Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next
Comments 56101 to 56150:
-
curiousd at 22:40 PM on 27 July 2012Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Just to hone a terse anti denialist argument for students, since the fingerprint of increased solar incident flux causing warming is warming throughout the atmosphere and the fingerprint for increased GHG warming is cooling in the stratosphere whilst warming on the surface, does this alone not shoot down the whole "The present is a reprise of the Med Warm period?" skeptic argument? -
Brandon Shollenberger at 22:07 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
CBDunkerson, your response is wrong. In no way does modifying the reconstructed data by using data from another series qualify as "plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data." How could modifying a series possibly be just plotting it along with another series? There are two sets of data plotted in the graph. One is the instrumental series. The other is the reconstructed series modified by using the instrumental series. This is not as you describe, and it's effect can readily be seen in the link I provided. Moreover, you make an untrue remark about Michael Mann. You say, "Mann excluded provably erroneous proxy data in favor of showing the actual global temperature measurement results." You're claim that Mann "excluded" data is untrue in this context. The reconstructed series he had ended at 1980, as did his final result. While data in that series was modified, none was excluded. I assume you are just mixing up this case and a case involving Keith Briffa, but whatever the cause, your claim is wrong. As for the rest of what you say, I don't have any intention of discussing the significance (or lack thereof) of these points. I'd just like for people to stop saying untrue things about simple facts. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:05 PM on 27 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
@angusmac the error bars do not mean the same thing on the two graphs though, hence you are not comparing apples with applies. The error bars on the AR4 diagram are the uncertainty in the forced trend, the error bars on the RC diagram represent the uncertainty in the observations, which includes both the forced and unforced trends. Note that on AR4 Figure TS.26 the observations lie well outside the error bars from the outset (1990), which should be a hint that the error bars plotted in that figure are not an indication of where we should expect the observations to lie. At least seven of the data points plotted on that figure lie outside the error bars. Do you really think the IPCC would pulish a figure that (according to your interpretation) falsifies the pojection, without mentioning it? -
curiousd at 21:55 PM on 27 July 2012It's the sun
Is the following simple argument valid against increased solar flux causing the temperature increases since 1980? (This argument may be elsewhere here, but I have not seen it.) 1. If it were only increased solar flux causing the temperature increase, then the stratospheric temperature deviation would not show stratospheric cooling since 1980. 2. But systematic stratospheric cooling has occurred since 1980. Therefore the temperaature increase at the earth's surface must be due to decreased IR power radiated into the atmosphere. -
CBDunkerson at 21:53 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon, you're describing a difference without a distinction. That is, the process you lay out can be accurately described as "plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data"... the statement you are ostensibly 'refuting'. You're just specifying minutiae of how the two data sets were plotted together. Does this focus on minutiae change the conclusion that Muller misrepresented the 'trick' as hiding a decline in global temperature data? No... because the whole point of the trick was to show the global temperature data! There isn't any decline in that data. The decline is a known error in the proxy data from tree rings. Mann excluded provably erroneous proxy data in favor of showing the actual global temperature measurement results. The 'skeptic' claim that failing to show false results is some kind of scientific misconduct demonstrates just how divorced from reality they have become. -
angusmac at 21:53 PM on 27 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Moderator @33 Both the RC Figure 2 and my version of AR4 Figure of TS.26 refer to global temperatures. Therefore, I am comparing apples with apples. The NH figure to which you refer (AR4 Figure 6 in angusmac @ 28) was clearly a reference to the shading of the diagram; I did not compare RC global temperatures with AR4 NH temperatures.Moderator Response:[DB] "Both the RC Figure 2 and my version of AR4 Figure of TS.26 refer to global temperatures."
Still wrong. Your graphic at 28 above is clearly labeled as AR4 Figure 6.10c (IPCC, 2007). Explanatory text of that graphic:
Figure 6.10. Records of NH temperature variation during the last 1.3 kyr.
