Motl.I'll go with Lubos Motl.Borisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71065452791248044162010-05-03T06:21:58.460-04:002010-05-03T06:21:58.460-04:00Wasn't it Monckton who totted up all the contr...Wasn't it Monckton who totted up all the contributions from all anthropogenic GHG's, removed the effect of aerosols, and declared that that was 75% of a doubling? Or was that Lindzen somewhere. Hard to keep the liars apart when they share tricks like that.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53055180735586305712010-05-03T03:10:35.020-04:002010-05-03T03:10:35.020-04:00Re: where the 75% came from.
My Dad always said &...Re: where the 75% came from.<br /><br />My Dad always said "If you are going to do something- do it right!"<br /><br />..I guess this applies to making a fool of yourself as well.<br /><br />All of those comments to the EPA are amusing. Unfortunately, they are even more a commentary on the sad state of science education in America.Dan Satterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17103428750040230969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74768683958864634892010-05-03T01:09:45.487-04:002010-05-03T01:09:45.487-04:00Sounds like a Willis E thang.
No doubt he will e...Sounds like a Willis E thang. <br /><br />No doubt he will elucidate at this years Heartland Conference.<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/<br /><br />I'll let someone else dig out the original moment of discovery at ClimateAudit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89843183858443972272010-05-03T01:03:55.164-04:002010-05-03T01:03:55.164-04:00Hi Eli, OT but i thought you might be interested:
...Hi Eli, OT but i thought you might be interested:<br /><br />http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2888700.htmUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01291845864748092259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18259441349477947012010-05-02T23:10:20.331-04:002010-05-02T23:10:20.331-04:00"Hello. This is the Environmental Protection ..."Hello. This is the Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Answering Ignorant Questions from Belligerent Know-it-alls, Climate Sector. Can I help you?"Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com