• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Blog Comments posted by BaalChatzaf

  1. 21 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

    Contrails are fine ice, not vapor. And they cannot persist more than about 90 seconds. What you see emitted from jets that persists for hours is a chemtrail.

    I am about 50. I had a telescope by age nine for watching the sun, moon, planets. I learned to identify over a dozen hawk species from thousands of feet, in the fourth grade. I watched the sky with great interest, on my back on the ground for hours per week my entire childhood. This was less than an hour from Boston so I saw planes at varying altitudes coming and going. I saw terminal height flyover traffic between Europe and New York/Chicago. Never, not once did I see a contrail persist longer than two minutes, and that was a very, rare event. A one minute contrail always got my attention. Even thirty seconds was a “long contrails” day.

    Note: The above is for any interested reader, and do know I would like to hear what you have seen in the skies over the years. Bob I am not so much interested in hearing from. Bob puffs his chest, slings insults and nerdy bigbrain put downs, then disappears when he is shown to be 110% wrong. I find it dishonorable in the extreme. See Where Are You thread as example. Bob can keep it intellectual, and then walking away is at least honest. Or he can do his usual walk in like a god, and then walking away without plainly acknowledging error is an order of magnitude worse than simple dishonesty. I don’t like being near it.

    Bullshit. Cirrus clouds persist for hours on end.  The water trail from a jet  is  made of the same stuff as Cirrus Clouds. H2O in a solid state which occurs shortly after gaseous H2O  condenses into liquid  H2O.  All the nasty gasses are invisible.  SO2, NOx  CO2. 


  2. On 8/18/2019 at 12:51 PM, william.scherk said:

      Reveal hidden contents






    Tyndall's Experiment was brilliant.  He got his results before Boltzmann discovered the mechanism of gas heating.   We really did not understand black body radiation until Planck using Boltzmann's statistical approach  figured out what happens.  When Tyndall did his experiment in 1859  no one know how gases could absorb and re-radiate heat.   To fully understand this we need the photoelectric effect and Compton effect. This were not established until the 1920's.   Tyndall was really way ahead of his time.


  3. On 6/13/2019 at 12:58 PM, Jon Letendre said:

    On that note I am buying a 1993 CBR900RR this afternoon. My fifth motorcycle and eighth plated motor vehicle.

    And Billy still hasn’t turned off his pipeline.


    The combustion of natural gas produces one half  the CO2 per joule of energy released by combustion  as does burning coal.  So if all our coal burning generating plants were replaced by natural gas burning plants the a amount of CO2 produced would be cut by a half. In addition  burning natural gas is cleaner than burning coal and burning natural gas does not produce the horrendous poisonous  ash heaps that burning coal does.  In the ash heaps you find  heavy metals (lead, arsenic...)  and trace amounts of fissile elements.  When the rain wets the ash heaps  heavy metal compounds are leached into the the soil  and find their way  to nearby aquifers. 

  4. Individual weather events, be they fair or foul  do not give us much information on  climate.

    In the climate  trade  moving 30 years intervals over which temperature, humidity,  and frequency  of  rain,  drought  is  averaged.  A 30 year average gives us a single  climate point.  

    Weather  is  controlled by  some  form of chaotic dynamics.  Read up on Ed Lorentz  and the butterfly effect  to get a grip on that.  Chaotic dynamics  manifests  a extreme dependency on initial and boundary conditions. Please  see:   That is why weather cannot be accurately predicted more than a week ahead. 

    Climate exhibits chaotic behavior  but on a stretched time scale  

    How difficult is it  to model  and predict climate?   On a scale of 1 to  10   producing a quantum theory of elementary particles  is a +5 (the standard model)   and  climate is 9.9.  One of the reasons that a faithful climate model is not forthcoming  is that there is currently no know algorithm for  computing the solution to the Navier-Stokes  equation numerically at all necessary scales of resolution.  Please see:–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness

    Climate not only involves temperature and humidity, but also the flow of matter  from region to region.  Thus a solution to the Navier Stokes equation is require. 

    If one wished  to  compare the development of climate science  with the development  of  basic particle physics  or equilibrium thermodynamics, it would  be fair to say climate science has not achieved the level  that  dynamics and mechanics  was at  prior  to Galileo  and Newton.  Or the level that Thermodynamics as at  prior to Maxwell and Boltzmann. 


    Ba'al  Chatzaf 

  5. 9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    I think you are quoting me. Aikido doesn't work on me.

    The Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. That's a true statement but has nothing to do with AGW which is getting a freebie ride off this undisputed fact.

    As for Canada? The perma-frost goes soft. BFD! This is your problem and won't be dealt with by AGW BS. Fossil fuels Regina!

    "Is the rest of the world warming?" has to do in the context of this yik yak with this century or the last 20 years.

    "Your arms are too short to box with me" or, apparently, with anyone else. And you know this. So you bring in bodyguards.


    let the methane (Kraken) out!

    If the start of the next Little Ice Age happens around 2100  the Alarmists  will claim it is due to AGW.

  6. On 2/8/2019 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan said:

    More from Judy the denier who hates science and probably deserves to be killed:

    Judith Curry is a top of the line atmospheric physicist and has written the basic text on Atmospheric thermodynamics.  Curry does science.  The Climatistas do models and poor models at that. The IPCC  in its CMIP=5 bundle has produced shit.   Humans do affect climate but the IPCC climatistas have not modeled climate anywhere near correctly.  The difference between Curry and you  is that she knows thermodynamics thoroughly  and you don't.


  7. 22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Here is an item from the Front Porch that contains a fair bit of sense in its general scope:

    Someone might ask: "What is the climate of city (or settlement or area X)?"  Or, "How does the climate of city Y differ from the climate of city Z?"


    There really is no global climate. There are regional climate regimes governed by latitude, topography, nearness to the oceans, the presence of forests and grasslands,   etc.  In general climate is warmer in the tropics which receive sunlight nearly directly than at the poles where the sunlight cames in aslant due to the tilt of the earth to the plane of the ecliptic.  The climate subsystems interact because heat is transferred from the higher temperature regions to the lower temperature regions by the oceans and atmosphere.  

    • Thanks 1
  8. The key to the warming effect of the greenhouse gases is the stephan-boltzmann  law.  The greenhouse gasses absorb heat and reradiate in all directions. Which means half the heat absorbed radiated downward .  The effect  of the greenhouse gasses is slow the rate at which energy in the infrared frequencies is radiated into space (which is the cold sink for Earth's heat).  According to the stephan boltzmann law the temperature will rise until the outward flux  of energy is equal to inbound flux of energy (from the Sun).  Please see:–Boltzmann_law


  9. On 1/18/2019 at 4:04 AM, Jonathan said:

    Today's "scientists" and spokesman for the "scientists"often seem to forget that. So often we hear from them that we don't have time to wait that long. We have to act now to save the planet, the universe, existence.


    The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum", was a time period with more than 8 °C warmer global average temperature than today.  The CO2 level was at 550 ppm.  This was 55 million years ago.  This very warm period lasted 200,000 years and did NOT  produce an unstoppable warming.  Life flourished subsequent to this period.  Eventually the CO2 level and temperature levels went down and  several million years of hard ice age and glaciation followed.  If the PETM  did not turn us into Venus, nothing we are doing now will.  

    Humans do not possess the technology to sterilize this planet.  However  there is little doubt that we could kill ourselves off if we set our minds to it.  But no matter what we do, the Earth will remain an abode of life for the next billion years  barring  an exceedingly large celestial body colliding with Earth and busting the planet into little pieces.


  10. 3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    And climate doom alarm mongers say exactly the same thing when weather doesn't support their doomsaying. When they feel that they can take advantage of weather as a scare tactic, they conveniently forget how caustically they scolded others on the distinction between weather and climate.

    The meteorologists consider a 30 year running average  of  temperature,  humidity,  ghg  levels.  sea levels  cloud cover   as a climate data point.    One day's weather  doth not make climate. 30 years average weather is a climate data point.  

  11. 1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

    Not quite a full Ayn Rand sighting, and only as fresh as a year old, but someone went to a lot of trouble to put this together. Those someones at the Foundation for Economic Education, as it turns out. Well, Jeffrey Tucker and Jennifer Grossman and a bad wig. Yes, that Jennifer Grossman.

    I felt an involuntary cringe a couple of times, but that is probably witchcraft.

    Headline: That Day I Interviewed Ayn Rand



    Capes and Dollar Signs????????  Good grief!


    • Like 1
  12. On 11/13/2018 at 2:48 PM, Jonathan said:

    Deniers dunnit! It's settled science. And we could've stopped it if the deniers weren't using their denying powers. End freedom now! Punish the deniers! Our very existence is at stake! Just ask the scientists and firefighters. They all say that we should start doing some killing now. We used to be able to prevent all bad things until the deniers came along and started denying! Kill the deniers!