You would be better served by admitting that you misunderstood the applicability of the graphic you referenced and also (un)intentionally misrepresented how you presented it. Since you persist in your error the only conclusion one can draw is that the error is willful; the intent, to dissemble and mislead.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
ProfMandia at 21:44 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
At the upcoming AGU conference in San Francisco, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund has convened a formal session along with several workshops in order to educate scientists about their legal rights. When the schedules are set I will let you know. In the meantime one can view the formal session abstract and I hope that you all spread the word so that we can increase the number of submitted abstractss and also make people aware of this valuable program at AGU. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 21:33 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
In following the instructions given in the moderator's response to my #1, I've posted a comment here which discusses a factual error in that appears in this (and that) post. Interested readers should follow the link. -
HS at 21:31 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I do think it is high time that this practice of wanton accusations of dishonesty - of scientific dishonesty, i.e. of a kind that matters - is challenged and challenged hard. (-Snip-)? And will we also see, ( -Snip-)?Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic & sloganeering snipped. And I'm quite capable of repeating this action as needed. 24/7/365. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 21:30 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Your description of “Mike’s Nature trick” is false. The trick is not merely “plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data.” If it were, there’d be no problem. The trick actually consists of splicing instrumental data onto the reconstructed series (starting at 1980), smoothing the resulting series, then truncating the series at the point the instrumental data had been appended. That is nothing like what you describe. For more information on the subject of “tricks,” I highly recommend readers look at this post. -
Daniel Bailey at 21:29 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Phil, since David is either being purposefully obtuse or simply unclear, I clarified my assessment with "if". Hence, if the root argument he makes is based on a misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, the comments could then stay here or go to one of the more applicable GHE threads. If it is based on a misunderstanding of the applicability of the 2nd Law, then it should go as directed. Either way, my comment holds. -
Esop at 21:18 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
#3 (newscrusader): This is absolutely true. The extreme weather events in the US have done massive damage to the denialist cause. They lucked out with the cold winters of 2010 and 2011 and got massive public support, as well as support from the MSN (still the case in Northern Europe due to a few weeks of cold temps in the past winter as well as a cool and rainy summer). Now, however, it has all turned against the US based deniers. Public support is dropping like a rock and a major fraction of the MSN is all of a sudden very science friendly. CNN even stopped calling them skeptics, and started calling them by their real name. This has had a predictable effect: Desperation. It shows. -
Sceptical Wombat at 21:10 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I wish Mann luck but as I understand it if he counts as a "Public Figure" then the bar for proving libel in the US is rather high. He will need to prove that CEI and Nation Review knew that what they were saying was false. -
sauerj at 20:58 PM on 27 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Andy S: I'm sorry, but I hastily skipped over your note above (my bad!). Reading both of your comments, clears things up for me. ... Even if the ultimate Tar Sands extraction was 50% or even 25% of 240 giga tons (per your comment above), this potential of 60 gigatons (vs the article's 1 gigaton) is alarming and should be, in my opinion, the reported number. The public needs to know what Tar Sands can ultimately do, not just what will be routed down the KXL. ... Thank you for clearing this up; this is a very important distinction. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:53 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
David Friedman Looking up perpetual motion machine of the second kind gives "2. Also called perpetual motion of the second kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that derives its energy from a source at a lower temperature. It is impossible in practice because of the second law of thermodynamics. I'm pretty sure that the energy source (the sun) is at a higher temperature than the Earth. ;o) According to Wikipedia, "A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. ..." Well I have a Crookes' radiometer in my workshop, which does just that, so there must be more to it than that. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics. As Tom points out, storms are formed by updrafts over warm water that take warm moist air up higer into the atmosphere, which is cooler. Thus there is no contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, as far as I can see. Your PhD in physics means very littlle. I have a PhD as well, and I am an active researcher in my own field (essentially statistics), and have a h-index over 20. Does that mean that my arguments on statistics have any greater strength than if they came from somebody else? No not really. There is also the point that the authors of the papers on which this article is based also have PhDs, and more importantlty are also experts on this particular topic. You would be better off explaining your scientific objection in more detail in a more moderate manner, the postuting does you no favours at all, it just isn't the way science should be done. -
