Recent Comments

Prev  1210  1211  1212  1213  1214  1215  1216  1217  1218  1219  1220  1221  1222  1223  1224  1225  Next

Comments 60851 to 60900:

60851. Tom Curtis at 14:24 PM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       bill @16, it is not a question of being kind to Watts, something I am scarcely likely to be accused of. It is a question of being accurate. Beyond that (though less important IMO), it is a missed opportunity. Had the initial challenge to Watts been why he had not notified his readers of the misrepresentation by the Mail, he may have responded by defending the Mail's coverage. Certainly his readers would have. In either case, they would now be facing the situation in which your challenge was vindicated by the lead author himself. Had Watts himself supported the Mail Online's claims, he would have no refuge to hide in. He himself would have been caught clearly misrepresenting the science. Had his readers defended the Mail's coverage, then Watt's would have no excuse for not correcting the record when he first published the link. In particular any claim that his readers are sufficiently well informed to not be deceived by the Mail would be refuted by their defense of the article.
60852. bill4344 at 13:54 PM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       

       'Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global' [Link to the Daily Mail's absurd article: Watts - 'I must have had 20 tips... like this one'] ...WUWT had the story first, 5 days ago on March 22nd. Somehow a lot of people missed it, so I’m linking to it again. Read it here: More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global And I have more graphs and information from the actual paper than the Daily Mail has.

       This latter is certainly true. Too bad the Daily Mail's piece is hyperbolic BS, but this was apparently not worth mentioning at the time of posting. While I appreciate your position, Tom, I do feel you're being rather kinder than I'm inclined to be. As muoncounter says @ 14, the damage on this one is done with little chance of any meaningful correction of the record in the public mind. Celebrations of the propagation of such a misleading meme seriously irk me.
60853. Tom Curtis at 13:47 PM on 31 March 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       AWUN @196, without a link I cannot comment directly on the Inuit claims. Certainly I know of no Inuit claims regarding shifts in the axis of the Earth such as would be necessary for the Arctic to receive more sunshine. More importantly, it is known that Arctic summer sunshine is reducing at the moment, continuing to follow a trend that began about 10 thousand years ago. During the Holocene Climactic Optimum (about 8000 years ago) the Arctic received much more summer sunshine than it currently does, and (by a small amount) we currently receive less summer sunshine in the Arctic than we did in the Little Ice Age. Because the sun is high in the sky in the Arctic Summer, and because snow and ice melt reduce albedo during the summer, summer sunshine is far more important in determining Arctic ice conditions than winter Sunshine (which does note exist in the Arctic Circle in any event).
60854. AmericaWakeUpNow at 13:27 PM on 31 March 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       I am new to this sight and have not read all posts. Has anyone brought up anything about the Inuit Eskimo claiming that they have measured a significant polar shift. If what they say is true, it would line up with the calibration of major airport runways in 2011. This could also answer why the Arctic ice mass is melting at such a rapid rate. But, I never see anything about a rapid ice mass melt of the Antarctic. Would the South pole gain ice mass if the North pole is tiled closer or rather in a more direct line with the Sun? If the South pole were to be melting at as rapid a pace as is the North pole area, I would believe that there would be significant coastal flooding by now!
60855. Tom Curtis at 13:07 PM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       muoncounter @11, I noticed the boilerplate about "Mann's gospel" which is typical of Watts and why (among other reasons) I do not consider him in anyway a reliable source on science. Regardless of of what we think of him, however, it is important to criticize what he actually says, not what we expect he would say. On that basis, the criticisms of Watts in this thread are unfair. We can contrast the coverage of this issue by Watts and by the Daily Mail. The lead headline by the Daily Mail for this story reads:

       "Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures Warming was far-reaching and NOT limited to Europe Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'"

       This headline, and the the article that follow it completely misrepresent the paper and deserve harsh criticism. More importantly, it is clearly the target of the Syracuse and Lu rebuttal. In particular, Lu quotes from this headline when he says:

       "Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions."

