Comments for Clive Best

Comment on Miskolczi’s theory of a saturated greenhouse effect by Alexis Bardin

Alexis Bardin — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 07:05:36 +0000

Hi buddie, I’m just browsing the web looking for some info and saw your blog. I am engraved by the content that you have on this blog. It reveals how well you understand this subject. Bookmarked this website, will get back for more. You, buddy, ROll!!!

Everything About Fitness, Diet, and Health Related Issues.

Comment on Miskolczi’s theory of a saturated greenhouse effect by Clive Best » Blog Archive » Climate Wars

Clive Best » Blog Archive » Climate Wars — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:22:11 +0000

[...] itself also hasn’t changed that much - it is just a question of how it is interpreted. If Milkowski turns out to be right then nothing will happen because he argues the greenhouse effect is …. That is why direct experimental measurements are so [...]

Comment on Doubling CO2 and basic physics by ScienceofDoom

ScienceofDoom — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:59:37 +0000

Clive, the explanation you have given isn’t correct. The formula of dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) isn’t worked out from existing climate change.

When the “radiative transfer equations” are solved to give the value of “radiative forcing” for many different concentrations of CO2 and plotted out, this formula is simply a reasonable empirical fit.

It has nothing to do with the actual temperature change and therefore isn’t a circular argument.

You can see this part explained in http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/

Feel free to ask any questions there, or any other part of the “CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas” series - http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

Comment on Doubling CO2 and basic physics by Clive

Clive — Fri, 21 May 2010 08:43:04 +0000

Thanks - This is by far the best clearest review of the greenhouse effect I have found. It is a great set of articles which describes energy balance and radiative transfer effects in the atmosphere. There is unfortunately no simple formula for the greenhouse effect, since the details of real calculations get complex quickly. Results rely on numerical analysis but confirm a direct warming of around 1.2 degrees for each successive doubling of CO2.

Comment on Doubling CO2 and basic physics by Babelsguy

Babelsguy — Thu, 20 May 2010 14:45:48 +0000

Hi Clive,

you can find a derivation of all necessary formulas from first priciples in every climate science primer.

However, a more accessible explanation is here: http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

(9 parts now!)

Cheers,

Babelsguy

Comment on Doubling CO2 and basic physics by The great boon of CO2 « Liberalism. An alternative blog of Sanjeev Sabhlok

The great boon of CO2 « Liberalism. An alternative blog of Sanjeev Sabhlok — Fri, 14 May 2010 10:37:24 +0000

[...] BOX See:http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/CO2_Versus_Water.html The range of infrared radiation from Earth is 6 to 22 microns. Each greenhouse gas and water vapor absorbs radiation from different areas of the electromagnetic spectrum. Carbon dioxide and water absorb long wave radiation from 12 to 19 microns. Methane absorbs wavelengths 6 to 8 microns. Water blocks radiation below 7 microns from being reflected out to space. What is the window of possible infrared radiation back out to space and how do these gases contribute to closing the window? (see: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/pdf/labge1.pdf). Also see this & this &this [...]

Comment on Doubling CO2 and basic physics by The great boon of CO2 « Liberalism. An alternative blog of Sanjeev Sabhlok

The great boon of CO2 « Liberalism. An alternative blog of Sanjeev Sabhlok — Fri, 14 May 2010 03:09:33 +0000

[...] Also see this & this &this [...]

Comment on Mount Kenya-Lake Naguru by Chiriqui, Panama

Chiriqui, Panama — Wed, 12 May 2010 08:06:14 +0000

There is apparently a lot for me to learn outside of my books. Thanks for the fantastic read,

Comment on Does the Moon effect the Earth’s Climate ? by clive

clive — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:31:20 +0000

The moon has a very small magnetic field which is thought to be the remnants of when the core was molten (like Earth’s is today). I am unaware if this has any effect on the Earth. The Earth’s magnetic field is thought to be generated by a dynamo effect of swirling electric currents in the Earth’s iron core.

The reason why the moon keeps the same face towards the Earth is because tidal effect of the Earth on the Moon has essentially sapped all the angular momentum from the Moon. Probably it used to spin on it’s axis but has now slowed down so that it spins once a lunar month . Essentially it is like the ball and hammer spun round by an athlete. The face with the chain attached is always facing the thrower.

The idea that lunar tidal effects on the atmosphere effect hurricanes storms and perhaps even their track across the Atlantic is interesting. It would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between spring tides and hurricanes. A spring tide is when the Solar and Lunar tides re-inforce each other.

Probably NASA did some seismic tests using explosives to measure the Moon’s internal structure. I doubt whether this can have had much effect, especially when compared to meteor impacts !

I think a study of correlations of storms and hurricanes with both the Lunar orbit precession (22 years) and with Spring Tides would be an interesting research project.

Comment on Does the Moon effect the Earth’s Climate ? by Jasper Jackson

Jasper Jackson — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 03:44:58 +0000

Also, if you could comment on NASA detonating some type of explosive on the moon surface, and whether this was wise, I would appreciate your opionion.

Thank you, again.