Recent Comments

Prev  1253  1254  1255  1256  1257  1258  1259  1260  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  Next

Comments 63001 to 63050:

63001. bj at 18:10 PM on 27 February 2012
       Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
       Tom Curtis @2, While I agree with the overall intent of your comment, I believe if there is a clear case of fraud it should be pursued. Bear in mind I do not think there is likely to be enough evidence to convict Monckton. My understanding of the legal requirements is that he would have had to deliberately misled or falsified information with the intention of financial or personal gain. Proving that the deception was deliberate, or that the intent was financial or personal gain, would be hard without some smoking gun. Bear in mind, this is also quite distinct from instances where people are simply (and demonstrably) wrong, even if they argue loudly and repeatedly for those wrong positions.
63002. Jose_X at 18:07 PM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Chris #34, >> But I wouldn't put much meaning into the "average sensitivity" of the planet. .. a lot of people run into mistakes of trying to figure out the sensitivity of a doubling of CO2, from say, how much CO2 contributes to the 33 K greenhouse effect. Exactly. I think this is something that at least some people might not realize. Since I have seen RW's comments on various forums, I not only think this is/was a main issue s/he did not see, but many of the people replying to RW apparently didn't clearly understand this was the problem. The responses did almost inevitably include someone early on pointing out the non-linearity issue, but possibly RW did not realize what that meant and then the conversation moved on to different argumentation. A graph can help people understand that point. Mind you, I haven't seen too many people get hung up on that (certainly not like RW), but the doubt might be lingering without them being able to put it into words. Look at the reaction of sauerj#16 to a related issue.. cleared up by this very nice presentation. Additionally, showing a nonlinear curve that shows H2O effect kicking in gives insight that it's not really CO2 that does the damage. Seeing a graph with the increased (or decreased) slope and a bit of a "knee bend" (when seen from afar.. to see the forest from the trees) helps add urgency and legitimacy to the fears of many climate scientists. >> climate sensitivity is frequently taken as being inversely related to the slope of TOA flux vs. surface temperatures Thanks for the heads up. It still might be interesting to consider the flipped graph since a higher slope is probably more closely associated in the mind with a threat in most uses. A logarithm, for example, is more likely to be seen as "safe" than an exponential curve[*]. This is perhaps another case where those new to the field are likely to misinterpret. Most people's experience (of those who remember) is that we vary the x coordinate to see the effect in the y coordinate. y=f(x). More people might better understand, if you are varying a forcing[**] to then examine the effect on temperature, that you are varying the x coordinate to measure a change in the y. This view is more intuitive probably to most thinking cause-effect relationship. [*] Note, that the main topic being tossed around by laypeople is this "climate sensitivity" value, so it might help to see that relationship directly on a graph as we might be likely to interpret that graph ("cause-effect" <-> "x-y"). [**] "Forcing" is another term that I recently saw clarified that might confuse some people when hearing "CO2 forcing". As concerns the feedback confusion, engineers would likely model CO2 within the system equations. Someone recently wrote somewhere that it's equivalent to knobs being turned in a sound processing unit.. You don't model that as adding a signal strength but rather by varying parameters of the system. Eg, you wouldn't add a force vector but you'd change a viscosity coefficient. Writing an article to explain why 2xCO2 is modeled as a forcing (for sensitivity analysis) could help. >> I think one of the most definitive sources is Roe, 2009. Thanks, I had just downloaded that this week (from a judithcurry link I saved, where she too recommended it). A shorter more accessible description (and on this site) than a 25-page pdf that a friend might point towards might increase the number of people who read that. [I'll go and read it soon I suppose.] >> ice on Earth is only a very small contribution to the planetary albedo I did not realize that. Maybe here too is a lesson of sorts since I probably developed that intuition from comments made by others and from the idea that rays bouncing off the earth makes sense off a white surface. I know that the incident angle plays a much greater role, but I still got the impression ice was significant (although it is at the poles mainly, meaning there is less contribution to average albedo as the incident angle effect already probably dominates).
63003. CBDunkerson at 17:59 PM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       YOGI writes: "How come if 239W/m go in and 239W/m go out, that 396W/m exists within the system ? surely that violates the conservation of energy law ?" Really? So, on your world, if the stream feeding into a lake carries 239 m^3/s and the stream flowing out of the lake also carries 239 m^3/s then the lake cannot possibly hold 396 m^3 of water? How very sad for you and your world where clouds do not precipitate out of the atmosphere when the temperature decreases. Here on our Earth planet things work differently.