    How typical of Governor Moonbeam, the Lord of the Medflies.


  13. 8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    But absolutism belongs to philosophy. Philosophy came first and it is philosophy that science always repairs to for the certainty of inquiry that is possible, hence the philosopy  of science and it's method.


    And philosophy will be absolutely unable to produce anything useful.  Philosophy, by and large,  is a failure at being useful.  There are some minor exceptions in  the field of epistemology.  But in ethics,  aesthetics, psychology  it is useless. Metaphysics is beyond useless.  It is a vacuum that sucks thoughts out of the heads of otherwise intelligent people.


  14. 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    So metastatements are absolute?

    :evil:  :) 

    (No need to reply seriously. I'm just busting your balls. :) )


    It is not an absolute scientific statement.  I don't think there are any such.  The best physical science can mange are assertions so backed up by experiment that it would be unreasonable to doubt them in the absence of evidence that they might not be true.  No reasonable person doubts the second law of thermodynamics at this time, but if evidence were found against it, we would have to reconstruct the physics of energy.  The conservation of energy is similar in that fashion. No one doubts it, but it could, in principle,  be empirically falsified.  No scientific theory or hypothesis is beyond possible falsification.  The is why physical science succeeds where philosophy fails.



  15. 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    That's exactly my point. So shouldn't one be careful in making absolute statements of fact about the cosmos ending by entropy?

    I believe a qualification is in order.

    "If we use the entropy law, which until now has not been breached, and only that, the cosmos will end one day by entropy. And even then, this is according to the present level of knowledge, which is subject to change."


    No scientific statement is absolute.  Scientific conclusions are held provisionally as probable but nevertheless subject to empirical falsification.  There statement "No scientific statement is absolute" is not a scientific statement.  It is a metastatement,  a statement -about- science.

  16. 4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    There might be things which are not observable. We don't know.

    You can't get your brain around the totality of existence with a "law." That's hubris. Scientists are modest---or should be. Conclusions should not outrun observations except to suggest avenues of inquiry.


    That is almost certainly true.  We now have good evidence that space itself is is expanding and at an accelerating rate.  Which means there are portions of the physical cosmos where the space is expanding at greater than the speed of light.  This does not contradict relativity,  which postulates that no local motion IN spacetime of a wave or object  can be such that the local motion is at greater than light speed.  Spacetime can expand (or at least is not forbidden by theory) at greater than light speed. Which means there may be portions of the physical cosmos which we can never see which means we can never know them.

  17. 11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    I look at it from a different angle.

    When someone--states--as fact--that the cosmos sprang into existence with entropy ensuring its own destruction, I look to the beginning of the cosmos and wonder how anyone can know. From the knowledge we have at the present, we can say no human was there to observe.

    And we have yet to tap into nonhuman intelligence, if such exists. And, even if that should ever happen, maybe we will only get some cosmic fake news about what went on in the beginning.



    You may look to the beginning of things but you won't see them.  You can only guess what there possibly were.  There is just so far we can look back in time.


  18. 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    In other words, the certainty of this law depends on human observation.


    And were humans around at the start of the cosmos?



    As do all scientific laws.  Any scientific law, hypothesis or theory  is one empirical falsification away  from being modified or discarded.  That includes the second law of thermodynamics.  However as physical laws go the second law of thermodynamics is a close to "a sure thing"  as any physical law yet propounded.  Put it another way.  If the second law of thermodynamics  is falsified,  most of physics  will come down with it.  It was found out recently that certain neutrinos had small but non-zero mass.  The standard model had to be modified slightly to accommodate this finding, but the Standard Model remained intact.  If the second law is ever falsified then the Standard Model will come crashing down, although the General Theory of Relativity will remain intact.  That is how central thermodynamics and the second law is to non-gravitational physics. 

  19. 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    Do you know enough about the start of the cosmos to make that statement?

    All you know is what humans--at the present level of evolution--have observed.

    Or do you believe humans stopped evolving?


    Basic law of thermodynamics.  Entropy increases. When entropy becomes maximum  temperature everywhere is the same. No more work can occur.  The so-called heat-death of the Universe.  No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been observed so if the second law is really true  then the cosmos will reach a stage where nothing else happens. Heat death. It does not matter how the cosmos got started. The entropy is increasing.