Emails and the like!

It's been hard to keep up over the last few days but perhaps the best falsification of AGW to date might be the 'wankers' that run it
 
Maybe soon we'll be able to get back to the 'science'?

Muf, I've been away but it looks like Monbiot is slowly moving from the dark side.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...l-climate-scientists

Looks like our work is almost done. The whole ediface of AGW is falling ....house of cards style. The leaked e-mails are damning. Like the net the tentacles stretch across the pond so NOAOO and Nasa will topple next.

Any sign of suricat?

I'm stunned!!
Do You think that the Guardian has been hacked?
 
suricat is about

Its a piss take SoM
The email isn't in there

ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
 
Catweazel indeed

In fact I'd go as far as to suggest that the whole 'leak' is fake!!!

I know but in the responses below he says "I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely."

So he can piss take all he likes but as a journalist he's clearly a busted flush.

here's a good read and here's a txt version of the file they're on about
What a mess!!

Son of Mulder.

quote:

Muf, I've been away but it looks like Monbiot is slowly moving from the dark side.

Humph! At least my political input was based on current policy. High five SoM!

　

Now, if you’ll stay with your thread a bit longer, I would like some advice (if you’ll give it).

I’m in discussion with a professor of thermodynamics that teaches quantum theory as well. OK, but he heralds from Central Europe (Germany, I think) and much of what he says is difficult to understand. It was ages before I realised that "F.ex" wasn’t a "function", it was a "for example" abbreviation!

We are currently discussing LTE (local thermodynamic equilibrium) and BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate) in that order of quotes.

<cite>suricat wrote:But, in an atmosphere of mixed gasses, where many gas compounds are made of different atoms, there can be no equilibrium in a quantum theory scenario! Can there?</cite>

<cite>
Yes there is .</cite>

<cite>And this is why the LASER is fine tuned to the temperature of the mass and a suitable trap for the cold mass is employed.</cite>

<cite>

No the laser is not "fine tuned" to any temperature . It must only emit a frequency that is absorbed with high probability by a given atom . That depends on the quantum energy spectrum which is independent of temperature (there is no T in the Schroedinger equation , one only needs to solve for eigenvalues that respect H.Psi = E.Psi) .</cite>

In my first statement on LTE I just said what I thought he’d already told me. Seems I’m wrong.

In my second statement on BEC I just said what I thought was relative to the energy levels of the molecules that could result in cooling.

Can you explain how I misread this? I’ll admit that I’m at a loss. As an engineer I only manipulate science for the benefit of mankind, but this is getting harder when the science tends to contradict itself.

Best regards, suricat.

Where is this discussion taking place suricat?

It’s at ClimateAudit.org muf. "jae" is a poster in the forum there (and seems to be a competent chemist) that shares my scepticism of the ‘back-radiation’ in the ‘K&T’ schematic. The post title is "STILL WAITING" and has, so far, run to 24 pages. The ‘professor’ in the thread is "TomVonk".

I’ll give you due warning muf! Since the "Briffa" scenario, the site is running really SLOW! You will probably need to hit the "refresh" button more than once to get in and it seems that it’s occasionally operating in ‘safe mode’. It seems that Steve_M has a lot of "cud" to chew.

Best regards, suricat.

Hi suricat, good to hear from you. Apologies for the following anologies. I think how to visualise this is to forget about compounds and different atoms and think about the set of discrete quantum energy states possible in the ensemble. Then analogise to a collection of catchers (atoms and molecules) with different sized hands fitted to catch and throw different specific sized balls(photons of a fixed set of frequencies). A catcher can only hold one ball and it must be a specific set of sizes at a time but can hold no ball as well. So you'll have either saturation when all catchers hold a ball  so a sort of saturation equilibrium ie as soon as they throw one they catch another because there are plenty to catch.

You'll also have a dynamic equilibrium where balls are being caught and thrown at the same rate but there is capacity to catch more balls if they are supplied and because you're dealing with large numbers there is a steady average energy equilibrium.

When it comes to BEC as I understand it this is a special state where the ensemble is Bosons (spin -1 particles) in their lowest quantum energy level and if you're dealing with bosons then there is a big restriction on the photon energies that can interact (the eigenvalues) for the particular Boson but the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't apply so similar states can coexist and I think this means multiple balls can be caught, held and thrown, refering back to the anology.

I couldn't find the dialogue on climateaudit to which you allude. As you'll see my knowledge and understanding is only cursory and possibly inadequate for your needs.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

I couldn't find the dialogue on climateaudit to which you allude.

Well I suppose we all could do with a good laugh. Here's a link to the start of the thread: http://www.climateaudit.org/ph...8488234ee25c&start=0 The site seems to be responding better recently, but don't rely on this. If your browser doesn't load, hit the "refresh" button. BTW. We seem to have server problems on the reply box again. Paste the URL destination into your browser!!! Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

I was wrong. This time the server fault was line spacing. However, after seeing the composition characters in this ‘post-box’, I doubt that line spacing will be a problem!

This site is crap.

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder: For the time being, Climate Audit forums are on ice pending the physical site change of Climate Audit! This is worse than the C4 shutdown as there wasn't any prior notification of the shutdown. You'd think Steve_M would be a bit more sensitive on this following his data loss post the C4 shutdown. It seems unlikely that the forum facility will be continued in its prior format (thanks to Watts' lack of interest in its continuation). OH NO! An incomplete dialogue box again! Let's see what the post is like. Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

Yep! Line spacing is missing again. Grrr!

Ha! This time the full dialogue was there (again). Perhaps I should post crap in my first post and follow this up with the content that I originally wanted to convey???

Best regards, suricat.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-gun-at-darwin-zero/
 
3 stations?

Well, I've got the full dialogue box setup. So here goes!

muf.

If you’re interested in "3 stations", you’ll find this interesting as well.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

It all adds to the science dilemma.

Best regards, suricat.

It still isn't right, is it! You'll need to paste the link into your browser to get there!


(just realised, I need to hit return twice to get a new line here). There's something fundamentally wrong with the protocol here. When I paste back from the site "Word Pro" shows a two line spacing that wasn't evident in the 'dialogue box'. Some really odd things are happening here!



Best regards, suricat.

This site has changed a lot recently, so I’m going to do a little experiment here that includes cut and paste using "Word Pro".

quote:

3 stations?

Did the BB quote test work?

Line space (with line text content)

Another point of interest to you should be:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/

Where the current span of warming can be realised within a more complete context via the paleoclimate discipline.

OK, lets see what transpires from this ‘paste’ (well I’ve got a "full dialogue" [includes text editing toolbox]!

Best regards, suricat.

Some things are crappy on this site suricat but at least You can just drag n drop things like the above into your posts and simply scale them to fit. I've given up trying to post it on Random Banter

Result!

Did the BB quote test work? Yes! Although there was no change in background emphasis, the quote was well represented as text. However, line spacing that followed the quote became ‘double line-space’!

Test failed due to altered line-spacing that followed the quote (likelihood of confusion to text further down line of the quote)!!!

For example; there were originally no line-spaces between lines beginning with: Did the BB; Line space; Another point of interest; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/

(which was also a URL); Where the current span......

The ‘link’ wasn’t made and there were line-spaces that didn’t exist in the original ‘paste’.

From this test, all I can say is that if you want to say something here then that’s OK. If you want to quote someone else here it’s a definite NO NO (the quote is fine, but there’s too much confusion further on into the response)! If you want to ‘link’ to somewhere else you need to hang on to your seat-belt!

Why do I continue to post here? Because it’s a ‘tenuous’ link to other posters from the old C4 web-site!

BTW, "Word Pro" is the most integrated word processor that I know of that incorporates full BB, Java and HTML compatibility (apart from the ‘open source’ EMACS that is), so I find it odd that it doesn’t work well here.

Best regards, suricat.

muf  4925 Forum Posts Today at 7:49 PM  (Edited: )

Some things are crappy on this site suricat but at least You can just drag n drop things like the above into your posts and simply scale them to fit. I've given up trying to post it on Random Banter

What's the word on the the forums at CA suricat as I want to check some thing that Tomvonk said about Tenberths energy flow 'cartoon'

muf.

There is no forum, and Steve gave me a ‘wrap on the knuckles’ just for asking about it. See:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/1...audit-wordpress-com/
Dec. 9, 2009 at 7:46 PM (Permalink 207787).

He has provided a new "unthreaded" thread as I requested though:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/13/unthreaded-38/

Steve may well be initiating a similar data loss scenario to the one he decries in his blog (e.g. Briffa et al).

　

What was it that you wanted to know that TomVonk said, I may remember it?

Best regards, suricat.

PS. Just taken out the 'unpasted' lines in the site dialogue box and it looks good so far!

