Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > An experimental demo of GHE.

rhoda

(ahem).........

Aug 23, 2012 at 8:13 PM | BBD>>>>

And yet another adolescent ad hom trying to appear patronising to his assumed inferior.

Aug 23, 2012 at 9:20 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

RKS

Oh do stop editorialising. It's boring. I asked a question in order to avoid wasting time by talking past each other. Rhoda commented again but didn't respond to the question. That's all.

Do you want to have a sensible discussion, without the verbals?

TOA is just that, it's where the atmosphere meets 'space'. Disequilibrium is simply a measur of energy in at TOA compared to energy out at TOA. It is a simple measurement - it causes nothing but is used by the IPCC as proof of surface warming - NOT the CAUSE OF.

As I understand it, DSW begets OLR which has to get out of the atmosphere to maintain radiative equilibrium between the climate system and space.

Increased levels of GHGs in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) inhibit the outward flow of energy and the troposphere and surface begin to warm, raising the altitude of effective emission (aka TOA). Because temperature and pressure fall with altitude and both reduce the efficacy of radiative emission, a radiative imbalance develops.

More energy accumulates in the climate system causing the surface and lower atmosphere to continue to warm until the TOA becomes hot enough to reach a new radiative equilibrium. When it does, the surface and troposphere will stop warming. They will only cool if the atmospheric fraction of GHGs is reduced.

What I've been arguing here is that no bench model can capture this unless there's a computer on the bench running the model. So rhoda's demand for 'experimental evidence' is not going to be met. Rhoda won't address this problem with the nature of her question, and remains 'dug in' (her words). Nothing much else is going to happen unless this changes.

Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

quote from the horse's mouth " no bench model can capture this unless there's a computer on the bench running the model."

In other words, there is no evidence

Aug 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM | Registered Commenterdiogenes

As I understand it, DSW begets OLR which has to get out of the atmosphere to maintain radiative equilibrium between the climate system and space.

Increased levels of GHGs in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) inhibit the outward flow of energy and the troposphere and surface begin to warm, raising the altitude of effective emission (aka TOA). Because temperature and pressure fall with altitude and both reduce the efficacy of radiative emission, a radiative imbalance develops.

More energy accumulates in the climate system causing the surface and lower atmosphere to continue to warm until the TOA becomes hot enough to reach a new radiative equilibrium. When it does, the surface and troposphere will stop warming. They will only cool if the atmospheric fraction of GHGs is reduced.

What I've been arguing here is that no bench model can capture this unless there's a computer on the bench running the model. So rhoda's demand for 'experimental evidence' is not going to be met. Rhoda won't address this problem with the nature of her question, and remains 'dug in' (her words). Nothing much else is going to happen unless this changes.

Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM | BBD>>>>

Stop waffling. You'e just babbling on about your own interpretation of some simple measurements. And what about the back radiation to the surface the IPCC, with all those scientists so much more knowledgeable than yourself, says is THE cause of global warming. You obviously don't agree so why not write a paper and get it published, or at least start your own thread and see who agrees with you.

TOA is Top Of Atmosphere - it radiates but it's bloody cold.

At what height is this mythical entity TOA that heats up?

What is it's composition and pressure?

And what page on scienceofdoom did you get this nonsense from, because your posts prove you obviously know damn all about science or engineering other than your little collection of statistics and warmist mumbo jumbo. A sort of AGW stamp collector or train spotter.

And YOU quoted AR4 so again - what paragraph in AR4 WG1 states that surface temperature is CAUSED by conditions at TOA, other than the fact that ALL insolation is via TOA. A link to a PDF or HTML would be ok.

No more waffle - just a link to that actual paragraph.

Or better still, if you can't keep to the thread and propose an experiment, why not butt out completely and stop rudely polluting the thread with irrelevant waffle, or don't you understand basic blog manners.