       Hence it is the Daily Mail article in particular, and other similar articles in the mainstream media which are the subject of criticism by Syracuse and Lu. Indeed, Lu himself may not even be aware of Watts. In contrast, Watt's claims have been quite circumspect. The essential claim is that the paper is "More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global", which is a reasonable gloss of the claim made in the paper that, "...our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent...". If that claim is treated as meaning that the data in the paper establishes a prima facie case that the MWP was global in extent, it is false. If it is treated as claiming that it overwhelms the counter evidence, it is also false. But if it is understood as making it more probable that the MWP was global than the opposite finding at that site would have done, then it is true. I think Watts is subject to legitimate, and harsh criticism on many grounds. I think he can be criticized even in this episode in that he linked to the Daily Mail article without stating the obvious that it radically misrepresented the contents of the paper. I think also that he would do better to publish the full clarification from the University of Syracuse rather than just a link. But the criticism of Watts in the first few posts on this thread is unjustified and based on an over interpretation of his claims.
60856. muoncounter at 12:58 PM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       In essence, Watts' work is done on this issue. The echo chamber has already picked up the meme and it is spinning out of control. If you search 'ikaite,' a mineral few had heard of before this, you even find a repeater who claims ikaite is a vegetable. Watts knows that once he gets a story going, his sycophants will happily create so much noise that any fine details will be drowned out. Here, the poor author is saying 'that's not what the research shows!' Nobody (except a few of us) is listening.
60857. soo doh nim at 12:50 PM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       This sort of thing is most disturbing. Not only does the good doctor have to explain the meaning of his paper, he now must refute, word for word, those that willfully misrepresent him. I did that myself, because whatever I typed in that space would have gotten snipped anyway. I worry that this is going to serve to intimidate people who would otherwise produce meaningful research because it's just not worth the hassle.
60858. bill4344 at 12:47 PM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       Which was the point I was making all along. Watts clearly was celebrating inaugurating this very meme in his second post on the subject,

       'Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global'

       And, technical defensibility of his original headline notwithstanding, this was clearly the place for him to point out that the lead author disagreed with this very assertion - to whit, that based on his paper anyone could simply assert 'the medieval warm period was global' particularly given that he was well aware of the advance of this meme, if only by the contents of the comments posted on his own blog! To my mind Watts simply could not credibly maintain bystander status in the propagation of this meme. And I note that he has not rescinded the headline above. I note also that this apology begins

       Since a number of commenters that are getting bent out of shape over the issue can’t apparently be bothered to read the paper, and since the authors at Syracuse themselves are under pressure because the alarmosphere has gone ballistic over the possibility that Mike Mann’s “there is no MWP much less global” gospel might be challenged, I offer readers this passage from the actual paper: [my emphasis]

       I had ready put to him that authors will have to fireproof the wording of their conclusions from agenda-based constructions, and pointed out that university PR staff are not the people to confirm whether a particular construction is a fair interpretation of a paper's conclusions, particularly as opposed to the authors themselves, as anyone whose large workplace has a PR department will doubtlessly be aware. He does not offer Zunli Lu's statement on the matter in the body of his own article/s, which is what I challenged him that he had a clear obligation to present. He still only offers a link to it, and I find it very difficult to credit that he would not have been perfectly content to ignore it entirely had not the issue been repeatedly raised. Now he has acknowledged that the very Daily Mail article he originally linked to without qualification is an over-interpretation, and he certainly deserves credit for doing so. May I remind you what he headline in question at the Daily Mail was?

       Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

       I believe I played some part in this matter of the record-correcting updates in the body of his pieces, and am pleased to have done so Further, I will point out that this is a result, in that the folks at WUWT must acknowledge they cannot credit the Daily Mail's absurd spin on the tale I'll further suggest that such results is what this is about - and, to my mind, constraining blatant 'dog-whistling', such as is exhibited in the original second article.
60859. muoncounter at 12:37 PM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       Tom, Watts' 2nd post takes the immediate approach of suggesting pressure on SU researchers, postulating some 'Mike Mann's gospel.' This is more of the same old-same old. There are no over interpretations of his post here -Watts' words speak for themselves. The SU statement, '"completely misrepresent our conclusions," is ample justification of comments here.
60860. Tom Curtis at 11:54 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       Update: Watts has now included an update in which he defends his interpretation, but says:

       "Some media (The Daily Mail for example) have oversold the conclusions of the paper, and thus this is why the authors have issued a statement. Based on their words above in their own paper, I stand by my headline. Note that the authors at Syracuse have NOT asked me to change my headline nor any part of my post on the issue."

       I believe the authors statement deserves more prominence than a simple link. I also believe the section of the paper from which Watts quotes is poorly worded, implying as it does that all points between Europe and the West Antarctic Peninsula were warm during the MWP, which goes well beyond the evidence in the paper. (I do not think it was what the authors intended to imply, but was, as I say, a poor choice of words.)
60861. Tom Curtis at 11:35 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       With respect, and with the caveat that I have not read any comments on either WUWT thread, Anthony Watts has nothing to apologize for with regard to this paper. His first post, linked by Albatross @1 above, merely asserts that the paper is evidence the MWP was global. That is true, and massively over interpreted by readers both here and (I am certain) at WUWT. X being evidence for Y is a very weak epistemic relationship. It is true whenever it is the case that the probability of Y given that X is greater than the probability of Y given that it is not true that X. The paradox of the ravens demonstrates how weak the "is evidence of" relationship is. Briefly, the statement that a) All ravens are black; is logically equivalent to the statement that b) Everything which is not black is not a raven. It follows that any fact such that, given that fact it is more probable that everything which is not black is not a raven also makes it more probable that all ravens are black. Ergo, discovery of a red apple is evidence that all ravens are black, as paradoxical as that may seem. It seems paradoxical only because humans have the habit of interpreting "X is evidence that Y" to mean that "X is conclusive evidence that Y", or at a minimum that "X is very substantial evidence that Y". Most people would endorse the claim (I suspect) that if X is evidence that Y, then given X, prima facie Y. However, the real world is far more complex that. It contains evidence for many statements which are in fact false. Indeed, science is built on the notion that evidence Y does not close the case. Now, I suspect that Watts takes the view that the Lu study "is another nail in the coffin" of the view that the MWP was not global. But evidence exists that it was not: Consequently there is substantial doubt that the coffin for the view that the MWP was not global will ever be built, let alone have the lid nailed down. But that in no way precludes some facts taken in isolation making it more probable than not that the MWP was global. Watt's second post is even less objectionable than the first, containing as it does just the full text of the press release from Syracuse University plus some quotes from the paper. The issue here is not whether Watts should correct the errors in his coverage of this issue for it is not evident that he has made any. Rather, the issue as this relates to Watts is will he, or will he not include the latest statement from Syracuse University as an update to his post to avoid over interpretation of the data? That he do so is a reasonable request. Should he not do so upon request, that would be reasonable grounds for criticism. It would be evidence of bias in his coverage of the issue, and evidence that he is quite happy that the paper be over interpreted. However, whether he does or not, that does not justify our over interpreting his posts as has been done in this thread.
60862. muoncounter at 09:17 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       Bill: Courageous, but pointless. First rule of denial is never admit an error. However, this episode should be documented and word of it shouted from rooftops. The author says they have it wrong and they don't care one bit. If this is what passes for credibility in the denial-o-rama, who can believe a word they say?
60863. bill4344 at 09:06 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       I have already endeavoured to take this up with Watts, and have been labelled an 'anonymous coward' for my pains (I have a rather old WordPress profile that kicks in wherever I browse a WP blog, much as many of his regulars appear to). I was also lambasted for having 'green' in my email address, a clear indicator of bad intent, it seems. (For the record I used to run a business called 'Green Heritage' supplying local-native seeds to state and local government.) I kid you not. You'd almost think I hit a nerve. He's neither retracting nor revising, and he will not be publishing Zunli Lu's response in either of the articles he's devoted to the issue, including the one that celebrates his own success in inaugurating the 'this paper proves the MWP was global and is yet another disproof of AGW' meme:

       REPLY: I’m not discomfited, but quite amused. The headline is accurate and stays. Syracuse is well aware and was within minutes, and has no issues with it. Again, with my sincere blessings, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony

60864. Composer99 at 08:09 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       Albatross: I see no reason why Pielke Sr cannot be sincere as you suggest, so I will retract my interpretation of your comment. That said, it does not follow from "Pielke Sr's assessment of Watts' devotion to scientific robustness is sincere" that "Pielke Sr's assessment of Watts' devotion to scientific robustness is correct", which is what I presumed was the humourous subtext you were trying to convey. ===== With regards to the Lu et al 2012 paper, the commentariat at WUWT appears to support the notion that the paper says what they think it says, not what the paper's author(s) report it says. Commenter bill at Deltoid shares some examples there.
60865. Rob Painting at 07:48 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       The author, Zunli Lu, deserves a pat on the back for quickly responding to the misrepresentations of his paper. We don't see that often enough.
60866. Albatross at 06:36 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       John H. and Composer, Actually, see no reason not to doubt the sincerity of Pielke senior's statement and do not doubt that he meat to say exactly what did. What is very unfortunate is that Pielke senior's position on this particular issue/matter is clearly horribly wrong (as evidenced by pretty much every blog post made at WUWT, inlcuding the one misrepresenting Dr. Lu's findigs), but that Roger cannot bring himself to admit it.
60867. muoncounter at 06:28 AM on 31 March 2012
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       Earth Observatory has a nice display of tar sand mining's emissions. ... the emission of pollutants from oil sands mining operations in Canada’s Alberta Province are comparable to the emissions from a large power plant or a moderately sized city. So we get to enjoy these emissions twice - once in the form of NO2 released during mining and then as CO2 when the crud is burned.
60868. Composer99 at 06:24 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       John Hartz: How do you know Albatross isn't, in a deadpan manner, taking the accuracy of Pielke Sr's statements with a grain of salt (or two)?
60869. John Hartz at 06:16 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       Albatross: Perhaps you should take Dr Roger Pielke Sr.'s statement about Anthony Watts with a grain of salt? They are, after all, bossom buddies pursuing a common agenda.
60870. Albatross at 05:15 AM on 31 March 2012
       Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
       Dr. Lu should contact Mr. Anthony Watts and ask him to please correct the glaring error on WUWT. Mr. Anthony Watts, proudly declared that this paper was vindication of his long held belief that the Medieval climate anomaly was global. Mr. Anthony Watts: "Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global" Will Mr. Watts, in the interest of scientific integrity and robustness, correct the error? Dr. Pielke Senior maintains that "I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness", if that is true, Mr. Watts will respect Dr. Lu's wishes and correct the record, and refrain in the future from perpetuating scientifc myths.
60871. John Hartz at 05:02 AM on 31 March 2012
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       For an informative update on status of the proposed Keystone pipeline, check out: “Climate Change Disappears from Keystone XL Pipeline Debate” by Lisa Song, Inside Climate News, Mar 29, 2012
60872. Philippe Chantreau at 04:47 AM on 31 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       "I suspect Spencer would blow a fuse at this level of misrepresentation." Which is fitting since, as we all know, "blowing a fuse" is what happens when a wire designed to melt under certain conditions meets these conditions... :-)
60873. Tom Curtis at 04:29 AM on 31 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       It is not often I am moved to defend Dr Spencer's reputation, but in this case I can make an exception. What Dr Spencer said, that has been misinterpreted by BernhardB, was:

       "The more you can reduce the rate of energy loss to the cold walls, the hotter the plate will get. Yes, the surrounding objects act to control the rate at which the plate can lose energy. I have no idea what happens if you can keep the plate from losing energy at all….I suspect the heater wire melts "