Whats the story with the forum now suricat?
Does TomVonk still post on there?

Nobody posts in the CA forum anymore because the CA forum doesn't exist. However, Steve's blog continues, but it's boring! Nothing to see here! Move along please! Sort of climate microstructure debate.


If you need to speak to Tom Vonk google him. Remember that he's from the Netherlands and that he isn't anything to do with human resources.


This is the first time I've made a post on the fly without recording it!


Best regards, suricat.

This is the first time I've made a post on the fly without recording it!

On the fly posting makes no difference. the problem is in the posting dialogue box!

The dialogue box doesn't show the format of the post that is represented by the site server.

Best regards, suricat.

It may be the bits in the atmosphere

muf.

Yes, just like SoM suggested way back! However, the most abundant aerosol, water condensate, may well override other aerosols if Dr. Roy Spencer’s paper survives.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/a-response-to-kevin-trenberth/

As you can see, he describes how cloud tops reflect the SW insolation (doesn’t do much for UV and blue vis though) and reduces the warming energy effect of insolation, but I think he should’ve gone to greater depth with cloud evolution (like how energy not reflected adds to produce a ‘thunderhead’ when enough water is available). OK. So perhaps the ‘thunderhead’ explanation should be the responsibility of Dr. Lindzen to describe?

Seriously, if Roy’s observations stand, the Earth’s sensitivity to a changing climate is really very small. This means that the IPCC’s estimation is way out!

Is this an ‘empirical falsification’, or what?

Best regards, Ray Dart (AKA, suricat).

Global Warming’s $64 Trillion Question

Rather engaging blog entry from Dr Spencer.

Temp goes up cloud cover goes down, no-brainer really

Reference: Dr Spencer

Muf.



Glad you found the link and enjoyed the site (I now just post and be damned if a link is made). I both admire and respect Roy's 'openness' on the point of availability of data and his willingness to share any knowledge he's acquired by 'funding access'.



Best regards, Ray Dart (suricat).



PS. There 'are' others that have researched the issue, but they don't have such a high profile as Roy.

Low Climate Sensitivity Estimated from the 11-Year Cycle in Total Solar Irradiance(More from Dr Roy)

I'm not a regular here, but I thought you would be interested in this article from the BBC in how whales excrement is helping to offset CO2 emissions.

Climate change is being 'flown under the RADAR' now Loro...It's nice to read these reminders

Cosmic rays and climate with Jasper Kirkby on the CERN doc server

This site no longer allows me to 'paste' into the reply 'box'.


Good bye!

That was an interesting talk muf, but you'll notice that this area of science has more questions than answers. In fact Jasper clearly stated that his presentation wasn't any kind of submission, but just observations to be noted for future reference.





I'd like to refer back to your post of May 31/2010.



"Temp goes up cloud cover goes down, no-brainer really"



It's true that the amount of 'water vapour' (WV) that air can absorb increases with temperature, implying that clouds evaporate as temperatures increase, but that's only part of the story. A cloud just 'hangs around', drifting in the atmosphere and causing a shadow on Earth's surface, until it either precipitates as rain or evaporates to WV again.



Any water that precipitates from cloud has 'lived its lifetime' in the atmosphere (ignoring evaporation from the 'raindrop' as it falls) and this 'average lifetime' is accepted to be ~9-10 days from evaporation at Earth's surface to precipitation back to Earth's surface again. However, WV is a 'lighter than air' gas and any evaporation of cloud just results in WV migrating to higher, and cooler, altitudes where it condenses to cloud again. Thus, maintaining a degree of cloud cover. Precipitation is the only way to end WV's survival in the atmosphere.



There's an important point to be recognised here. Earth's surface is normally the hotter between Earth's surface and Earth's atmosphere. This strongly suggests that surface temperature drives the atmospheric region of the hydrocycle and thus cloud formation. When surface temperatures are high we see a scenario where the atmosphere is 'loaded' with greater quantities of WV and 'cloud cover' is increased as a result on a ~9-10 day rate. When surface temperatures are low we see a scenario where the atmosphere is 'loaded' with less quantities of WV and 'cloud cover' decreases, again, on a ~9-10 day rate.



This posits 'cloud cover' as the primary 'thermostat' for average global temperature, as it reflects insolation with a ~9-10 day sensitivity and is temperature dependant in a negative form with temperature increase.



Best regards, Ray Dart.



Hah! Toggled WYSIWIG!