Recent Comments

Prev  1239  1240  1241  1242  1243  1244  1245  1246  1247  1248  1249  1250  1251  1252  1253  1254  Next

Comments 62301 to 62350:

62301. dana1981 at 06:59 AM on 1 March 2012
       Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
       Indeed, I was very happy to see Nordhaus come out and dispel the misrepresentations of his research so emphatically. Look for a blog post featuring his article in the near future.
62302. Albatross at 06:57 AM on 1 March 2012
       Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
       Dana @11, That is an excellent essay by Nordhaus. I also like this statement: "The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results. The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis." Beautiful, this seems to be a common problem with claims, science and research undertaken by fake skeptics :) I wish more scientists were more outspoken about misrepresentations and distortions of their work by fake skeptics.
62303. Dikran Marsupial at 06:53 AM on 1 March 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       Volker, correlation is not causation. If the coherence exists over the extend of the satelite record, then plot a graph of the coherence across the satelite record, better still, perform a proper statistical analysis. I suspect the coherence doesn't extend over the whole period of the observations, which would imply that the correllation is no more than a temporary correllation and is essentially meaningless. This advice is well intentioned. Perform statistical tests to determine whether your results can be explained by random chance. It is the safeguard that is widely used in science to prevent jumping to conclusions. If you don't do that, then your efforts are likely to be wasted investigaing meaningless correllations. You wouldn't be the first, you won't be the last, but it would be better if you applied more self-skepticism and didn't make this mistake at all.
62304. CBDunkerson at 06:44 AM on 1 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       While I too consider the Postma paper under discussion a travesty, YOGI's statement that 'most of it is very good' could almost be true in a way... if this is an indication that YOGI is accepting that the 'greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics' argument (i.e. the central premise) of the paper is incorrect then there actually is quite a bit of other information in the paper which is accurate and detailed enough to be useful to someone who hasn't been exposed to the more nuanced intricacies of the greenhouse effect previously. However, as Dikran notes, it isn't entirely clear whether YOGI is accepting that or not... and in any case there are many other references which can provide a similarly detailed background without the occasional shockingly wrong argument sprinkled in.
62305. Volker Doormann at 06:42 AM on 1 March 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       @Dikran Marsupial “Volker Doormann I have had a look at the sea-level/temperature/Mercury/Earth phase coherence, and I have to say that the evidence isn't very compelling. “ OK. But it is scientifically not relevant what your evidence detector reject; relevant would it be, if you would state, that there is only a correlation coefficient of about ~0.0 between the solar tide function and sea level and no significant phase coherence between the solar tide function and see level oscillation on the graph seen. “Why show only data from 2009 to 2012? We have sea level and UAH data extending further back than that and if there is a meaningful phase coherence then it should be coherent as far back as the satelite observations extend.” Old trick. How many black swan want you to see, to accept that there are really black swans living? http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sealevel_1996.gif http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sealevel_2000.gif http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sealevel_2004.gif http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_had_1960_3.gif http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif http://www.volker- doormann.org/images/ghi4_vs_patzelt_dsh1.jpg http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_1.gif http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif “The problems with correllations between noisy signals is that if you look hard enough, you will almost always be able to find one purely due to random chance. This is why statistical tests should be used to determine if the degree of correllation is surprising given the noise levels of the data and the number of correlations investigated.” You miss the core of the object. These two graphs are examples of the result of more than two years research in astronomy and climate proxies, and the results are unique in the field of climate simulation and prediction. There is no better tool as summing up solar tides from real objects. Scafetta’s cycle’s have no astronomical basis; time cycles of ~60 years are not astronomy based. My have. V.
62306. CBDunkerson at 06:34 AM on 1 March 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Thanks Dikran. Very good stuff. Even if we can't come to agreement there is alot to be said for polite discussion. It will be interesting to see if there is further analysis and discussion around this.
62307. Jose_X at 06:33 AM on 1 March 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Ricardo, (-snip I was going to state at the top of that comment that here was a person who had been [pick horrible deed X done to a child] by a climate scientist.-) I summarized the results. I am curious what you think about what I wrote. If you want more details, ask or glance at that page I linked. My problem essentially is that I don't have a handy solver to test out what the GHE calculates for the surface temperature of Venus. Next (problem 2), replace most of that CO2 by N2 and see what is the result. Can you help me with these two calculations to see if the first one fits the data and then to see (out of curiosity) what the second one produces?
       Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