       I say misinterpreted because Dr Spencer is clearly discussing the case of no heat loss. The only way a convection based heat sink place in a vacuum would lose no heat is if all external surfaces emitted no thermal radiation. Of course, if they did that, then there would be no "back radiation" between adjacent fins of the heat sink so BernhardB's thought experiment would not hold. So BernhardB has taken a correct explanation by Spencer, applied it to a situation that does not satisfy the conditions Spencer specified, and then claimed that Spencer's prediction would fail, and that Spencer was talking nonsense when the prediction fails outside of the conditions in which it applies. I suspect Spencer would blow a fuse at this level of misrepresentation. Which brings me to the second point. BernardH claims that the only way the wire can be melted is by increasing the voltage. Given the large number of industrial applications for melting wires by increasing the resistance while holding the voltage constant, his claim is simply false. Perhaps the most common of those applications is electrical arc welding (most commonly as MIG welding), but others abound. (Image from wikipedia) So far BernardH shows that his arguments depend on not just miscomprehending the physics, but a complete failure to understand how common industrial processes and computer components works. It is not the esoteric, but the commonplace that shows BerhardH is ... (Image from BernhardB) Well, you get the idea.
60874. Philippe Chantreau at 04:16 AM on 31 March 2012
       Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
       I note that, although Monckton could argue that he was not aware of the glaring faults of the V&T piece at the time he spoke, he should have known that there was already a correction factor in the paper multiplying costs, if he had actually read it attentively. Considering how egregious the whole thing was, I wonder if it is possible to introduce a formal complaint to the legislative body/committe that was involved in this pathetic display. You probably could not establish outright intention to deceive without a doubt but could easily demonstrate negligence. I mean it is as if he did not completely read the paper, and the said paper has been rather thoroughly demolished since it first appeared.
60875. Philippe Chantreau at 04:03 AM on 31 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       BernhardB your misunderstanding about radiators has been addressed. Since you ignored my earlier comment, I'll ask you again the question, which was also asked before to other GHE deniers on this thread: if there is no radiative GH effect, where does the downwelling IR measured at the surface come from? No GHE denier has yet come up with a good answer, perhaps you have one.
60876. Martin Lack at 22:32 PM on 30 March 2012
       Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
       Since Lord Monckton hassled me to retract a carelessly-worded comment I made about him in my Lindzen complaint to MIT, it seemed only fair to reciprocate with an email to him today... Dear Lord Monckton, That's another fine mess you've got yourself in to With reference to your recent presentation to 5 members of the California State legislature, can you please advise me as to where and when you shall be publishing your apology for so grievously misrepresenting the supposed costs (and ignoring all the benefits) of sensible GHG emission reductions policies? [hypertext link to this page] I can't wait to read Part 2 of Dana Nuccitelli's report; and am tempted to consider that it may be time for me to write a Part 2 of my own report. Regards, Martin Lack
60877. Phil at 21:14 PM on 30 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       BernhardB @1396: I thought it`s rather humorous, that Roy Spencer did not realize that in any resistive heating wire the resistance (Ohms) increases with the temperature and drop the current, ergo limits the amperes that can possibly flow through his heater wire preventing the wire from melting. The only way to heat the wire to a higher temperature would be to increase the Voltage ! does however speak volumes how poor Spencer`s understanding of power expressed in watts is. Just to be clear, Spencer's misunderstanding is not "of power expressed in watts" but a misunderstanding of the properties of metals. Changes in conductivity with temperature depend very much on the material being heated, as a simple Google search will inform. Obviously this is just one (of many) places where Spencer's analogy breaks down - but of course all analogies break down if you push them far enough.
60878. Dikran Marsupial at 19:48 PM on 30 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       BernhardB writes "Then I would like to know why the fins on power transistor heat sinks don`t "back radiate" each other into a China Syndrome melt down." I would have thought that was pretty obvious. Assuming the fins are identical and adjacent fins on the heatsink will be at approximately the same temperature, their radiation will be identical. In the worst case, all of the energy radiated by a fin will be absorbed by a neighbouring fin. In this case, fin C will absorb half the radiation emitted by fin B and half emitted by fin D. However this sums of this incoming radiation equals the energy radiated from fin C in the first place. As there is no net gain in radiative energy then fin C stays at the same temperature. However, in practice, not all of the energy is absorbed by the neighbouring fins, a lot of it is radiated away into space, which is why heatsinks are used to cool things. As others have already pointed out, heatsinks still work in space without convection by increasing surface area and emissivity. This isn't exactly rocket science, just a simple bit of accounting.
60879. Tom Curtis at 18:37 PM on 30 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       BernhardB @1396 makes a rhetorical point about the superfluous nature of fans in space, clearly ignoring the fact that the illustration in question was related to the operation of heat sinks in atmospheres. He also makes several unsubstantiated claims about the design of satellites. This appears designed to evade discussion of the operation of heat sinks at the Earth's surface on which he makes no comment. Frankly, I find BernhardB's discussion of satellite design dubious at best. The multi-finned heat sinks used on Earth bound electronic components would constitute so much waste mass in space, and as low mass is critical to keeping launch costs down, I doubt any aerospace engineer would be so negligent as to use them. Rather, they are likely to use heat pipes, and axially grooved heat pipes (such as those shown below) to conduct excess heat to external radiators: Heat Pipes Axially Grooved Heat Pipes (cross section) Heat pipes work by being partially filled by a volatile liquid. Heat evaporates the liquid which then quickly carries the heat the external radiator where it cools and condenses. Surface tension keeps the resulting liquid in contact with the walls of the pipe, and thereby transports it back to the heat source. In axially grooved pipes, the grooves introduce a capillary effect, thereby improving the transport of the fluid back to the heat source. Note the single fin on the right hand Grooved Heat Pipe, which by increasing surface area improves radiative cooling. With regard to the internal or external deployment of heat sinks, some may well be internal. Many satellites operate on surprisingly little power so that heat accumulation is not a problem and an internal heat sink (or no heat sink at all) may be adequate. However, some require more robust solutions:

       "Dissipation of the heat generated by increasingly powerful satellite electronics presents inherent challenges. Today’s satellite applications, especially in the military sector, demand increasingly powerful functionality and a wider variety of electronics, which must be accommodated within a limited space. The drawback of increasing the number and power of electronics components is the generation of increasing amounts of heat while the available exterior surface area of the satellite —— through which the heat is rejected to space —— remains constant at best. Satellite designers and engineers rarely if ever have the luxury of increasing the exterior surface area of a satellite to improve heat rejection; and in many cases, any such increases would quickly be overtaken by increasing heat created by next generation electronics. As heat increases, the thermal devices used to dissipate the heat must transfer the heat effectively in any orientation and in the absence of gravity. Finally, satellite thermal solutions must operate under conditions in which maintenance and repairs are not possible, making flawless reliability a critical factor. To meet these challenges, thermal engineers are turning to deployable radiators. These occupy minimal space on the satellite surface until deployment in orbit, to create increased surface area for heat dissipation."

