David Appell says that area is now measured by volume.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
The Big Appell Goes Underwater, Just As Hansen Predicted
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Redefining geometry seems a bit extreme, even for warmists; wouldn’t it be simpler to simply redefine “greater”?
Ice Grater :'(
Appell has tron-like entered a computer modeled, demential, virtual world, where the very definitions of ‘extent’, ‘area’ and ‘volume’ hold no boundaries.
He’s more to be pitied than blamed.
Appell has tron-like entered a computer modeled, demential, virtual world, where …
And, I think he is significantly short on both memory and ‘processing power’, not that either of those two will help him in the ‘logic’ category.
I think his two neurons are caught in a deadly embrace. 🙂
Truly, a ‘binary’ system.
2-D or 3-D, what’s the difference among trust-fund kiddies … maybe he is conflating the term ‘volume’ with how loud the CAGW crowd shouts …
At what point in our history were we even able to determine volume of sea ice— that is knowing the average thickness of the ice.
Never, and we still can’t.
That other ultimate alarmist, “Neven1”, calculates the Arctic is already Ice Free from a volume perspective.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b014e87616da4970d-pi
Using David Apfel’s climate geometry, I multiply minimum sea ice area (about 6 million sq km) by average ice thickness of 2 metres (NRL), and we get a volume of 12 thousand cubic km.
Could someone peer review that calculation please. I could be mistaken.
Gaia help the alarmists if the minimum extent stays at 8 million sq km. That would exceed 1980 volumes!!!
They are getting really worried Steve, you are getting to them.
Steve Mosher and Nick Stokes are fighting a rearguard action against you over on Climate Etc.
Stve Mosher called me an Asshole for saying you were right.
Can you contact me on my email address, I want to show you something on BEST, but I don’t know how to post it on the site?
They are getting really worried because all that money, not to mention “The Cause” is at stake. The Supreme Court just upheld the EPA so if it is PROVED in the minds of the peons that NOAA LIED in order to deprive them of electricity and to sky rocket the rate they pay there is going to be he!! to Pay in coming elections and who knows the Tea Party may actually gain in strength.
Definition of a conservative:
A progressive who got mugged.
The US government is mugging the rank and file “progressives” big time and some are starting to notice. Obummercare and the Bank bailouts were a bit of an eye opener for a lot of people. Polls show people don’t trust Congress or the Federal government.
Average Antarctic Ice thickness is about 1m. Which implies that as of today, there is 2,000 cubic km more ice than normal (assuming the other ice isn’t thicker).
Maybe Appel Polisher could point to an existing dataset for Antarctic Ice Volume that contradicts me.
sea ice is measured in whatever way is most useful to their political purposes at any particular time.
I’ve had more than a few comment wars with David. Unfortunately he is like so many warmists. He does not have a grasp of the data and when you show him incontrovertible proof his position is wrong he reverts to abuse, then storms off.
There is more ice because temperature is falling. Sticking your head into the sand will not do anything to change this.
I’ve had several forum comment-wars with the nasty fat little man myself.
He’s quite bitchy, and his argument technique reminds me hilariously of the Comic Book Guy in “The Simpsons”. Actually so does his appearance…
My mantra in those discussions–to make it appealing to the less-informed readers–is to simply quote the facts on “carbon” emissions and where they come from. No graphs, no math, no esoteric discussions on “radiative forcing”–Appel’s favorite topic because, as he reminds everyone constantly he’s a PhD in PHYSICS so you dare not argue.
Just this: carbon emissions by source:
earth’s land mass: 60 gigatons/year
earth’s ocean mass: 90 gigatons/year
humans: 5 gigatons/year
We’re not doing it. Whether or not “it” is happening, whether or not “it” is caused by CO2 if it IS happening, we’re not doing it.
It enfuriates him every time because I get huge upvotes, and his inevitably abstruse replies get none.
I crossed with Appell ONCE. What a complete idiot.
He sees being complete at anything as an achievement.
So David is fat? That explains a lot. He wants to call me fat every time he loses an argument (fat old man is his derogatory term). While I am getting old, I am not fat, so I wondered why he always called me that. I guess it is the term that he has heard the most.
I guess I will just call him FLF – Fat Little (and you can guess the other F).
He often comments now with a selfie as the avatar, and yes it’s a round blotch red, podgy face that looks down at you. Exactly as I imagined. I wonder if he has the high pitched, slightly gruff vioce to match my image of him.
Probably an Urkel type voice. He claims to be a writer and a scientist. Yet his writing is horrendous and he does not know the first thing about science! He is adamant that CO2 is not a trace gas.
Gotta luv the warmist. Record extent implies loss of volume in their world.