62308. DrTsk at 06:30 AM on 1 March 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       It really saddens me...
62309. DrTsk at 06:28 AM on 1 March 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       the original paper should neeeeveer have been published. This is so 1st year Chemical Engineering it is not even funny.
62310. DMCarey at 06:21 AM on 1 March 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       Steve Case @1, the scarey thing is I'm encountering an increasing number of people in Canada who seem to doubt the existence of even the greenhouse effect. The far-reaching disinformation campaign seems to be muddying the waters rather effectively. In light of this, I feel its the duty of the choir to sing loudly to bring sanity back to this (should be) non-debate
62311. KR at 06:20 AM on 1 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       YOGI - "...most of the paper is very good." As stated in the OP, and in multiple comments, this is simply not the case - Postma's paper is riddled with basic errors. An object is in thermal equilibrium when it is radiating/conducting/convecting away as much energy as it is receiving from it's surroundings. A nearby mirror (as part of those surroundings) increases the amount of energy coming in over and above the light source (relative to a cold background), and the only way for that object to radiate away that increased energy is to become warmer. That holds whether the mirror is perfect, or a 50% mirror with wavelength dependencies (more akin to the atmosphere). Increased energy from the surroundings, or rather decreased energy absorbed by the surroundings, will drive the temperature of the object up until it is radiating as much energy as it absorbs. Postma's statement that the object would not heat up, as Dikran noted here, is completely wrong, violating the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. There's nothing wrong with the mirror example, just with Postma's incorrect description of what would happen. Leaving behind inexact language (such as "implies") - do you, or do you not, agree with Postma?
62312. Dikran Marsupial at 06:13 AM on 1 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       YOGI Please can you state unequivocally whether the mirror example in Postmas paper is incorrect or not. Do you agree that with the mirror in place the blackbody will have a higher equilibrium temperature. Also please state unequivocally whether you agree that in the example you provided that the presence of another blackbody increases the equilibrium temperature of both bodies. In a scientific debate it is essential that such things are stated absolutely unequivocally, rather than "which implies there is a problem", which is vague enough for there to be a question of whether it is actually right or wrong.
62313. Riccardo at 06:07 AM on 1 March 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       I understand that it might be just my prejudice but I'm not sure I want to read something (as Jose_X suggests) written by someone introduced by these words, they doesn't sound much like well founded science:

       "Science today recognizes the world was remade (through a presumably long process of continental breakup, worldwide drift, and rejoining), incredible as that seemed a hundred years ago. "The End of the Mystery" establishes the even more astounding, and even surer, fact that the world was deliberately changed, to enable a great design. It is only the overwhelming scale of the design that has up to now stymied man's understanding, eluding even the finest modern scientific minds. The discovery of a great, world-encompassing design, confirmed alike by new, overwhelming physical facts about the Earth and by the universal ancient testimony, invalidates the presumption against design of the current scientific consensus, and enlightens both religion and science. We are in fact at the start of a new age of unprecedented, unified understanding, of the real history of the Earth and man.

       For what is worth, I don't understand why Jose_X keeps quoting pages of "strange" science while leaving the door open to the possibility they're at least in part correct and that "it seems to cast some doubt to what all of that CO2 is doing."
62314. dana1981 at 06:06 AM on 1 March 2012
       Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
       Note that in an article today, Nordhaus has confirmed that Alex and SkS are right, and Michaels and the WSJ 'skeptics' are wrong:

       "The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs)... ...My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion."