       (Source) So, to summarize, BernhardH makes false assumptions about the nature of heat sinks in space. In assuming that they have the same design as those used in earthbound electronic instruments, he makes a similar mistake to somebody who assumes that heat sinks in computers must be full of small tubes through which water is pumped just because they serve the same function as radiators in cars. He also falsely assumes that waste heat is radiated into the interior of satellites, whereas in fact, if heat is a significant problem it is radiated to space. Based on these two false assumptions he assumes that the actual design features of heat sinks are designed to work in a vacuum, despite obvious facts to the contrary (see my previous post). From this chain of errors he unsurprisingly comes up with false conclusions.
60880. Riccardo at 17:43 PM on 30 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       One more example of a denier giving "skeptics" a bad name, to borrow Fred Singer's wording. "It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics" and indeed the 2nd law of thermodynamics is maybe the most misunderstood law of physics, probably because it's only apparently simple but its consequences go far beyond the too common superficial (mis)understanding.
60881. Rob Painting at 16:39 PM on 30 March 2012
       Falling Cloud Height In the Last Decade: Is It Just ENSO?
       Barry - must have been that hacker! Now, fixed. But the hyperlink facility (for the Davies & Molloy paper) is not yet operational.
60882. BernhardB at 15:36 PM on 30 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       No Sir it`s not me that made the assertion of a "run-away melt down". Roy Spencer is the one who claims that the "back radiation" would eventually heat the heated plate to a point where the heater wire would burn out. Please do read his (350) responses and You shall find him saying so. I mentioned it because I thought it`s rather humorous, that Roy Spencer did not realize that in any resistive heating wire the resistance (Ohms) increases with the temperature and drop the current, ergo limits the amperes that can possibly flow through his heater wire preventing the wire from melting. The only way to heat the wire to a higher temperature would be to increase the Voltage ! That does however speak volumes how poor Spencer`s understanding of power expressed in watts is. I also want to point out, that satellites are not pressurized with any gas and even if You were to mount the consequentially superfluous cooling fan as shown in the PC power supply pictures chosen by Tom Curtis You would not have any convection helping to cool the components on a heat sink. Also all electronic components on modern satellites are modular & "plug in boxed" and not mounted anywhere on or near the vehicle shell where any such heat sink could radiate directly to the outside (into space). Heat sinks have been thoroughly researched and engineered for maximum efficiency, especially so for space exploration, BECAUSE there is no convection available to help cool high power components ! If "back radiation" from a colder to a hotter body were indeed a problem, then You would not find a single heat sink where the fins are arranged perfectly parallel to "mirror" heat at each other.
60883. Dave123 at 13:22 PM on 30 March 2012
       Falling Cloud Height In the Last Decade: Is It Just ENSO?
       I don't have the reference immediately available but there's something out there pre-publication that says that clouds 'droplet' or 'drizzle' components has been underestimated compared to what is measured, and cloud's positive feed back is underestimated therefor in climate models. Wish I could remember where I saw it.
60884. muoncounter at 12:50 PM on 30 March 2012
       It's the sun
       Philippe - does this mean that down-welling IR can be measured? But if the GHE doesn't exist, how can that be possible? Interesting that they're seeing >300 W/m^2 with an air temperature of 40F. That's after a couple of days of high humidity and relatively low solar input - it's been cloudy. Could clouds be a positive feedback? Note- the linked figures are for 3/23-3/30. They may change to keep current.
60885. muoncounter at 12:35 PM on 30 March 2012
       Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
       Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum 2012 (the paper under discussion since this comment) find a negative correlation between solar cycle length (SCL) and temperature change. Shouldn't we look to see if this correlation is consistent? Referring to Figure 1 from this paper, the graph posted here, the early cycles (1680-1790) are shorter. This was the guts of the Little Ice Age, so short cycles -> cooling. However, Vaquero and Trigo 2012 report an interesting point: We have reconstructed the SCL (average duration of 10.72 \pm 0.20 years) during the MCA using observations of naked-eye sunspot and aurora sightings. Thus, solar activity was most probably not exceptionally intense ... Looking again at the graph, 10.7 years would be very comfortable during those LIA years. However, the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was a warm period - indeed, in its former identity as the MWP, it is the warm period vital to so many denia 'skeptic' arguments. So once again, a so-called 'skeptic argument' - solar cycle length - runs both hot and cold. It can be used to justify warming and cooling, as needed to suit the needs of the moment.
60886. scaddenp at 12:16 PM on 30 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       BernardB also seems to think backradiation leads to a runaway (meltdown). Positive feedback != runaway. Moving the cooler to vacuum (so convection taken away - as well as most of the effectiveness of the heatsink), and you have a situation close to the one discussed at Science of Doom. Ie two stars side by side. However Science of Doom does the maths. You could do the same for the heatsink and see how much difference the backradiation makes.
60887. Tom Curtis at 11:33 AM on 30 March 2012
       Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
       BernarB @25, see here.
60888. Tom Curtis at 11:33 AM on 30 March 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       BernardB @9:30 AM, March 30th on the Sun Cycle Length page asks why heat sinks on electronic components work if back radiation warms the surface. Supposedly the "back radiation" between opposing fins in the heat sink would result heat simply being recycled in the unit. At a minimum, BernardB's reasoning is specious on the minimal grounds that the heat sink will still radiate thermal energy away from itself. It is true that the effective surface area for a heat sink relying purely on thermal radiation for cooling would be no larger than that of a solid box of the same dimensions, but that surface area is still much larger than that of the CPU (or other electronic component) the heat sink is designed to cool, and the the emissivity of the heat sink is potentially much higher than that of the chip. Consequently a heat sink provides significant gains in cooling relative to the computer chip by itself even if forced to rely exclusively on thermal radiation. In space, that cooling by thermal radiation would be more efficient provided it is not exposed to direct sunlight. That is because on Earth, within the computer casing the heat sink is exposed to back radiation of approx 390 W/m^2 in all directions from bodies at the ambient surface temperature. In space the "back radiation" when not exposed to direct sunlight is effectively at the temperature of the cosmic background radiation of 2.7 degrees K, or about 3 millionth of a Watt per meter squared. In practice that means the heat sink would radiate heat away at 390 W/m^2 faster than would an equivalent heat sink on the Earth's surface. More fundamentally BernardB is neglecting the fact that heat sinks work be convection. The air (or other fluid medium) between the fins is heated up primarily by contact with the fins. Because the it is then warmer, it then rises carrying the heat away far more efficiently than would radiative transfer. Because the initial transfer of heat is by conduction, the greater the surface area the greater the heat, hence the fins, which are always (or nearly always) oriented vertically for improved convective flow. With large modern PCs, even this process is insufficient and fans are placed above the heat sink to force the airflow greatly increasing cooling efficiency. The presence of the fan noise you can almost certainly hear as you read this is proof that BerarnB's understanding of the operation of heat sinks is faulty. An exception to the use of fans is found in some modern PCs which are filled with oil. The greater heat capacity of oil relative to air allows convection to continue to cool the heat sinks effectively, thereby eliminating noise and saving on power (and CO2 emissions). For more on the operation of heat sinks, see here and here. For more on oil filled computers, see here.
60889. barry1487 at 10:47 AM on 30 March 2012
       Falling Cloud Height In the Last Decade: Is It Just ENSO?
       Rob, I'm a bit confused - the SMH article and the michael's piece are about the work done by the two NZ researchers, Davies and Molloy, but you write,