63004. Lotharsson at 17:39 PM on 27 February 2012
       The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
       Speaking of the Angliss-Rutan conversation, reading the full set of comments on the original thread is even more eye-opening. Commenters other than Angliss provide Rutan with a great deal of supplementary information demonstrating that many of his claims are indefensible - and in his responses to them in comments (which are not found in the summary post linked at #52) he ducks, weaves and gallops with the best of them. And speaking of psychological projection - Rutan's schtick is big on AGW communicators engaging in "data presentation fraud" which he argues inappropriately scares the punters - but his own anti-AGW slide deck is so full of it, it's difficult to find one single slide discussing science that presents a fair view of the data.
63005. Jose_X at 17:08 PM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Chris #25, I agree Charlie is correct, but I think you are misunderstanding something. It's not the amplitude of that expression you mentioned that defined pos/neg in the traditional feedback sense since the sign is not changing in that expression (only the magnitude). Net negative feedback from Stefan-B (as Charlie mentioned) means that as we increase temperature we get a counter effect to that raise (a dampening effect.. a "force" that would otherwise make T decrease if it could exist by itself). If we had net positive feedback (in the traditional/engineering sense), on the other hand, we'd get a runaway effect such as one sees when a microphone is brought too close to the speakers.. the signal amplitude blows up very fast (until saturation is hit or some circuit is tripped and shuts it off). Of course, the earth never gets rid of the S-B radiation loss into space, so any "positive feedback" claims would be impossible except within the context of a limited model range (eg, the mic/speaker goes through runaway but only until saturation where the model goes beyond its capabilities... obviously, the mic/speaker runaway doesn't turn into a black hole and suck all the energy from the universe). As stated in Jose_X #30, I do think clarifying well how climate positive feedback is not the same thing at all as traditional (engineering) positive feedback would really get a lot more engineers to pay attention and say "oh, that's what they mean". The climate scientists appear to be in an imaginary world to some engineers first looking at this question of pos vs neg climate feedback. Just like you think Hansen is off, many engineers think all of climate science must likely be off in thinking we are *currently* in a runaway situation that will inevitably consume the entire planet. Perhaps those climate scientists don't even know mathematics. Someone has been conning them to use some computer program and they blissfully live in their own made-up world. [In reality, many engineers probably suspect they are misunderstanding something, but the net result is similar if instead of learning and becoming advocates they lose interest and perhaps afterward sign on to some Internet list of skeptics.] Feedback analysis obviously has limitations. I would not criticize the definitions used in climate science since those appear to be useful definitions for the context, but, I think this change in definitions should be made more clear to an audience composed of technically savvy people. I would consider adding in an "argument" on the website that addresses this feedback issue, even if the audience would be limited. The educated engineer/scientist(?) is an influential audience and can be quiet a thorn or otherwise a useful ally.
63006. Rob Honeycutt at 16:52 PM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       YOGI... Look, people are not trying to pile on, even though it may seem like it. What is frustrating is that you're clearly confusing your lack of knowledge on this subject with there being something wrong with greenhouse theory. It's a very complex subject. But rather than assuming that 150 years of research has somehow produced an error that has somehow slipped past 10's if not 100's of thousands of scientists, how about just acknowledging that maybe you need to be better trained to even begin to understand this subject. It's great that you are trying to propose questions but the ones you're asking are really pretty easily answered if you take some time to better understand the subject matter.
63007. Dave123 at 16:44 PM on 27 February 2012
       Climate change models underestimate future temperature variability; food security at risk
       Apropos these comments about England (expect to be there in 2 weeks), I think you can add this fellow to climate skeptics who make predictions: Doug Proctor Did a drive-by over on real climate.
63008. Chris Colose at 16:35 PM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       gallopingcamel, These exchanges really take away from interesting science, and your claims have absolutely no merit. I'd ask that you read an intro radiation textbook (see Grant Petty for a good undergrad level text that is still quantitative and sophisticated enough for solid understanding).
63009. Chris Colose at 16:33 PM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Jose X, thanks for your comments. Your understanding is rather good for being new, but just to reply to a few issues: 1) It's certainly true that climate sensitivity is a function of the equilibrium climate, and to what extent it can be linearized for small changes is still up for some debate. This is one of the issues with using paleoclimate data from the Last Glacial Maximum and applying it to the future. But I wouldn't put much meaning into the "average sensitivity" of the planet. Radiative transfer is a rather non-linear subject, and a lot of people run into mistakes of trying to figure out the sensitivity of a doubling of CO2, from say, how much CO2 contributes to the 33 K greenhouse effect. By the way, I guess I should have specified, but the outgoing radiation in these plots is all from TOA, not surface. Also, climate sensitivity is frequently taken as being inversely related to the slope of TOA flux vs. surface temperatures (e.g., see this graphic) 2) Your point about varying definitions of 'feedback' are well taken. Lindzen does describe the theory of some of this well in several of his papers, but I think one of the most definitive sources is Roe, 2009. 3) Your point 3 is off-target because ice on Earth is only a very small contribution to the planetary albedo (which is dominated by clouds, whose distribution is governed largely by the large-scale dynamics). Ice albedo is important as a local feedback, and there would be a lot of climate consequences to melting the ice (sea level, altering the atmospheric circulation, etc) but it wouldn't have the type of impact on albedo that you're talking about.
63010. actually thoughtful at 16:22 PM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Actually, from a solar plumbers perspective, convection is harder to swallow than conduction or turbulence. I make my living on water stratification - hot water is more buoyant than cold, thus water heater can deliver almost the entire contents of the tank (cylinder) as the cold water is added at the bottom. We use variations of this trick endlessly to maximize the output of solar thermal systems. However, my earliest design required multiple storage tanks, but only one tank that was exchanging heat with the loads. So I circulated the water, thus moving the heat energy (I think of it as a conveyor belt). And that is the model that I think is more helpful to understand how the heat "bypasses" the upper ocean. It doesn't really, it is an artifact of an incomplete measurement system (ie not enough sensors) and the fact that the heat energy is only sinking in certain areas (and lots of heat is going down in those areas). Conduction and convection (ie a warmer liquid rising and a colder liquid falling due to density), in the absence of turbulent system, don't move heat down in water. But ocean currents that are sinking can carry hot water down with them - and that is the mechanism that explains both how heat gets to the lower ocean at all, and why it isn't uniform (and thus appears to bypass the upper ocean). I should point out I don't have any papers to back up this view - just my livelihood.
63011. KR at 16:19 PM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       gallopingcamel - I have two issues with your last post: (1) No links. No references. (2) No assertions or evidence from those authors to be considered. What is it that you are asking?
63012. Jose_X at 16:14 PM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       > It's not clear to many that H2O is a dominant effect that has only kicked in aggressively for temperatures in the vicinity of where we are (eg, say within the last 10 K, I'd guess) First of all, I am not clear on this since I have not thought about it for too long and haven't come across the statement above. Second, would I be guessing well by saying that, instead of "10K" (a mistake), 20-30K lower in global average temp would result in non-dominating ghg effect contributions from H2O and the correspondingly lower climate sensitivity, as judging by this graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Relative_Humidity.png and considering that H2O is about 70% of the ghg effect today with CO2 making up the majority of the rest?
63013. gallopingcamel at 16:09 PM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Chris, [snipped] Your participation in discussions relating to radiative processes at the "Science of Doom" was stimulating even though we seldom agreed. Here is a question for you. I am a physicist. Other physicists such as Nikolov and Zeller and Robert G. Brown can explain planetary surface temperatures based on TSI, Stephan-Boltzman, albedos and the gas laws. So why do you think that Radiative Transfer Equations (RTEs) have any significant influence?
63014. Jose_X at 16:03 PM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Point 1: I agree with sauerj#16 that more can be done to extend this article, eg, by looking at how H2O affects climate sensitivity all else remaining equal. It's not clear to many that H2O is a dominant effect that has only kicked in aggressively for temperatures in the vicinity of where we are (eg, say within the last 10 K, I'd guess). Of the 33 ghg warming, a major contributions is only "now" being added, because of H2O. In other words, the *average* sensitivity of the planet (eg, starting from no sun or from 1.0 albedo) is much lower than the current sensitivity. We note this by looking at instantaneous tangent line slope (derivative) vs the secant that represents the average slope between our current point and the origin. I started writing up something very similar (but instead TOA flux vs surface flux), as I think showing that graph would help commentator "RW" clear remaining doubts. Ie, it would explain what sensitivity is and how it grows much faster as H2O vapor grows appreciably for a given level of CO2; all other ghg gases remaining constant, add heat from the sun has a much more powerful effect once H2O kicks in past the level needed to match the other ghg effects (earth generally has existed in that range thanks to its distance from the sun, etc). Also, I would place temp on the y axis in order to make it easier for those with modest mathematical bent to follow. You want agreement with the climate sensitivity definition if possible. Greater climate sensitivity should be seen as greater slope on the curve (in the traditional mathematical sense of y_delta/x_delta) and not a smaller/flatter slope. The sensitivity question is a very important one and should be highlighted well.. Point 2: However, I would consider an article view (or related article) to appeal to engineers [can skepticalscience add an "engineer view" for select articles.. beyond the easy, intermediate, advanced views?]