62315. YOGI at 06:03 AM on 1 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       That`s what I thought, which implies that there is a problem with the mirror example, as equal and mutual exchange amounts to the same as reflection. A mirror is hardly an analogy of the real atmosphere as re-emission after absorption is in all directions, and there are gaps between absorption bands. So I would not throw the baby away with the bathwater, most of the paper is very good.
62316. Jose_X at 05:56 AM on 1 March 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Tom Curtis #57: I think I understand where Tgb comes from. The part inside the integral of eqn 2 (which looks like eqn 1 without the 4 denominator) is just Stefan-Boltzmann in a form that shows the value of T explicitly as a function of power flux. This starting point is independent of the shell radiative model, and numerous people accept it and use it to calculate the temp of the planet if it had not atmosphere. The albedo would be to sun's radiation and the emissivity would be for the planet radiating in its own spectrum range as graybody. This is consistent with how it refers to Tgb later on, "the average temperature of a Standard Planetary Gray Body (SPGB) with no atmosphere (Tgb, K)." And then it clarifies that it is using that Tgb with reasonable parameter values: > We employ Eq. (2) to estimate Tgb assuming an albedo αgb = 0.12 and a surface emissivity ϵ = 0.955 for the SPGB based on data for Moon, Mercury, and the Earth surface. Using So = 1362 W m-2 (Kopp & Lean 2011) in Eq. (2) yields Tgb = 154.3K and NTE = 287.6/154.3 = 1.863 for Earth. This prompts the question: What mechanism enables our atmosphere to boost the planet surface temperature some 86% above that of a SPGB? I agree then that step b is correct.
62317. RonManley at 05:53 AM on 1 March 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       I've now updated my model using CO2-equivalent rather than CO2. The regression is slightly improved. What is interesting is that new model gives less influence to sunspots and a better estimate of sensitivity for CO2-equivalent doubling - 0.89 C.
62318. Dikran Marsupial at 05:49 AM on 1 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       YOGI Forgetting the mirror avoids discussing the error in Postmas' paper. However, in the case of two black-bodies in close proximity and at the same temperature, there will be a constant exchange of photons between them, but this exchange will be balanced (assuming symmetry). However this exchange flux will mean that both bodies would be at a higher equilibrium temperature than they would be at if the other body were not there. This is because the outbound photons that would have been absorbed by the other body will now simply be radiated out into space and won't be balanced by the reciprocal photons from the other body.
62319. boba10960 at 05:45 AM on 1 March 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       Thanks to everyone who responded to my inquiry! I'm an oceanographer and can hold my own on most discussions of carbon in the ocean, but the processes that influence the radiation balance in the atmosphere remain a challenge. Consequently, I appreciate the opportunity provided by SkS to learn about climate-related processes outside my own field. Glenn Tamblyn - I look forward to reading your post!
62320. YOGI at 05:37 AM on 1 March 2012
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       Postma`s mirror... OK forget the mirror atm and imagine the experiment to be in the vacuum of space, and there are two identical black bodies being warmed by the same light bulb at the same distance to the same state of equilibrium. When the two black bodies are in close proximity but not touching each other, is there a reciprocal warming in both bodies ?
62321. Dikran Marsupial at 05:03 AM on 1 March 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       Volker Doormann I have had a look at the sea-level/temperature/Mercury/Earth phase coherence, and I have to say that the evidence isn't very compelling. Why show only data from 2009 to 2012? We have sea level and UAH data extending further back than that and if there is a meaningful phase coherence then it should be coherent as far back as the satelite observations extend. The problems with correllations between noisy signals is that if you look hard enough, you will almost always be able to find one purely due to random chance. This is why statistical tests should be used to determine if the degree of correllation is surprising given the noise levels of the data and the number of correlations investigated.
62322. Dikran Marsupial at 04:52 AM on 1 March 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Cheers Composer99 and Doc Snow! @CBDunkerson No faults in the logic were identified, IIRC most of the reviewers comments were related to adding caveats and clarifications (the models used were very crude, and only really represents the initial fast response of the carbon cycle, so the true adjustment time is likely to be longer than the estimate of about 74 years given in the paper). Essentially the caveats explained why the models were unduly optimistic about the rate at which CO2 levels will fall following a cessation of anthropogenic emissions (most of this is in the penultimate section "limitations of the one-box model", Philip Goodwin's help was invaluable in writing that section!). @Dana1981 I should add that my email correspondance with Prof. Essenhigh was entirely good-natured; while I didn't convince him that his conclusion was incorrect, he was unfailingly a gentleman in setting out his position and in the subsequent discussion.