       The mainstream media, and 'skeptic' climate scientist Pat Michaels have jointly assumed the role of Chicken Licken and have likewise grossly misinterpreted a recent paper by two Auckland University researchers, Loeb (2012), Laken (2012)(not yet published) and Erlykin and Wolfendale (2010).

       Have you edited out some text there?
60890. Philippe Chantreau at 10:46 AM on 30 March 2012
       It's the sun
       "We can, when standing at the Earth surface, empirically measure longwave IR backradiation from the atmosphere, and there are posts on this site and elsewhere documenting this." Indeed composer. Martha's Vineyard Coastal Observatory, for instance has an hourly (I think) updated graph of downwelling IR. Just click on the link to Infared radiation. Simple as that. Considering there is always some level of IR, even at night, the GH effect deniers have some seriously contorted explaining to do. No doubt that some will try. I'm waiting for Bernhard's words on these observations.
60891. KR at 10:07 AM on 30 March 2012
       Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
       BernhardB - Actually, the appropriate topic for your argument is the interminable Greenhouse effect and the 2nd Law thread. This is one of the classic 'skeptic' arguments, demonstrating serious shortcomings in physics knowledge, that quite frankly makes 'skeptics' look bad. Some have realized this - for example both Fred Singer and JoNova have weighed in, pointing out that this is a bad argument, and reflects (backradiates?) rather poorly on skeptics in general.
60892. Composer99 at 10:05 AM on 30 March 2012
       It's the sun
       With regards to a comment by one BernhardB here, I am linking to this thread where it is more on topic (at least, I suspect so - if there is a better thread please do point it out). As a response, Bernhard, I am no physicist, but I would say this: We can, when standing at the Earth surface, empirically measure longwave IR backradiation from the atmosphere, and there are posts on this site and elsewhere documenting this. Just as we can empirically measure from orbiting satellites the effect heat-trapping (aka greenhouse) gases in the atmosphere have on outgoing longwave IR. I'm only marginally aware of what a heat sink for a power transistor is, but I gather from your derisive line Then I would like to know why the fins on power transistor heat sinks don`t "back radiate" each other into a China Syndrome melt down. that melt downs are not a common occurence among them. As such, I would suspect the issue is not with either power transistors, their heat sinks, or observed longwave IR backradiation. I would not be surprised if one of the more physics-educated commenters here has more to say.
60893. Composer99 at 09:57 AM on 30 March 2012
       Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
       BernhardB: The thermometer on the upper right hand sidebar has the most common pseudoskeptic arguments, and includes "It's the Sun" which I suspect is strictly speaking a more appropriate thread for your comment since it appears to deal with the Sun in a more generic fashion. This post & comment thread is to do with the Friis-Christensen 1991 paper and further topical research. As such your comment appears to be off-topic for this thread.
60894. BernhardB at 09:17 AM on 30 March 2012
       Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
       If it`s not the sun, was it a "positive back radiation feedback" as explained by Roy Spencer and used in the "Trenberth Energy budget"? Then I would like to know why the fins on power transistor heat sinks don`t "back radiate" each other into a China Syndrome melt down. The configuration to do so is even better than Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment". Here is a comparison: http://askbernhard.9f.com/
60895. John Hartz at 08:46 AM on 30 March 2012
       Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
       funglestrumpet: Given the sparse turnout for Monckton's presentations, there's no need for SkS to make him the center of our attention. He's just a babbling brook in a very large forest.
60896. scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 30 March 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Perhaps time to look closely the supplementary material? here (rather more proxies, and note the sensitivity tests). Note that the AR4 predates this paper too.
60897. muoncounter at 07:28 AM on 30 March 2012
       Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
       tompinlb You've clearly misread both the figures and the authors' Table 1. The trends are given in degrees per 100 years, not degrees per decade. Svalbard and Archangel are the only stations analyzed that give a reasonable northern hemisphere temperature trend (1.6 and 1.4 degrees per 100 years, respectively). "The stations selected by the authors show rates of change well in excess of the HadCRUT average." Comparing a few tightly clustered stations with the entire northern hemisphere HADCRUT is the specious argument. Running the HADCRUT trend back as far as 1850 when Svalbard begins in 1910 is the specious argument. Drawing conclusions from such weakly defined trends as are shown in the center panels of figures such as those shown here is the specious argument. Perhaps you should review the long list of the papers shown here. For example, Benestad 2005: ... further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming.” Laut 2004: Analysis of a number of published graphs that have played a major role in these debates and that have been claimed to support solar hypotheses shows that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data. Thejll and Lassen 2000: ... since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature. Finally, any prediction based on cycle analysis without an underlying physical mechanism is specious, which Google defines as "superficially plausible, but actually wrong."
60898. Phil M at 07:27 AM on 30 March 2012
       Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
       John@126 Yeah, figure of speech ;)
60899. John Hartz at 07:18 AM on 30 March 2012
       Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
       @Phil M: The SkS author team is unlikely to catch the perp. We're relying on Interpol to do so.
60900. funglestrumpet at 07:04 AM on 30 March 2012
       Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
       Let's put a great big digital clock counting the days we have waited in pregnant expectation for Monckton to issue a rebuttal to Peter Hadfields debunking of great swathes of his presentation material. If we put it somewhere prominent on the home page, no one visiting this site is going to let it slip their memory. If it were to contain links to Professor Abraham's excellent work as well as all of Peter Hadfield's extensive Monckton catelog, then it would ensure that old and new alike were properly informed as to the veracity of the English nobleman's presentation material. Build up a head of steam on the issue and Monckton will face a growing voice of well informed critism during his Q & A sessions and who knows what that might bring, all things considered.

Prev  1210  1211  1212  1213  1214  1215  1216  1217  1218  1219  1220  1221  1222  1223  1224  1225  Next