Phil at 19:39 PM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
As Tom points out, the divergence into Atmospheric Ozone chemistry is irrelevant and bordering on being off-topic, so I'll try to be brief. I think Chris Machens is confused between free Oxygen radicals and an Oxygen molecule. As Bob points out above, The decomposition of O3 results in the creation of O2 molecule and an O* (free radical). These free radicals are extremely unstable and immediately engage in various other reactive pathways, illustrated in the Chapman Chemistry document. Some of these pathways result in further creation of O2 molecules and some of which "trap" oxygen in Nitrous Oxide. So there are three problems with the statement "Ozone depletion also depletes Oxygen molecules", 1. It assumes one of these pathways is favoured over the other, for which no evidence is presented 2. It assumes that the "trapping" of oxygen in Nitrous Oxide is permanent; i.e. the oxygen is not recovered at some later stage. We know NO2 levels in the atmosphere are pretty constant, I would suspect that ocean chemistry (via acidic rain) would be important in this regard 3. Since we know that Ozone creation depletes O2 then the assertion that Ozone destruction does too should raise the question "How come we're still breathing?" :-) -
newcrusader at 19:31 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Dr. Mann is fighting back against the many ultra conservative organizations and corporations in the USA. This mainly involves the Koch industries & the varied fossil fuel interests. With the Public now beginning to see the link between greenhouse gases and extreme weather (specially after the hellish summer in the US Heartland) The Denial stormtroopers are become excitingly worried. And their first line of attack is against Mann. -
Tom Curtis at 19:30 PM on 27 July 2012Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes
smoidel @46, I can do better than one volcano. The geothermal energy released over one year for the entire globe averages at 0.09 W/m^2. Over the entire globe, that represents 510*0.09*10^12 W, or 45.9 Terajoules per second. Taken over the course of the year, that is 1.45*10^21 Joules of energy. That may seem like a lot, but it must be divided among 1.3*10^18 cubic meters of ocean water, or 1.4*10^21 Kg. In other words, in each year, all energy from the Earth's interior represents just 1.04 Joules per Kg of ocean water. Given that specific heat of water is 4.187 kJ/kgK, that means in an entire year, all heat from the Earths interior could only raise the Oceans temperature by 0.00025 degrees C (0.00045 F) There appears to be a discrepancy between my calculation, and that of your reported geologist. Unfortunately, I do not know the energy released by Kilauea, but I do know that released by the famous eruption of Krakatoa, ie, 200 Megatons of TNT, or 8.4 x 10^17 Joules. That means one Krakatoa explosion, every hour on the hour would generate 7.4 x 10^21 Joules of energy, enough to raise the Earth's oceans temperatures by 0.002 C (0.003 F) in a year. Somehow, I just don't think Kilauea is erupting with the energy equivalent of 1.67 Krakatoa's per hour. Nor do I think that all waters within a kilometer of Kilauea are boiling continuously (which would be the case if it were). Going back to more realistic figures, ie, the total energy released from the interior of the Earth as determined by people who have actually studied the issue, by all means assume it has increased by 50% over the last century. It still is not enough to explain any measurable fraction of global warming. Not, of course, that under water volcanoes have been monitored for the whole of the last century so that claim could actually be based on empirical data. Finally, at SkS we prefer it if you discuss topics where they are most clearly related to the OP. In this case, the discussion should be here. I heartily recommend that you read that post, and if you choose to respond, that is where you should do so. -
Bernard J. at 18:50 PM on 27 July 2012Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes
Any comments?
Oh, most certainly. For starters:"He said that was a good question and when they worked out the numbers using the heat from Kilauea as an example. [volume of ocean, weight of ocean water, joules required to raise 1 lb of water 1 deg F, heat from lava]. We were all surprised as Kilauea puts out enough energy to raise the entire ocean by about 0.005 degree/year."
I'd like to see the actual "numbers" - without them, "0.005 degree/year" is just tinsel."Since Kilauea has been in eruption for 29 years that adds up to 0.15 degrees from a single volcano."
Even if your "number" is correct, your inference is not, because you did not account for any other heat flux... including, for example, the radiation and conduction of heat from the ocean. Big woopsie. There's more, but frankly I'm not sure that it's worth the bother of whacking the mole. -
smoidel at 18:16 PM on 27 July 2012Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes
Gentlemen, I notice that most of the posts here concerning volcanic contributions to the global warming concentrate on the effects on the atmosphere. What about the heating of the ocean due to underwater volcanism We vacationed in Hawaii this summer and visited the Volcano Observatory there. One of the things they mentioned is that underwater volcanic eruption have increased by about 50% over the past century. And that active volcanoes have been found in the Arctic Ocean and a new hot spot has been discovered under the ice in NE Greenland where it appears to be melting the ice. My daughter was curious and asked the geologist how much water was in the oceans and how much heat did it take to raise the temperature of the oceans 1 degree F. He said that was a good question and when they worked out the numbers using the heat from Kilauea as an example. [volume of ocean, weight of ocean water, joules required to raise 1 lb of water 1 deg F, heat from lava]. We were all surprised as Kilauea puts out enough energy to raise the entire ocean by about 0.005 degree/year. Since Kilauea has been in eruption for 29 years that adds up to 0.15 degrees from a single volcano. Find 10 other active volcanoes like Kilauea world wide and you can account for most of the observed ocean warming, which is about 1.5 deg F. over the past century. The geologist also pointed out that current climate models do not take this energy input into account. Any comments? -
Tristan at 17:48 PM on 27 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
Seems as good a place as any to put it, it's a week old so you may have seen it already but Rolling Stone published a pretty big piece on Climate Change. -
ajki at 17:37 PM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@1407: "...eminent German physicists..." This must be a joke. A bad one. My turn: Italy once had one Gallileo. Germany must be truely blessed for it has got at least two. -
Tom Curtis at 17:02 PM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris Machens @34, thanks for the link. It brings out the irony in our discussion that while methane from landfills does not significantly add to the depletion of O2, it still represents a significant environmental threat because of the strong greenhouse effect of methane relative to CO2. -
IanC at 16:49 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
I agree with David that the statement is factually incorrect. A hurricane is a Carnot heat engine, and its efficiency e is dictated by the ratio of the temperature between the heat source (T_H) and heat sink (T_C) i.e. e = 1- T_C/T_H The Carnot engine is the most efficient engine you can have within the limits of the second law. If both T_C and T_H increase with T_C increasing more, you will end up in a situation where more thermal energy actually results in less energy available to the storm itself. The conclusion "more energy to drive storm" therefore violates the second law. Fortunately of course the Tropopause is cooling and the surface is warming, so T_C/T_H is decreasing and the efficiency is going up, and therefore the conclusion holds. The reasoning should however be adjusted I think. -
curiousd at 16:10 PM on 27 July 2012It's the sun
Can you argue simply that if the temperature increase since 1980 were due to increased solar radiation reaching earth then the temperature of the stratosphere would not have been decreasing during that time frame? But the temperature of the stratosphere has been decreasing which shows increased absorption of outgoing IR? -
curiousd at 16:03 PM on 27 July 2012It's the sun
Trying for efficient anti denialists argument. Against any thing about present being like med warm period, or the sun being brighter , why does it not suffice to simply state: 1. If the temperature of the earth were increasing since ~1990 only because of the solar flux increasing for any reason whatsoever, then the temperature of the stratosphere would not have been decreasing during this time frame. 2. The temperature of the stratosphere has been decreasing systematically since 1980. Therefore the increased temperature of the surface is due to increased trapping of outgoing IR from greenhouse gases, and can have nothing to do with increasing solar. QED? -
JohnMashey at 15:48 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
And do not forget Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars (NAS. He jumped on this one as well, with Culture of evasion. Then, a week later, it was reposted at NAS. Last year Wood tried false association against {climate science, Mann} last year, with a reply by me and Rob Coleman. 'How does CHE support open discussion and still maintain civility? Is the blog section an open free-for-all where people may write anything at all, or should it be moderated? People should be free to express their opinions, but not all opinions are equal, especially about science. Is it acceptable in CHE to state as fact that cigarettes cause no disease? ... Is there a dividing line between legitimate academic controversy and libel? If so, where is that line and who draws it? Academic controversy is not characterized by use of Nazi labels or exhortations that scientists be physically harmed. It is not characterized by baseless, wacky conspiracy theories about worldwide plots by mainstream science. Academic discussions involve data, facts, and justifiable, soundly crafted theories.' Hence, issues were raised with CHE, but they didn't get the message or this message. By the way Richard Mellon Scaife is one of the main funders of: CEI GMI (George Marshall Institute) NAS CFACT (often involving Viscount Monckton) Commonwealth Foundation (Pennsylvania) - which among other things ran attack ads against Mann in Penn State student newspaper See CCC, pp.93-94: ExxonMobil, Scaife, L&H Bradley ... EM F has since dropped out. I didn't know about NAS then, but Scaife & Bradley have been the prime funders for years. CEI and GMI were the 2 main thinktanks in recruiting McIntyre and McKitrick and managing the attack on the hockey stick, and setting up the Wegman Report. See -