62323. Jose_X at 04:48 AM on 1 March 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Tom Curtis #57, I see IanC spotted a mistake, and I have not read the whole article; however, this remark they made would make me very suspicious that they would decide to use this Tgb value: > Since in accordance with Hölder’s inequality Tgb ≪ Te (Tgb =154.3K ), GHE becomes much larger than presently estimated. > According to Eq. (2), our atmosphere boosts Earth’s surface temperature not by 18K—33K as currently assumed, but by 133K! This raises the question: Can a handful of trace gases which amount to less than 0.5% of atmospheric mass trap enough radiant heat to cause such a huge thermal enhancement at the surface? Thermodynamics tells us that this not possible. We know that this Tgb is very low compared to observations of T, so I take this as a rejection of the modified 1 shell model rather than as a way for the authors to introduce a model that they believe does justify 133K. I'll try to finish reading soon. @Everyone: I wanted to ask people here what they think about this: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html . Skimming should give an idea of the main claim. A summary might be that the top section of Venus' atmosphere (50km altitude and up, where the pressures exist on Earth) matches the Earth's atmosphere in temperature once we factor in the ratio of the Stefan Boltzmann calculation for Venus to that of Earth (ignoring albedo!). Although I have been critical of it without passing an official final judgement (note how Venus has similar mass, radius, and hence gravitational constant as Earth), it seems to cast some doubt to what all of that CO2 is doing. Note, the albedo is entirely ignored by Huffman (and this appears to present conservation of energy issues or information traveling faster than speed of light so that emitter A can generate extra radiation beyond S-B to match what B will reflect, etc.. but maybe not (I won't detail guesses I have)). Note that the values used for Venus might be a little off. I found what looked like an authoritative source (need to hunt down the link). While the numbers are a little off from what I saw, they are in the right ballpark (but the deviation is a bit greater). I can imagine that the lapse rate changes shape deeper into Venus, but I think data suggests it is close to a line of similar slope to that of the earth (?). It's also true that right below the top 1 atm isn't a body of water and earth but instead just more air so it is not the same scenario as Earth. A question that follows would be, if the atmosphere was largely N2, would this same general lapse rate exist down to the ground, possibly with only a little bit different slope? Also, would the slope be significantly different or would the rate be a different very distinct curve? Anyway, my main problem is that I don't yet know clearly the equations/algorithm that predict GHE (eg, Ramanathan and Coakley '78), so I can't carry out a few quick checks. If all there was to average temperature was the pressure, we would not experience large oscillations. I don't know what level of variation (eg, deviations from solar tracking.. as CO2 on earth is predicted to be causing for decades now) would be consistent with such a view. There is too much data I have not seen/analyzed and too much theory I still haven't covered. Obviously, I can consider that maybe there are some mistakes in our current understanding of GHE. Or, I can consider that a strong GHE effect leads to 1%-10% or other maximum variations near the surface (a limit I did not think existed). This would bound the earth temperature above (against GHE predictions I think), if still allowing great threat to humans. Anyway, I assumed the WUWT paper being discussed was related to what the Huffman webpage shows. Assuming it is, I don't worry too much about astral rocks with light atmospheres (our high altitude low pressure atmosphere deviates from the lapse rate), but moon Titan might be another example following the Earth/Venus ratio. Any opinions?
62324. Composer99 at 04:47 AM on 1 March 2012
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       Now that we're on a (hopefully topical) thread, Matthew L, I'll take a crack at answering. I'm not one of the professionals participating here, so I may well have some major or minor details incorrect. As you state, correctly, positive feedbacks will amplify both warming and cooling forcings in the climate. This is what allows the otherwise weak Milankovitch cycles, for example, to cause climate to shift between glacial and interglacial periods during the current Ice Age. At the time scales you are thinking of, 1-2 years (to say nothing of shorter time scales), the noise in the system (seasonal & diurnal variability, large-scale energy-shifting oscillations such as ENSO, and the like) will tend to either dampen or amplify the forcings & feedbacks in play. So, for example, in terms of surface temps 1998 was aberrantly warm compared to the rest of the 1990s (despite their being, at the time, the warmest decade on record) because of the very strong El Nino, which made the warming seem much stronger. Likewise the recent La Nina phase has dampened the warming of the 2000s and early 2010s. In addition, multiple forcings are at play, some warming (e.g. greenhouse gases, shrinking ice albedo) and some cooling (e.g. solar activity until very recently, aerosols) so contradictory forcings will have contradictory positive feedbacks. Hopefully that helps!
62325. KR at 04:42 AM on 1 March 2012