As you can see, I don't have much respect for your posts, they're mainly like the outpourings of an ill informed adolescent, and if that seems rude - tough - because along with other I'm fed up with your rude and disruptive posts and your troll like ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you, as you've done with Rhoda several times on this thread.

Aug 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

RKS

Stop waffling. You'e just babbling on

BBD:

Do you want to have a sensible discussion, without the verbals?

RKS:

don't you understand basic blog manners.

Yes. Which is why I don't engage with you.

Aug 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Yes. Which is why I don't engage with you.

Aug 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM | BBD>>>

Please, please don't engage on this thread any more with your rude diversionary waffle.

Aug 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

FAO Rhoda.

I've contacted Tallbloke about setting up a thread and got this response:-

RKS says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm
How does one start a new discussion thread at Tallbloke?

[Reply] Have patience. We’ll set up a section for empirical work and experimental design, then the floor is yours. It’s bank holiday weekend here and I’m getting ready to travel to a music making gathering. Call back in a week. – Cheers TB.

That's one way to spread your question. [and they're tough with off thread diversions like BBD's at Tallbloke]

Not sure how to get a thread going at WUWT though I'll investigate.

Aug 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

Stop waffling. You'e just babbling on about your own interpretation of some simple measurements.

It's not *my* interpretation. I'm just summarising. The GHE is complex. My summary is inadequate, of course. There's a detailed explanation here.

Same thing as with rhoda: if you are genuinely interested in answering your questions, then explore. Read on.

Aug 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

There's a detailed explanation here.

Same thing as with rhoda: if you are genuinely interested in answering your questions, then explore. Read on.

Aug 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM | BBD>>>>

So it wasn't scienceofdoom you got it from but another blog I've never even heard of

This is just the personal opinion of this Chris Colose character, Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences student at UW-Madison, nothing whatsoever to do with the IPCC or AR4. Is he qualified yet? Has he published this? - is it in AR5?

You quoted AR4 now show where it says that conditions at TOA have a direct effect on surface temperature. If not, stop wriggling.

Funny how you refer to experiments on the radiative properties of CO2 as proof of AGW, yet say it's impossible to do similar experiments to ACTUALLY prove GHE. A bit of a schizoid methodology there.

Aug 24, 2012 at 1:15 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

Not sure how to get a thread going at WUWT though I'll investigate.

Aug 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM | RKS>>>>

There'a a 'Submit Story' bar on their top menu.

Aug 24, 2012 at 1:18 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

RKS
In my limited interactions with Chris Colose I have found him even more patronising, disdainful, and egotistical than BBD!
He also appears to be one of life's perpetual students, at least up until last year, having abandoned the University of Wisconsin (or perhaps they abandoned him?) for the University of Albany. What his scientific qualifications are I don't know because so far I haven't been able to locate a CV.
I know I am no scientific genius but I have been around long enough to take less than kindly to being lectured talked down to by such as he and his occasional partner in crime Cook.
Neither of them has a coherent case to make on the subject of climate — lots of ad homs, lots of assertions, lots of self-satisfied preening. Not a shred of respect for anyone with a different point of view.
Pains in the backside and very bad for the blood pressure.

Aug 24, 2012 at 2:16 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

RKS

Is he qualified yet? Has he published this? - is it in AR5?

Colose simply rehearses the standard scientific exposition. What he writes is what you get taught if you study atmospheric physics. It's what's in the textbooks (see SoD for many direct examples). I hope the fact that you've demonstrated that you do not even recognise it as such is properly, painfully embarrassing for you.

Since this is the standard scientific description of the GHE, I think it's safe to assume that it's the one used by the IPCC along with everyone else.

Perhaps you should study the science you are so loudly 'sceptical' about a little more closely? At least to the point of moderate familiarity with the essentials. Next time, you might also hesitate before describing others as 'numpties' and classifying their (correct) statements as 'babblings' and the 'outpourings of an ill-informed adolescent'. And so on.

Aug 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Same goes for you, Mike. You need to shut up with the 'sceptical' yack and get some reading under your belt. As I have said to you before. This isn't patronising, it is true as you know perfectly well.