Brandon Shollenberger at 15:43 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
(snip)Moderator Response: TC: Brandon Shollenberger, I draw your attention to the comments policy which states:" Some comments, while strictly on topic, may relate to issues discussed in more detail in some other thread. Extended discussion of those points should be carried out in the more appropriate thread, with link backs to reference the discussion as needed. Moderator's directions to move discussion to a more appropriate thread should always be followed."
It is very evident, that, for example, this thread would be far more appropriate to discussing the specific meaning of "Mike's Nature trick". I find, however, that your focus on such trivial inconsequentialities rather than the campaign of abuse and misinformation about climate scientists speaks volumes about your priorities. Regardless, if you want to discuss "Mike's Nature trick", take it to where it is the main point of the discussion. -
Andy Skuce at 15:30 PM on 27 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
sauerj I believe that the one billion tonnes figure was the EPA number for CO2e for the incremental well-to-tank emissions from the Keystone pipeline alone for its expected lifetime. The 240 gigaton value is the total tarsands carbon in the ground. As I argued earlier only a fraction of this is extractable. Further, only a fraction of this volume will be extracted over the lifetime of KXL and only a fraction of that will go through that particular pipeline. And I think the EPA only quoted the well-to- tank emissions, in other words, about 18 % of the total emissions of the well-to-wheels emissions, total carbon emissions. I am going on memory here, since I can't find the EPA report right now, so I am not able to quote actual figures and I should really check some of the assertions in the previous paragraph, but nevertheless I hope that I have suggested some reasons for the big discrepancy that you pointed out. -
prokaroytes at 15:27 PM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Thanks Tom Curtis for your information, btw CP yesterday just posted this related post Why We Need To Pay More Attention To The Role Of Landfills In Global Warming In fact, landfills were responsible for almost five times more GHG emissions than understood. (from a 2009 report) http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/26/516575/why-we-need-to-pay-more-attention-to-the-role-of-landfills-in-global-warming/ -
scaddenp at 15:17 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Daniel, I dont think David is arguing that "AGW violates the 2nd Law" which is loony tunes stuff. I believe is arguing the mechanism proposed in the article for hurricane formation violates 2nd Law. However, it isnt clear to me why David thinks the argument of "more thermal energy in the atmosphere can create bigger storms" violates second law. The article notes empirical evidence but for discussion of the physical evidence then that cites for: Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, online publication; published online 31 July 2005 | doi: 10.1038/nature03906 Knutson, T. K., and R. E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. Journal of Climate, 17(18), 3477-3495. in scholar might be worth looking at. -
Tom Curtis at 14:49 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
David Friedman @48, a hurricane is formed by updrafts forming over warm waters. The updraft carries warm water vapour to high altitudes, cooling it in the process. This progressively condenses the water vapour, releasing latent heat. The release of latent heat slows the cooling of the air in the updraft which is cooling due to adiabatic expansion as it rises. This allows the air to rise faster, increasing the rate at which fresh water vapour is drawn into the system and hence strengthening the storm. Should a hurricane pass over land, the lack of water vapour being drawn into the updraft results in a rapid weakening of the storm. With increased heat, there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. This preferentially strengthens storms because in stable air or downdrafts, there is little condensation of water,and hence little release of latent heat. Given this, the brief description in the basic rebuttal is true, if simplistic. It does not constitute a fallacious argument, as you maintain, because it is not an argument. The reason it is not an argument is because there are other significant factors, and it is unclear what the actual effect of this additional available energy in the form of increased water vapour will have. It merely points out that increased energy may have one of (at least) two potential effects without detailing the mechanisms involved. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:48 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
"For what it's worth, I have a doctorate in physics."