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       Matthew L - Quite correct, a 'positive' feedback amplifies the climate response to forcing changes whether positive or negative. Note that the 'loop' for feedbacks is a diminishing one (gain <1), meaning that there is no "runaway" affect in either warming or cooling directions - just a rather larger movement than one would expect with a forcing change an no feedback. Also keep in mind that feedbacks have time constants to their forcing response - water vapor responds in a matter of days, vegetation in years, ice in years/decades, and ocean temperature/CO2 solubility (to name a few) in centuries. Short term (weather) changes, including the yearly cycle, simply don't last long enough for the longer term feedbacks to take effect - they get averaged out.
62326. dana1981 at 04:31 AM on 1 March 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       CBD - Dikran corresponded with Essenhigh, who he says didn't really budge, and eventually said something along the lines of "one of us is wrong." He did not raise any valid objections to Dikran's response.
62327. Volker Doormann at 04:25 AM on 1 March 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       “Since Scafetta's hypothesized astronomical cycles have no impact on the long-term warming trend, his prediction that future global warming will be minimal is based entirely on his interpretation of the scientific literature. For example, he twice mentions that galactic cosmic rays may play a significant role in influencing global temperatures, but fails to mention any of the dozens of papers which have found little if any correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover on Earth. Scafetta also fails to mention that solar magnetic field, which influences the amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth, has no long-term trend over the past ~60 years, nor does cosmic ray flux on Earth. Thus how can cosmic rays possibly explain the rapid warming over that period? This question remains unanswered.” Agree. But there are real astronomical cycles – I prefer the dimension frequency [1/sec] or [1/y] – called heliocentric synodic tide functions, which have correlations with some terrestrial data. Solar tide function of Mercury/Earth is phase coherent with the measured sea level oscillation but also visible in the global temperature data from UAH. http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sealevel_vs_xyzo.gif Solar tide functions of some two or three objects in the solar system are in coincidence with the reconstructed TSI anomaly after F. Steinhilber, et al. over 5 ky: http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_vs_tsi_6ky.gif Because the solar tide functions easy can be calculated from NASA ephemerides 1000 years ahead daily, a prediction of the global climate with a resolution of month is now possible. V.
62328. CBDunkerson at 04:22 AM on 1 March 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Nice to see Energy & Fuels letting you publish an answer to the original paper. Did professor Essenhigh, or any of the others who looked it over, suggest any potential flaws or limitations in your logic? I recall that 'skeptics' refuting it on earlier threads tended to mysteriously vanish when challenged to walk through it step by step and point out any flaws, but I'm wondering if more knowledgeable reviewers had any caveats.
62329. Doc Snow at 04:18 AM on 1 March 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       I'd like to second that motion!
62330. Matthew L at 04:17 AM on 1 March 2012
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       It was recommended I post here from another article. I have a question regarding climate sensitivity (or feedback) where there has been a fall in temperature rather than a rise. As stated in the above article, positive feedback would indicate that the climate warms in response to a warming - presumably in a declining loop otherwise it would be runaway warming. Conversely positive feedback would indicate that the climate cools in response to a cooling - again also in a declining loop. If these positive feedbacks acted quickly in the short-term (1-2 years) would we not see wild swings in the climate from hot to cold? For instance the warm year of 1998 would have led to an even warmer 1999. Likewise the cool 2009 would have led to even colder 2010. I can see positive feedbacks working on longer timescales as evidenced by the transition over a few hundreds of years into and out of ice ages. But from a layman's viewpoint it looks like, if anything, negative feedbacks prevail over the 1-2 year timescale as warm years are followed by cool ones and vice versa. I presume I must be missing something!
62331. barry at 04:02 AM on 1 March 2012
       Mythbusting with fewer explosions
       Lloyd, the following may be useful for reference, from ultra technical to blogerrific. Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) is a seminal paper, highly detailed and comprehensive, on trace gases and the greenhouse effect. (The models referred to in the paper are numerical representations of radiative transfer in the atmosphere, not GCMs) Ramanathan's 1997 lecture is a slightly(!) less technical explanation of the greenhouse effect, including the role of water vapour. http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf Chris Colose usually does a great job of framing scientific understanding for laypeople. http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/climate-feedbacks-part-1/
62332. Composer99 at 04:02 AM on 1 March 2012
       The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
       Congrats to Dikran on the publication!
62333. IanC at 03:46 AM on 1 March 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Reading Nikolov and Zeller's second article on WUWT cracks me up. They kept on insisting that their answer must the right one, so if the observation differs from their answer they should just use their calculated answer to as the observation. The real gem is the following:

       In a recent analytical study, Smith (2008) argued that Eq. (5) [refers to N&K's grey body model] only describes the mean temperature of a non-rotating planet and that, if axial rotation and thermal capacity of the surface are explicitly accounted for, the average temperature of an airless planet would approach the effective emission temperature. It is beyond the scope of the current article to mathematically prove the fallacy of this argument. However, we will point out that increasing the mean equilibrium temperature of a physical body always requires a net input of extra energy. Adding axial rotation to a stationary planet residing in a vacuum, where there is no friction with the external environment does not provide any additional heat energy to the planet surface. Faster rotation and/or higher thermal inertia of the ground would only facilitate a more efficient spatial distribution of the absorbed solar energy, thus increasing the uniformity of the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, but could not affect the average surface temperature. Hence, Eq. (6) correctly describe (within the assumption of albedo uniformity) the global mean temperature of any airless planet, be it rotating or non-rotating.

       Again, they would just assert that their model is correct. They are unable to mathematically prove Smith 2008 to be wrong because Smith 2008 is correct: rotation and heat capacity do matter, and N&K's solution is merely a special limit, obtained by taking rotation speed to infinity or heat capacity to zero. It is particularly ironic because N&K repeatedly invoked Holder's inequality, and argue that one must be careful when integrating a non-linear quantity. If they really were this careful, they would realize that calculating the average surface temperature of a spherical object is inherently non-linear, so increasing the uniformity of temperature will certainly change the answer. I know that Smith2008 has been mentioned here on SkS in a post on Postma, but are there plans for a detailed explanation of the Smith 2008? Also, given that N&K's theory is starting to appear, is there a rebuttal planned?
62334. Mike at 03:14 AM on 1 March 2012
       Mythbusting with fewer explosions
       "It's not enough to merely remove the myth. When you debunk misinformation, you leave a gap in the person's understanding. That gap needs to be filled with an alternative explanation." I have read similar things in articles on math education. It is not enough to show a student why their misconception is wrong. You have to replace it with the correct concept. For example students often think (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2. In explaining why this is false I draw the picture so they can see the missing pieces. But here is something else. On a test they will revert back to the misconception. The stress causes their minds to flip back to their misconception. You might think about if that applies the more general myth busting. The economic down turn was/is a huge stressor.
62335. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:03 AM on 1 March 2012
       New research from last week 8/2012
       What about a combination of both linear and step changes? For me this makes the most sense especially when applied to rainfall and considering atmospheric teleconnections such ENSO and the NAO.
62336. Tom Curtis at 02:33 AM on 1 March 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       IanC @60, you are correct. Thankyou for taking the trouble of checking.
62337. IanC at 02:06 AM on 1 March 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Jose_X 56, Yes of course, I meant pressure driven by temperature. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. (Mods: is there a way to fix the error in my post in 51?) Can you elaborate your question? Are you talking about the substance in gas phase? or in solid or liquid phase? Tom Curtis 57, I think you made a mistake after step (d). For (e) i got 0.9797, and from here I have (f) (1-A)/e = 0.912 (g) A=0.125 (h) 1/e=1.0423 ==> e= 0.9594
62338. Tom Curtis at 02:00 AM on 1 March 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Riccardo @58, it partially makes sense for a no-atmosphere, local equilibrium case. As calculated, T_gb assumes no thermal inertia, and no thermal distritution through conduction (or any other means). That is as unrealistic an ideal case as the standard "effective temperature", which in effect assumes absorptivity of 1, and perfect heat distribution so that no point on the surface has a different temperature than any other point. The practical importance of the effective temperature is that it is a maximum mean surface temperature that can be achieved without a green house effect. Conversely, T_gb calculates a theoretical minimum temperature for a body without an atmosphere. As such it is very surprising that Nikolov and Zeller report an observed mean surface temperature for the moon equal to their calculated mean surface temperature, ie, 154.3 K (table 1). Pressed to justify this figure on WUWT, Nikolov justifies the value by appeal to Vasavada et al, 1999 who report modelled mean lunar surface temperatures of 220 K at the equator (figure 3), and 130 K at 85 degrees north (figure 4) (also reported by wikipedia). Calculating the mean as (140 plus 140 plus 220)/3, yields a mean surface temperature of 167 K, which is probably an underestimate. Nikolov also appeals to Diviner, which reports a mean equatorial temperature of 206 K, and a mean polar temperature of 98 K (mean of equator plus two poles: 134 K, but the averaging method leaves much to be desired) Nikolov himself calculates the mean form the diviner data as (100+206)/2 or 153 K. These very low values contradict the subsurface measurements at the Apollo 15 (26 degrees North) and Apollo 17 (20 degrees North) sites. They show a subsurface temperatures approaching 253 K (Apollo 15) and 257 K (Apollo 17) conservatively estimated, showing these temperatures to be the mean surface temperature for those sites, ie, in a sub-equatorial region the mean temperature is at least 30 degrees K higher than estimated by the model, and nearly 50 K higher than estimated by Diviner. Consistent with that, Daniel Harris cites Peter Eckart ("The Lunar Base Handbook", 2nd Ed 2006) to the effect that the polar region (excluding shaded craters) has a mean of 220 K, while equatorial regions have a mean of 255K. (Rough estimate of the combined mean: 230 K). I have also seen figures of 243 K and 250 K cited with dubious provenance. I have been unable to find relevant figures from the Chang E-1 satellite The important thing about this is that while Nikolov and Zeller report an observed mean surface temperature of the moon as being 154.3 degrees C, clearly the observation made in determining that value was that that was what their theory predicted. In some circles reporting theoretical predictions as being observed results is frowned upon. That Nikolov and Zeller are prepared to do so, however, calls into question the remarkable "predictive accuracy" of their theory as shown in their figure 5. It may well be that for many values, and not just for the Moon, what is "accurately predicted" is just the value calculated in the prediction.
62339. Composer99 at 00:43 AM on 1 March 2012
       Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
       Matthew L: I suspect an ideal approach is to seach for a thread relating specifically to sensitivity or feedbacks using the search feature at the upper left of each page on this site. For example, such a search led me to this page which is probably ideal for your purposes. Or the main page has 'newcomers: start here' and 'the big picture' links to their respective pages, which are probably good places to post such queries. Me not being part of the site team, though, you might take this particular suggestion with a grain of salt.
62340. Climate-Change-Theory at 23:55 PM on 29 February 2012
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       Tom @ #45 My response was very much on topic because ... The very first section of this article is about climate sensitivity and it discusses the assumed feedback of water vapour which is supposed to reduce carbon dioxide's effect to 1.2 out of 3.0 (which I calculate as 40%, though the author of this article calculates as "one-third") So I was explaining why water vapour does not have such an effect because (a) it sends some of the solar IR radiation it captures back to space, thus cooling and (b) the backradiation it (and carbon dioxide) quite correctly do create is actually only all standing waves which cannot transfer any energy to the surface, but can slow radiative losses, even though diffusion and evaporation then compensate.
       Response:

       [DB] "My response was very much on topic because ..."

       Incorrect.  The topic of the thread was about David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold.  As is your wont in this forum, you then proceeded to make this about your misunderstandings of physics and climate and not about the topic of the thread.

       You then compound things by threatening to smear SkS on other venues.  That is reflective of both you and the nature of those venues that will tolerate that type of posting.

       As this is a pattern of behaviour of long standing with you, you are no longer welcome here.

62341. Riccardo at 23:46 PM on 29 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Tgb is not part of the one layer model, it's just a new definition of the gray body temperature. It assumes a temperature distribution proportional to the cosine of latitude to the 1/4 which gives a temperature at the poles of zero Kelvin and of about 360 K at the equator (for the Earth). This makes sense in the no-atmosphere, local equilibrium, case like the Moon. Given this definition, though, Tgb can not be compared to the effective radiating temperature to quantify the greenhouse effect.
62342. Tom Curtis at 23:32 PM on 29 February 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       dunc461 @25, around 295 K (23 degrees C) is a reasonable estimate of the surface temperature based on the Conrath data. Of course, the Earth's Mean Global Surface Temperature is about 288 K (15 C), however, that is the mean temperature, not the temperature at any given location. The observations in this case were made over the Gulf of Mexico near Brownesville, Texas, so a surface temperature around 23 C is hardly surprising.
62343. Matthew L at 23:10 PM on 29 February 2012
       Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
       Rob Painting #90. Thanks for the heads up on the paper by Carmen Boening that is due. I will keep an eye out for it. Unlike Camburn I don't doubt that sea level and OHC continue to rise, but it is clear that the rate of rise has slowed in both cases over the last 5 or so years. I have argued with fake-sceptics elsewhere who deny that the Earth is warming that the rise in sea levels is evidence that it is, in other words that the sea acts like a giant thermometer. Obviously things are much more complex than that but the depth of ignorance out there is staggering. Brilliant site by the way! We really need somewhere that deals with facts and real science rather than ill-informed speculation. I am new to posting here (been a lurker for a little while) and have a query on sensitivity / positive feedback (is cooling amplified as well as warming?). Is there a general thread / forum where I can post such questions? pps - Still extremely irritated by the use of such an old fashioned map projection in Figure 1. It does nobody any favours and could be read as a deliberate effort to mislead (obviously not your fault of course). There are plenty of much more informative alternative projections available so there is no excuse. Presenting information in maps and plans is a big part of my job, so I am very aware of how misleading and "political" maps can be!
62344. SRJ at 22:46 PM on 29 February 2012
       Empirical evidence for positive feedback
       I would suggest that this page is updated with the newest research in this topic.
62345. dunc461 at 21:45 PM on 29 February 2012
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       These may be a dumb questions but on the Conrath Graph, at 975 cm^-1,interpolation between 280K and 300K give a temperature of 294.5K. Isn't this significantly higher than the measured temperature at the earth surface? And couldn't it signify that some of the absorbed radiation is emitted at this wave number?
62346. Dikran Marsupial at 21:39 PM on 29 February 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       PRussel 1. Calling someone a sceptic is actually a complement, we all ought to be sceptics in the sense that we take nobody's word for anything and investigate the evidence behind all claims. I agree, namecalling does not help anybody, but if those on the other side of the debate are not to be called sceptics, how should we refer to them? What term would you use to describe those who hold the contrary view, but who are not swayed by evidence or rational argument? If there were more neutral terms that everybody were happy with them, I'd happily use them instead (I see nothing wrong with "sceptic" BTW). 2. The main purpose of SkS is to provide the counter arguments to climate myths, these appear to be almost exclusively from the contrarian scientists for a good reason. For every Gallileo, who runs against the mainstream position, there will be literally thousands of scientists who are simply mistaken. This is true in all branches of science, the only difference is that in other sciences they don't generally get any media coverage. 3. If you can't imagine any scientist applying for grant money to research a theory that humans are not to blame, then read Svensmark and Calders book "the chilling stars", where Svensmark complains about the lack of funding he has recieved, but if you actually total up the amount of grants that he mentions in the book, he is actually pretty well funded (better than I am!). Likewise look up Jasper Kirkby and the CLOUD project at CERN, which was funded to the tune of 12,000,000 Euro, in this very political climate. Note also that Roy Spencer (leading sceptic scientist) says that his work is 100% govenment funded. There are plenty of complains that sceptic science isn't funded, but that doesn't mean it is true, it is more likely that the proposals simply have too many holes in them to be funded above better proposals that are more coherent.
62347. jatufin at 21:13 PM on 29 February 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       PRussell @184: 1. Name calling is rarely appropriate, and should be avoided however heated the discussion is. But if you look at "skeptical" web sites, or even listen public "skeptical" figures on TV, you often encounter nice terms like: "warmists", "alarmists", "conspirators" and "climate nazis", with unwarranted accusations of fraud, incompetence and child-molestation. This has of course nothing to do with science. 2. You have your 3% There is no consensus I suppose there is percentage of geologists, who deny plate tectonics and astrophysicists backing continuous creation cosmology. 3. Cui bono? I have a gut feeling, that succesfull "skeptical" talking head without any credentials might earn substantially better than real scientists in the field. (many of whom could easily find hugely more profitable jobs in mineral industry, than in academia)
62348. les at 20:44 PM on 29 February 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       184 - PRussell Re your points 2 & 3. regarding "contrary viewpoint" and "grant money to research a theory that humans are not to blame"... These points are, I think, quite common. I would suggest you consider this: If you look at 99% (as in 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot) of research papers, you'll find they're either just measuring stuff or comparing theories with data. The vast majority are not in the least bit concerned with proving or disproving any grand thing. Example, if you read the new Mann book, he points out - and this is known - that his PhD research was on 'oscillations' in climate and he only looked at forcing as a side issue to make his analysis complete... and as a side issue, the original 'hockey-stick' just "popped out" (and it, or all the independently analysed variations of it are not myths). The papers which 'prove AGW' are largely calculations of attribution (what role is played by the sun, atmosphere, oscillations etc etc) - there's no "prove" or "disprove" about most of them either - it's just a question of how the system works. Outside the blogosphere, there really isn't that much difference between the scientific beliefs about how the climate works except for a question of degree (e.g. feedback's) and emphasis.
62349. PRussell at 20:25 PM on 29 February 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       Your site is very interesting and your debunking the myths gives me cause to think - what is it that makes me sceptical? I agree that I am not an expert, so why do I have doubts? Not only are your backfire effects pertinent to me but I have come up with a few more backfire effects that also affect me. 1. I get really turned off by the name calling - when scientists start calling people sceptics and deniers and try to belittle anyone with an alternative view I find that reinforces my sceptical view. As an example on your web site anything that is against your theory you label as a myth to be totally discredited. That labels me a sceptical denier who believes in myths. I thought I just had a few doubts and would like to hear both sides. 2. Another backfire effect for me is the incredibly strong bias that there is only one valid opinion – do we have scientific fact? I find it hard to believe that with the enormous amount of research that is going on that every single theory that every single scientist has, supports global warming. Surely there must be some evidence of a contrary viewpoint. For me your arguments would be more powerful if you had listed the hockey stick graph in your list of myths to demonstrate your even handling of the facts. 3. And my final backfire effect is the money. Maybe it is jealousy but I see people like Ross Garnaut making lots of money out of this theory. I can’t imagine any scientist applying for grant money to research a theory that humans are not to blame. Realistically the grant will not be approved because of our political climate.
62350. Tom Curtis at 19:58 PM on 29 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Jose_X @55, I see what you are saying, but equation (7), which is definitely part of the new theory explicitly includes the therm T_gb. What is more, their figure 5 plots the ratio of T_s to T_gb. Hence T_gb is definitely part of the new theory. The only definition they provide for it, however, is in equation (2) and related discussion. Therefore, that is not a flaw in my algebra. It is at best a flaw in their presentation, such that they do not have a theory until they provide us with an alternative definition of T_gb, assuming, of course, no other error in my algebra.

Prev  1239  1240  1241  1242  1243  1244  1245  1246  1247  1248  1249  1250  1251  1252  1253  1254  Next