tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post2342263874434680063..comments2023-08-24T23:19:59.072+02:00Comments on Opinionations: More Questions about Climate SciencePhilip Machanickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-63160539068577344352010-05-02T13:23:44.308+02:002010-05-02T13:23:44.308+02:00Wow, this Tim Curtin fellow is an interesting char...Wow, this Tim Curtin fellow is an interesting character. I look forward to reading more of his, um, beliefs.JMurphynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-44289585892760735802010-03-14T20:50:18.259+02:002010-03-14T20:50:18.259+02:00I was directed to this site from RC. The main cont...I was directed to this site from RC. The main contrarian was referred to as a "prominent denier" - or some such thing.<br /><br />I have never run across this person before, and I assure you his view of science is not representative of quality of skepticism available on the internet.<br /><br />I personally am quite satisfied with the AGW theory and behave as if it were fact.<br /><br /actually thoughtfulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-52186767429920136812010-03-14T14:15:47.240+02:002010-03-14T14:15:47.240+02:00TC: I agree this Blog has little to offer when it ...TC: I agree this Blog has little to offer when it allows Hank’s recycles. But I will attempt constructive responses to your less sarcastic comments. <br /><br />1. I have nothing to say nor have ever said anything about compressibility of water and hydraulics.<br />2. I was addressing claims that adding 100 ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere does not affect the proportion of non-CO2, even when most Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-49319849112677766202010-03-14T09:57:04.382+02:002010-03-14T09:57:04.382+02:00Tim, one more thing. In Quadrant, you claim that t...Tim, one more thing. In <a href="http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/1-2/the-contradictions-of-the-garnaut-report" rel="nofollow"><i>Quadrant</i></a>, you claim that the IPCC predicts "acceleration of temperature increase with respect to increasing" CO_2. Unfortunately you cite a rather large report (<i>Climate Change 2007. The Physical Science Basis</i>) and this exact text Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-37020321400939016062010-03-14T09:07:28.332+02:002010-03-14T09:07:28.332+02:00Tim, I don't know why being right on the atmos...Tim, I don't know why being right on the atmosphere content question is so important to you as to invoke the big guns of the Golden Age of Education. I last studied chemistry in 1975 at a place then called <a href="http://www.ukzn.ac.za/" rel="nofollow">University of Natal, Durban</a> in South Africa, and the professors there were quite unsentimental about failing students who produced Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-20930650563899624722010-03-14T08:24:01.798+02:002010-03-14T08:24:01.798+02:00Ian and MikeH: So like Hank you do not think that ...Ian and MikeH: So like Hank you do not think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere changes its composition in terms of parts per million by volume, repeat after me, BY VOLUME (PPMV?). Thanks for the link to chemistry for kids, perhaps you guys could try arithmetic for kids, like how to work out a per cent (cent = hundred) or a per million as a per cent. I wonder why IPCC prefers per millions to per Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-75085157534315215782010-03-14T03:16:37.735+02:002010-03-14T03:16:37.735+02:00Tim Curtin,
Just to remind you this is what you po...Tim Curtin,<br />Just to remind you this is what you posted on Deltoid in 2006.<br />"... what happened to the 100 ppm of the atmosphere displaced by CO2 since 1750?"<br /><br />This is the analogy you use above for adding C02 to the atmosphere -"take a litre of water, and add whatever you like, say 200 grams of rice, and see what happens to the level in your measuring jug."<MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-87546333235866992892010-03-14T00:46:28.952+02:002010-03-14T00:46:28.952+02:00Hank, I guess Tim has pegged you at 0 gpm (grasps ...Hank, I guess Tim has pegged you at 0 gpm (grasps per million)...<br /><br />Tim, I'm trying to understand your arguments about concentration changes. Are you arguing that there's a fixed number of molecules making up the atmosphere?<br /><br />Or, since you refer to an "initial million parts," are you thinking that the initial million molecules, measured at time t, must be Iannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-61187740313900055932010-03-13T11:45:48.976+02:002010-03-13T11:45:48.976+02:00MikeH and Phil, you really must write a new textbo...MikeH and Phil, you really must write a new textbook on your New Physics. "So adding more of a gas without changing the volume is in fact more likely than not". So increasing CO2 by 110 ppm since 1750 has not changed either the volume or the composition in terms of ppm? O brave new world!<br /><br />"Water is difficult to compress". Rubbish, it can be done. "When was the Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-8184503564404002892010-03-13T11:05:43.182+02:002010-03-13T11:05:43.182+02:00Tim, I majored in physics. That doesn't make m...Tim, I majored in physics. That doesn't make me an expert but it gives me a basis for understanding the basics, which you clearly don't. The relevant issue is how many GHG molecules a photon is likely to encounter, which is why concentration is measured this way. Note, <i>measured</i>. It is not a derived quantity. If you prefer another way, feel free to rework the physics from scratch. Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-12961808284465047972010-03-13T08:16:22.825+02:002010-03-13T08:16:22.825+02:00Tim Curtin,
Gases are compressible. I am sure tha...Tim Curtin,<br /><br />Gases are compressible. I am sure that you have heard of compressed air.<br /><br />Do you suppose that scuba diver's air tanks increase in volume as they add more air?<br /><br />So adding more of a gas without changing the volume is in fact more likely than not. <br /><br />Water is difficult to compress. When was the last time you bought some compressed water? That MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-50549422406779995312010-03-13T07:07:42.761+02:002010-03-13T07:07:42.761+02:00Phil: you and people like Hank are certainly adept...Phil: you and people like Hank are certainly adept at changing the rules of arithmetic. You said if we have (for example) a million litres of air and we add 1 litre of a gas "without changing the volume" (how do you manage that?), we "would increase that gas by 1ppm without changing the concentration of anything else". What nonsense! But have it your way, as that means the Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-35806494013946817442010-03-12T10:08:57.172+02:002010-03-12T10:08:57.172+02:00Tim, atmospheric concentrations are in ppm by volu...Tim, atmospheric concentrations are in ppm by <i>volume</i>. If you have (for example) a million litres of air and you add 1 litre of a gas without changing the volume, you would increase that gas by 1ppm without changing the concentration of anything else; the pressure in the container would of course increase slightly. For your assertion to be correct, atmospheric concentrations would have to Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-28456310188327991552010-03-12T04:23:56.464+02:002010-03-12T04:23:56.464+02:00Phil: you have misinformed yourself. CRU attempted...Phil: you have misinformed yourself. CRU attempted to fob off requests for actual raw data per country with their matching "homogenised, value added products" by claiming they could not release their raw data sets. E.g. with Sweden, the issue is not the availability of the whole body of Swedish raw data available from Stockholm but those specific sites used by CRU that were no doubt Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-74043019333418595132010-03-12T04:13:44.560+02:002010-03-12T04:13:44.560+02:00Apologies if this gets duplicated, no sign my firs...Apologies if this gets duplicated, no sign my first Submit got through.<br /><br />I am sorry my #2 response got garbled in the pasting.<br /><br />Hank Roberts, I await your explanation of how if CO2 increases from 280 ppm to 390 ppm given an intial million parts, the <br />non-CO2 components do not fall from 999720 ppm to 999610 ppm. Of course if THE atmosphere expands from n batches of one Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-81538721984334233382010-03-12T02:16:46.551+02:002010-03-12T02:16:46.551+02:00This is, I suspect, the same Tim Curtin who thinks...This is, I suspect, the same Tim Curtin who thinks that for CO2 to increase some other gas has to decrease by the same amount, because it’s “parts per million” — he’s never retracted that claim; this would be another opportunity, though, if it's the same guy, or to say he's not the same guy, whichever.<br /><br />History, starting here:<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-88515128519894944582010-03-12T00:26:12.774+02:002010-03-12T00:26:12.774+02:00Tim, I suspect you have more time on your hands th...Tim, I suspect you have more time on your hands than I do, so you should really look for alternative explanations and corrections yourself rather than have me do that for you, e.g. on the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/03/weird_stuff_from_the_swedes.php" rel="nofollow">Swedish data accusation</a>.<br /><br />Your understanding of FOI is batty. You can't work in a goldfish bowl, Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-82451723646557051282010-03-11T02:02:18.328+02:002010-03-11T02:02:18.328+02:004. Phil said there was no conspiracy at CRU & ...4. Phil said there was no conspiracy at CRU & Penn. Not even when getting your mates who were lead IPCC authors to change the IPCC definition of peer review? Using that same network to get disagreable editors fired? And to use mateship with IPCC lead authors to allow Santer et al into AR 4 before publication pace IPCC rules? <br /><br />5. I had said “Mann & Co took every possible meansTim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-81093085834398197602010-03-11T01:54:28.275+02:002010-03-11T01:54:28.275+02:003. Phil, where’s your evidence? The equator is not...3. Phil, where’s your evidence? The equator is not short of people in Africa or South America. <br />Ever been to PNG? – the sea level has been much higher in East Sepik and Ramu quite recently than now, my wife has researched middens full of seashells far (>80 km)inland from today’s coast. Cape York & PNG used to be joined not that long ago, etc.Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-63205503432812297402010-03-11T01:50:53.109+02:002010-03-11T01:50:53.109+02:00Here are my preliminary responses to Philip Machan...Here are my preliminary responses to Philip Machanick’s responses to my queries (in two or three parts to beat word limits):<br /><br />1. Actually Phil should know there is no such thing as “private” emails when sent by employees of one institution to another from/to respective work stations, and least of all when as between e.g. CRU and Penn State the institutions are funded by taxpayers, who Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.com