Just add that to his proclamation that CO2 is not a trace gas.
Did what!? Now I know DAA is certifiably nuts.
You can’t make this stuff up – http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/#comment-1195621397
Well…if it’s measured by volume……who’s doing the area maps?
The alarmist pseudo-scientists will resort to any subterfuge to bolster their disintegrating “human CO2 is overheating the planet” theory. There are research dollars, prestige and reputations at stake. Many of them of have invested a lifetime in perpetrating the AGW fraud. They can’t just walk away. It would be too much of a blow to their egos. At some point, they might want to start worrying about the legal ramifications of their scientific malfeasance. They’ve defrauded taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Are you suggesting Apell is actually getting paid by someone. I pity the fools.
… someone? I …
… Appell is …
Typo-fest.
Umm, I’m not a scientist, only a mere motor mechanic (retired), so you can call me dumb if you wish……..but if ice area and/or extent is increasing, wouldn’t there also be an increase in volume?
I know, call me stupid and I’ll go sit in the corner.
It takes years of indoctrination, living at wages in conditions worse than a Mooney cult initiation center, to absorb enough lies to become a believing warmist. These cult indoctrination centers are called “graduate school”. A combination of pitiful stipends, constant forced boot-licking and Appel-polishing, and sleep deprivation breaks their wills.
So don’t feel bad. You still have the common sense to state forthrightly that 2+2=4.
+1
I’m not sure you have the authority to question David Appell. I recall him in the comments section of this blog comparing himself to Einstein.
Fred. Fred Einstein. He is the local janitor at the Nuke Plant.
Poor Appell.
His religion is falling apart about his ears, and he’s getting hysterical.
I doubt he’s the only one, either!
He is a “Contract Writer” with only one bog spavined, sway backed, cow hocked, club footed, pigeon toed, ewe necked, decrypt half dead pony pulling his career wagon.
He is going to fight tooth and nail to keep that pony alive as are the other clima-crooks.
Is it wrong to take pride in my imagined generosity and kind nature, confirmed by my occasional feelings of pity for him? Like Bilbo nobly sparing the pitiable Gollum?
Okay, Gail, that was a new one on me. I had to look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_spavin
Boy, the things we learn here!
He claims he earns a living writing. Yet every piece I have seen that he has written has been filled with spelling errors and grammar errors. No wonder Soros has to support him.
It seems your auto-correct feature betrayed you on “decrepit”, Dr. Combs, but tell me:
What is the ultimate prognosis? And how do you really feel about this particular beast?
Get a vet out to put it down or just shoot it.
BruceC, Area is proportional to volume if and only if depth is constant. If the depth of the ice is diminishing, then volume is less. Area is easy to measure, but volume is more difficult. Obviously, volume (which is proportional to mass) is the important figure for judging accurately how the planet is heating.
It’s the same with global surface temperature. That, like ice area, is relatively easy to measure. Total earth heat must include ocean temperatures which is more difficult, involving a whole new set of measurements.
In the end, science must look at total earth heat, and total ice volume.
Well sure–that’s obvious. But it certainly stands to reason that given it’s a natural process, and given the area has increased, there’s no reason to believe that it’s thinner than usual.
Hence, the total area AND volume have increased.
And: “Obviously, volume (which is proportional to mass) is the important figure for judging accurately how the planet is heating.”
You’re making a huge and unwarranted assumption–that the planet is heating, which the last 17 years have shown very clearly it’s not.
Methylamine, obvious to you, but not to Gail Combs.
You still do not have it correct.
Temperature is a rotten method of measuring energy since it does not include the latent heat of evaporization.
The other point the Warmists have missed is when the earth has a large extent of Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice + a Northern Hemisphere Polar Vortex like last winter, the earth is rapidly cooling.
Why?
1. The Polar vortex means more snow in the lower latitudes of the NH and therefore a higher albedo.
2. The Polar Vortex means more warm air is sucked into the Arctic where the heat is radiated away.
3. A large extent of Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice also means a higher albedo.
Explanation:
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3 (Has spread sheet of actual solar Insolation values)
The Earthshine Project at Bigbear Observatory shows a marked change in albedo after the 1997/98 El Nino: graph
What is interesting is Dr. Joan Feynman et al also saw a lessening in solar strength back in 1997.
I love the gritted teeth bow to the CAGW god. (Feynman works for NASA)
Heh … “The Appel has bobbed” …
Gail, where do you think the latent heat of vaporisation goes to? Is it destroyed, in your view? Or do you think it is returned to the atmosphere as latent heat of condensation?
See the top of this Cloud?
So those clouds are dumping their energy at the tropopause. Also see: The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis: How clouds and thunderstorms control the Earth’s temperature.
Dr. Robert B. Brown of Duke Univ (Physics) says of CO2:
So the water vapor, at least in our summer thunderstorms, is dumping energy into the lower stratosphere, moving energy from the warm earth to levels where it is more likely to escape straight to space.
Dr. Robert B. Brown of Duke Univ (Physics) says of CO2:
…
The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.
– – – – –
My question regarding the above in bold: Is this at sea level or at 40,000 or 50,000 feet?
.
“My question regarding the above in bold: Is this at sea level or at 40,000 or 50,000 feet?”
>>>>>>>
For the purposes of what he is trying to convey, it is lower troposphere, including sea level.
Sorry, left off the /rhetorical
It was a question Gail.
… for Gail. HELLO … I need lunch … running on vapors at the moment.
RGB says “It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter.” and it will change gradually. “In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them.”
So he is speaking in general terms and refers you to Grant Petty’s book for the physics.
Hi Gail, yes, interesting. So areas with more Cu-Nims should have a tropospheric warm spot?
If I can jump in here for a moment …
I think the largest amount of sensible heat energy is still transported by physical transport of ‘volumes’ of air (air masses) to areas of the globe where surface cooling (via surface radiation to space) takes place via aid ‘mass’ transport in Hadley, Mid-Latitude and finally to the ‘Polar’ cells. It is axiomatic in meteorology that an air mass ‘takes on the characteristics of the land mass over which it spends time’. One finds that early-on in the meteo text books.
For example, select an IR image for viewing here and note the ‘cold’ temperatures seen at the tops of the cumulonimbus … pretty cold as indicated.
.
No they are just going to have a faster convection cycle since the air/water vapor heads straight up, hits the tropopause and dumps its heat and heads back down again. Think of the cold winds that herald an on coming thunderstorm. Air craft pilots can tell you stories…
Lieutenant Colonel William Henry Rankin, “The Man Who Rode the Thunder.”
Yes Gail, I could tell you a story about a hang glider pilot who was obliged to free fall through a Cu-Nim before pulling his parachute. But it wouldn’t really take us any further forward in our understanding of energy balance.
Your man is saying that convection shifts heat up and out of the troposphere. So we need data on TOA LW emissions. All the data, properly analysed. I don’t have that, and anecdotes of experiences inside a CuNim are a poor substitute.
Gail, you write “No they are just going to have a faster convection cycle since the air/water vapor heads straight up, hits the tropopause and dumps its heat and heads back down again”.
However, the facts, as presented by Jim’s images, are otherwise. It is rarely helpful to try to base understanding of a complex system on one single, simple component of the system.
Oops – this website and select an IR image e.g. “Infrared (Color)” then set map size and click on a site on the map below.
http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/
.
That’s interesting too. If I’m reading it right, the storm clouds are showing as colder, not hotter?
DocRichard says:
July 1, 2014 at 10:57 pm
Precisely.
http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/wmovl/vrl/tutorials/advimgry/ch45enha.htm
&
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/tatl/rb-animated.gif
So what happened to the latent heat of condensation that our friend was talking about?
Does the heat get transported in the Hadley cells?
DocRichard says:
July 2, 2014 at 8:06 pm
What would you expect to “happen” to it?
I would expect it to be in the upper troposphere, as Robert Brown suggests. But the images do not support that. So I guess the heat is swept away in the Hadley cell to be deposited as dry air in the latitude od the Sahara.
Dr. Brown, in talking of the lower atmosphere says:
What those anvil shaped clouds are doing is short circuiting that diffusion and providing an express train for the heat via water vapor straight to the lower edge of the stratosphere.
You can read this : Analysis finds both water vapor & increased CO2 act as negative feedbacks to cool the Earth surface by Physicist Clive Best
Also from the hockeyschtick.blogspot
“…The net cooling effect from clouds of -22.5 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere is about 6 times greater than the assumed radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 levels of 3.7 W/m2.
The authors of this paper find that ” CF [total cloud fraction] is a primary modulator of warming (or cooling) in the atmosphere” and that the net effect of more clouds produces a net negative-feedback cooling effect.
Evaluation of CMIP5 simulated clouds and TOA radiation budgets using NASA satellite observations…”
For more on other papers see: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-finds-clouds-have-net.html
for a listing.
Or you can slog through these papers:
Gail, there is no point in copying and pasting ever longer blocks of text if you cannot answer the questions they raise. Brown asserts that tops of cu-nims should show as hot spots. The observations given here show the opposite. Deal with this please.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/why-land-air-temperature-is-exactly-wrong/
may be helpful doc
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/what-does-precipitation-say-about-heat-flow/
maybe better
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/spherical-heat-pipe-earth/
complete picture