Aug 24, 2012 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Having read this potentially very interesting thread from the time is was started by Rhoda, along with I'm sure many others who don't generally contribute, I would suggest that now would be a good time to call a halt, and explore the possibilities of starting the same thread on a blog where trolls are not accepted. It is quite obvious to all that this BBD guy has a very limited knowledge of the subject, but in order to appear to know more that he actually does, he just waffles and spoils, rambles and insults.
Leave him to his own rather limited thoughts and move on, please!

Aug 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterGW.

GW

and explore the possibilities of starting the same thread on a blog where trolls are not accepted. It is quite obvious to all that this BBD guy has a very limited knowledge of the subject, but in order to appear to know more that he actually does, he just waffles and spoils, rambles and insults.

I'm getting a little tired of the misrepresentations here. Please support your editorialising at my expense with some examples. You can start by illustrating exactly how my knowledge of any topic discussed on the whole thread is 'limited' in comparison to that of any other commenter here.

Then, you can provide the large number of examples you need to make your point of my 'waffling, spoiling, rambling and insulting'.

Or you can stop trolling this conversation.

Aug 24, 2012 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Aug 24, 2012 at 3:31 PM | BBD>>>

If you can't stick to the thread - push off!

How many people does it take to tell you what a disruptive pest you are? You are a classic TROLL and BH should by now be banning you as he has done with ZDB.

I, for one, will place an official complaint about your behaviour with him.

Now please push off and stop polluting the blog with your disruptive rubbish.

Aug 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

*What* 'disruptive rubbish'? I'm not the one who doesn't recognise the standard scientific explanation of the GHE when it is put in front of me. Nor am I posting abusive commentary about other people here. All I have done on this thread is examine the nature of the question rhoda asked in greater detail. That process has been revealing, but unpopular.

Aug 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD will not be joining us again.

Aug 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Damn, and I had such a reply that I was just about to type in, full of wit, erudition, literary allusions, pop culture references and scientific wisdom. Well, you'll never see it now.

Aug 24, 2012 at 6:23 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

BBD will not be joining us again.

Good.

Aug 24, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Rhoda's posts - best evidence, experimental demo - seem to me to show, in a very clear and undeniable way, that the emperor is indeed wearing no clothes. Simple questions, the lack of a clear answers to which speaks volumes.

This seemed to have a disturbing effect on the Former Poster, who appeared determined to sidetrack the thread by any means whatever, having found that the usual tactic of looking up the topic on SkS and posting what they said did not put a stop to Rhoda's insistence that the actual question be answered.

Like the old lady in the Wendy's advert of the 1980's: "Where's the beef? Where's the beef? Where is the beef?".

Aug 24, 2012 at 9:04 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

BBD will not be joining us ? thank you!

...

rhoda,
Are you familiar with the flat rotating pan with heat-by-flame experiment? Sorry for not being able to provide more detail at the moment, but I think global circulation was investigated like that in the early days. Not the GHE for sure, but something related tangentially.

Aug 24, 2012 at 9:53 PM | Registered Commentershub

Fultz, Dave, et al. (1959). "Studies of Thermal Convection in a Rotating Cylinder with Some Implications for Large-Scale Atmospheric Motions." Meteorological Monographs 4: 1-104.

Aug 24, 2012 at 11:37 PM | Registered Commentershub

"BBD will not be joining us again."

A pity, but understandable given the way his posting has changed since he "came out". I went to the Chris Colose article he referred to and read some of the comments to which Chris replied. Do you know that Chris highly recommended SkS to his readers! Quel surprise!

Aug 25, 2012 at 7:47 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

"You are one of the biggest fruit loops I have ever encountered, on or off the internet."

What an awful thing to say, what has that added to anything? You're clearly distressed at the exile, but there really isn't any need for this sort of thing. Shame on you.

Aug 25, 2012 at 7:54 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo