Comments on: The Carl Wunsch Complaint

By: The Rajendra Pachauri Puzzle « NoFrakkingConsensus

The Rajendra Pachauri Puzzle « NoFrakkingConsensus — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:00:52 +0000

[...] to respond to criticism appearing in the film. McIntyre dealt with each of them separately here, here, and [...]

By: Gaelan Clark

Gaelan Clark — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:15:05 +0000

Phil, Whomsoever shall claim the science being settled should/shall provide the clear exposition of the effects of CO2 on temperature, not vice-versa. You seem to have your logic twisted in this case. When you extort upon Bender to provide his own exposition, it is merely your attempt at obfuscation, which from the AGW camp is typical.
Why don’t you copy and paste your references, and exposition, if you have them at your fingertips, instead of linking to irrelevant texts?

By: MJW

MJW — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:46:46 +0000

Phil, I’ve never seen anything other than sqrt(log) for the middle region, which I’ve seen from several sources. In your original comment, you cited as a reference Spectrophysics 2nd Ed. by A. P. Thorne, Chapman & Hall. Since you didn’t quote the section you refer to, and since I don’t have access to that text*, I can’t comfirm or rebut your claim. However, you now say about the curve of growth, “in between there’s a flattening off region and depending what assumption you make you can get different dependences.” This doesn’t seem consistent with the claim that the supposed log response curve to CO2 is a consequence of spectral broadening unless you can show that the flattening off region for CO2 is logarithmic. So unless Spectrophysics specifically make that claim, I don’t see how you can cite it as a reference for that assertion.

*I notice it’s partially online on Amazon books, but the key pages, 212-213, aren’t included.

By: Phil.

Phil. — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:33:35 +0000

Re #45

If making an vague appeal to spectrum line broadening qualifies as “provid[ing] a reference to a derivation of the log & sqrt dependence” then…you still failed to provide a reference, since as I pointed out at the time, the relationships given by equivalent line width is linear, sqrt(log) (not log), and sqrt. See, for example, here.

Actually I gave a text reference as requested, it was the last thing I did en route to my vacation.
The two limiting conditions are linear and Sqrt in between there’s a flattening off region and depending what assumption you make you can get different dependences.

By: MJW

MJW — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:11:55 +0000

Phil:

Thank you Steve. I did provide a reference to a derivation of the log & sqrt dependence of GH gases as I promised before I went one vacation as far as I'm aware it made it on here.

If making an vague appeal to spectrum line broadening qualifies as "provid[ing] a reference to a derivation of the log & sqrt dependence" then...you still failed to provide a reference, since as I pointed out at the time, the relationships given by equivalent line width is linear, sqrt(log) (not log), and sqrt. See, for example, here.

By: bender

bender — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:48:02 +0000

#43 Interesting thought.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:44:36 +0000

#42. That’s true, but Michael Moore wasn’t operating under Ofcom regulations. Which poses an interesting question though – if a Michael Moore documentary were shown in the UK, would the various ambushed partis have the right to complain to Ofcom? It seems to me that they would.

I wonder if the Carl Wunsch ruling will limit the ability of UK channels to show things like the Michael Moore documentaries. Seems likely to me.

There’s an old legal saying – hard facts make bad law. That may just have happened.

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:21:39 +0000

This is nothing compared to how some people are given information about the topics of Michael Moore’s earlier documentaries, nor how their interviews were edited.

By: Pops

Pops — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:03:29 +0000

Since you guys brought up the subject of CO2 sensitivity, how about a layman question, being this:

Since the spectral graph of terrestrial IR emissivity taken by satellite shows CO2 notches going to zero, how is it that the addition of atmospheric CO2 can absorb any additional energy? There doesn’t appear to be any appreciable energy left at the relevant wavelengths…

Steve: Expansion of the wings. In my opinion, this is precisely the sort of matter that would be laid out for readers in one of the IPCC reports. Please take anything further to Unthreaded.

By: Phil.

Phil. — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:27:04 +0000

Re #34

Steve: that was not the derivation of the 3 deg C from doubled Co2 that I understood that you promised. I know that you feel that you promised something less - something that I for one had not requested nor disputed. But I am aware of your position as you are aware of mine - that we still don't have the reference deriving 3 deg C from doubled CO2.

The discussion you refer to arose out of my disagreeing with Motl's claim that the log dependence arose from the structure of the atmosphere. I said that that was not correct but that it arose from the spectroscopy and could be demonstrated in vitro, and in any case his mechanism would not explain why some GHGs had linear or square root dependences. I said that it was something that could be found in a graduate level text and was challenged to produce a reference and did so. See here I believe that in the discussion I also referred to a post of yours from earlier in the year where you commented that the provenance of those expressions was unclear in the IPCC documents? As I recall you posted late in the discussion so we may have been at cross purposes. It was one of those threads that ran over 'pages' so the origins may have been missed.