That's a crap argument. And I've heard many."it doesn't violate conservation of energy, it violates the second law"
If you are going to argue the 2nd Law meme, take it to the appropriate thread. -
David Friedman at 13:44 PM on 27 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
To Dikran: Look up "perpetual motion machine of the second kind." As I already said, it doesn't violate conservation of energy, it violates the second law--that entropy tends to increase, not decrease. For what it's worth, I have a doctorate in physics. To DSL: As you can see if you read what I wrote, I'm not claiming that the conclusion of the argument is wrong--I don't know if it is. I'm claiming that the argument is wrong. The argument didn't say that global warming would occur more in hotter air than in cooler air, which is what your argument would require--whether it's true I don't know. It said that because there was more thermal energy available, storms would be either more frequent or stronger. That's bad physics, for the reason I explained. -
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Thanks Bernard. I've seen Girma's discourses on various forums so I wont waste my time. Just about anyone who jumps into this thread has to be viewed with some suspicion. -
sauerj at 12:20 PM on 27 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
See page 3, paragraph 8 (of McKibben's article) for this 240 gigaton value. -
sauerj at 12:19 PM on 27 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Similar question as mandas: Bill McKibben's Rolling Stone article says Canadian Tar Sands contain 240 gigatons of carbon (half the 2C budget; sure got my attention). This article says 1 gigatonne (billion tonnes). Huge difference. What am I missing here??? -
Bernard J. at 11:51 AM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
A note to the unwary. 'Silas' is Girma Orssengo, who has in the past displayed an astonishingly blinkered misunderstanding of science. Arguing with this ardent Ayn Rand acolyte will get one nowhere, very fast. On the matter of the claim that 'cool' cannot radiate to 'warm', I'd invite Silas/Orssengo to visit http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/17/tim-curtins-incompetence-with/ where such nonsense might be kicked around the park, as was done with Tim Curtin, and thus save clogging the thread here. And as Orssengo is apparently a functioning engineer, I would invite him to explain somewhere in his discourse how energy moves through the lumen* of a Dyson sphere. [*Yes, it was deliberate...] -
Sabretruthtiger at 09:57 AM on 27 July 2012It's the sun
(snip)Moderator Response: TC: Sabretruthtiger, your post is a gish gallop of off topic claims and bald assertions, none of it backed by evidence from the peer reviewed literature or other reliable source. As such it constituted sloganeering. It contributes nothing more to the discussion than simply typing "You are all wrong" would have. Sloganeering is forbidden by the comments policy. I recommend you read it, and comply with it in future. -
Tom Curtis at 09:29 AM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Silas, you wrote:"You are confusing radiation (electromagnetic waves) with creation of thermal energy (heat). Heat is a process involving transfer of energy based on temperature - as opposed to generic radiation of photons. It follows that thermal radiation (a process creating heat) from a cold to a hot body (i.e. from the atmosphere to the Earth) is a physical impossibility."
It is difficult to interpret this in any other way than a prediction that there is no thermal (IR) radiation originating in the atmosphere and being absorbed by the Earth's surface. I like that. It is a risky prediction that is easily checked by empirical means. You later write:"It is incumbant upon proponents of the GHE to demonstrate their theory through ... prediction of events in nature"
Presumably you therefore think it is incumbent on you, since you have made a risky prediction to actually check the data to see if your risky prediction is verified, or falsified by the data. Fortunately, climate scientists believe the same thing. They have predicted the existence of downward IR radiation from the atmosphere, and have checked. Indeed, here is a comparison of some of their predictions with observations:
(Source)
I don't want you to notice the very good correlation between AGW predicted and observed Downward IR Radiation. I want you to notice that the downward IR radiation exists, in direct contradiction of your prediction. If you follow the link to the source of the diagram (Science of Doom), you will find many other examples of observations of this radiation you claim cannot exist.
Indeed, even the noted "skeptic" Roy Spencer is not so foolish as to deny the existence of downward IR radiation (back radiation). In fact, he has measured it himself:
"For instance, last night I drove around pointing this thing straight up though my sunroof at a cloud-free sky. I live in hilly territory, the ambient air temperature was about 81 F, and at my house (an elevation of 1,000 feet), I was reading about 34 deg. F for an effective sky temperature. If the device was perfectly calibrated, and there was NO greenhouse effect, it would measure an effective sky temperature near absolute zero (-460 deg. F) rather than +34 deg. F, and nighttime cooling of the surface would have been so strong that everything would be frozen by morning. Not very likely in Alabama in August. What was amazing was that driving down in elevation from my house caused the sky temperature reading to increase by about 3 deg. F for a 300 foot drop in elevation. My car thermometer was showing virtually no change. This pattern was repeated as I went up and down hills. The IR thermometer was measuring different strengths of the greenhouse effect, by definition the warming of a surface by downward IR emission by greenhouse gases in the sky. This reduces the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface (and lower atmosphere) to space, and makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be."
(Source, this link should not be interpreted in any way as agreement with Spencer's views on other subjects.) So, to the extent that you have predicted that there is no back radiation, you are wrong. Perhaps you would like to show your commitment to the principles of science by stating clearly that you are wrong. If you are willing to do so, we may be able to progress in resolving your conundrum. -
KR at 09:05 AM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Silas - I think one of the best summaries of the G&T paper comes from Gavin Schmidt, who had some of the same reactions to it that I did:It's garbage. A ragbag of irrelevant physics strung together incoherently. For instance, apparently energy balance diagrams are wrong because they don't look like Feynman diagrams and GCMs are wrong because they don't solve Maxwell's equations. Not even the most hardened contrarians are pushing this one....
-
Tom Curtis at 08:56 AM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris Machens @30, in addition to my immediately preceding comment, I note that the error in reporting of fossil fuel production is +/- 6% according to one recent report (an improvement on the +/- 10% reported in Margate. That uncertainty passes on to calculations of the depletion of O2. Consequently, discovery of source of O2 depletion not included in IPCC calculations that is less than 0.74% of the calculated value will not change the estimate within error. -
dana1981 at 08:38 AM on 27 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Thanks michael, that should have been 65,000 gallons. Text corrected. -
Tom Curtis at 07:55 AM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Ian Forrester @31, methane released by anaerobic bacteria in land fills will decay in the atmosphere based on the chemical formula: CH4 + 2 x O2 => CO2 + 2 x H2O Therefore, typically, each methane molecule released by landfill (or any other source) will deplete the atmosphere of two oxygen molecules. What Chris Machens @31 is neglecting is that carbon in landfill comes essentially from only two sources - fossil fuels either as some form of oil or fuel, or converted into plastics; and biomass in the form of kitchen and garden scraps, or wood, cotton, or wool. Taking the carbon sourced from biomass first, because that carbon was taken from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, in a process that releases oxygen. In fact, photosynthesis in plants follows the formula: 6 x CO2 + 6 x H2O => C6H12O6 + 6 x O2 showing a deficit of 1 O2 molecule for each carbon atom fixed compared to the equation for the oxidation of methane. However, the process of converting sugar to methane will release an additional net 3 O2 molecules, and gaining the additional two hydrogen atoms, presumably from water, will release yet more oxygen. The net effect on atmospheric O2 levels is neutral. Carbon from fossil fuels is slightly different. In calculating CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, scientists do allow for those fuels turned into stable products such as plastics, which do not decay easily and hence do not release their carbon to the atmosphere. According to Margate et al (1984) They represent about 6.7% of all liquid fossil fuels, and 3.2% of gases. However, relatively volatile products are already included in the accounting, and hence are not a source of additional O2 loss. And the non-volatile products such as plastics do not typically decay, and hence are not the source of methane from land fill. Hence, while some small amount of the methane generated in land fill may not be accounted for in determining the expected O2 loss from fossil fuels, the effect is likely to be very small. It is certainly likely to be smaller than the approximately 10% error margin in estimates of fossil fuel production (Margate et al) and hence of O2 depletion. -
michael sweet at 07:37 AM on 27 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Dana, Another excellent post. It is hard to see the advantages of this type of energy. One of your links says "230,000 liters(600,000 gallons)" one of these numbers is wrong. -
KR at 07:25 AM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Silas - I would strongly recommend you read through some of the posts referred to above, some of the >1400 comments on this thread, actual reviews of what G&T presented - before deciding that all the people who have looked at the G&T claims are idiots. Science of Doom in particular is sourced by a physicist - and you seem to have prejudged his expertise. I would also point you to the Real Climate collection on this, which links to various commentaries and a peer reviewed comment - all rebutting the G&T nonsense. You might also look at Dr. Fred Singer's (a rather notorious skeptic of just about anything - ozone holes, 2nd hand smoking, climate change) characterizing 2nd Law objections as unsupportable and embarrassing 'denial'. "It is incumbant upon proponents of the GHE..." No, it is not; that work has already been done. The radiative greenhouse effect is supported by multiple lines of evidence, physics, observations, etc. G&T (and you, apparently) feel that all this data is incorrect - that's an extraordinary claim, and requires evidence supporting that isolated view to be taken seriously. The burden of (dis)proof is on you. -
scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Silas, then can I suggest then that you read the Science of Doom articles to which you have been pointed to and if that is unconvincing, then try the physics textbooks from which the author draws his points? There is nothing contradicting basic physics/thermodynamics here, just a misunderstanding of the physics at work. If G&T were right, then how would explain the MEASURED back-radiation at the surface or the drop in the energy band as measured at the TOA? (among the many experimental confirmations of normal physical theory). The experimental evidence is with conventional physical theory, not with G&Ts strange interpretation of LTE. You might also like to check out AP Smith rebuttal here. -
Silas at 07:03 AM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@Composer99 at 05:27 AM on 27 July, 2012 I have read the G&T paper and have a background in engineering thermodynamics. It is incumbant upon proponents of the GHE to demonstrate their theory through (-Snip-) prediction of events in nature - i.e. unexpected and cataclysmic consequences of global warming. Confirmations do not count in science as such 'evidence' is always easy to find. (-Snip-) (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Multiple examples of unsupported sloganeering snipped. -
Ian Forrester at 06:51 AM on 27 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris Machens asks:What about methanogenesis from landfills, which depletes oxygen?
Just how do methanogenic bacteria deplete oxygen? They are strict anaerobes i.e. they grow in the complete absence of oxygen. Most landfills go to great extremes to compact the garbage so that there is very little air space left. Aerobic micro-organisms exhaust this very low amount of oxygen so that the anaerobes can take over. Thus landfills are not responsible for oxygen depletion. Why are you trying to connect all those fringe processes as culprits for oxygen depletion when the gorilla in the room is the burning of fossil fuels? -
Silas at 06:50 AM on 27 July 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR at 05:24 AM on 24 November, 2010 Heat flow is the unidirectional and is based upon the need for thermal equilibrium between bodies. Extremely basic physics. It is a process not a summation and therefore cannot be "negative" - an egregious nonsense. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy before composing future comments.
Egregious inflammatory snipped.
Prev 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next