. I would clarify that "positive feedback", as it is used in system's analysis and various engineering disciplines, has a different definition than climate positive feedback. This article covered the essence of this point (runaway vs not runaway), of course, but more can be said explicitly to place it in the context of traditional "positive feedback". I have noted that many engineers are skeptic, and I can relate to this particular misunderstanding. So, what describes the earth system is "negative feedback" (in the engineering sense) with a small amplitude component that likely is positive but some skeptic scientists claim could be negative due to clouds. Climate scientists don't expect that positive component to be larger in magnitude than the base negative feedback (at least not any time soon and/or within the confines of existing parameters). The key point is that any net (engineering) "positive feedback" leads to runaway behavior, by the definition used by many engineers, and we want to clarify this issue. It should be clarified that climate scientists call positive feedback simply a less negative feedback. Also, the climate models aren't feedback models, so this distinction is not important for generating future projections. In other words, the scientists' "mislabeling" is inconsequential to the calculations they perform. The "negative feedback" (engineering definition) of climate models is implicit (as mentioned in this article) from the obvious cooling effect of the 0 Kelvin outer space boundary condition and how that is incorporated into the calculations. I will look more carefully at Lindzen's "tropics" feedback analysis (maybe others have already) to see if this issue crops up. It probably isn't an issue, but I am curious. Point 3: I suspect that the albedo might change significantly if ice cover starts to disappear in very large amounts. I might not be thinking clearly, but a change in albedo of say 20% (eg, .06) would be more than merely Apocalyptic when we consider how little the earth's effective emissivity to shortwave changes with a few degrees C change at the surface (right?). Isn't most natural variability equivalent to say +/- .5 C, and isn't this change associated with a tiny percentage change in solar irradiance? Now imagine an increase of 20% incident solar flux rather than a fraction of 1%. [Am I missing something?] [BTW, I am fairly new to this and have lots to learn so I might have misjudged various issues here.]
63015. KR at 16:03 PM on 27 February 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       andylee - "I would tackle it from a signal processing and noise reduction point of view - start by subtracting the effect of everything we know from the climate record - volcanic eruptions, ENSO, CO2 signatures etc, and see what is left over." And that's exactly what Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 did for the last 30 years, and what Lean and Rind 2008 did for the last 120 years. Turns out that there really isn't anything left after you account for solar, volcanic, ENSO, and anthropogenic forcings. No mysterious unknown cycles (MUC's), no 'recovery from the LIA', no cosmic ray influence, or distant supernovae, or orbital resonance from Jupiter/Saturn - it's actually just what we expect from the physics. Oh, and our own actions...
63016. andylee at 15:44 PM on 27 February 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       I then read the paper... He's obviously spent a lot of time and intellectual energy on this, so I don't dismiss it out of hand. (I take issue with the use of the word "astronomical" - apart from our sun, the nearest star is 4.25 ly away.) He has a point and I don't doubt that planetary influences add some multidecadal red noise to climatic data, but his objective appears to start already from a denialist perspective by distancing himself from AGW advocates: "To understand the reasoning a good start is the IPCC’s figures 9.5a and 9.5b which are particularly popular among the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates" The sun isn't stationary, it is wobbling around a barycentre following a complicated path with approximately a 0.01AU deviation. Consequently the Earth's orbit is not perfectly elliptical and its distance from the Sun also has an n-order Lissajous component. Instead of looking for cycles to fit and then attempting to match them to the climate record to try to mask recent warming, I would tackle it from a signal processing and noise reduction point of view - start by subtracting the effect of everything we know from the climate record - volcanic eruptions, ENSO, CO2 signatures etc, and see what is left over. Then, calculate the waveform of the *distance* of the Earth from the Sun modulated by the sunspot cycle to calculate the irradiance. This is the only method that the planets can affect our climate, short of a collision or extended eclipse. At this point a Fourier transform of both climatic history and derived planetary-influenced irradiance should reveal some common frequencies. Applying the irradiance function to the climate record should automatically damp the signal in the right places, subject to some phase shifting to identify possible latencies in climate response. Anything left over is attributable to something else. Lastly, my favourite sentence: How easy it would be to quantify the anthropogenic effect on climate if we could simply observe the climate on another planet identical to the Earth in everything but humans! But we do not have this luxury. ... ... yet! :-)
63017. adelady at 15:16 PM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       What changed during the 2000s? Little to nothing. It's barely ten years. You need at least another 7-10 years of the same before you could even _begin_ to detect anything different going on.
63018. From Peru at 14:55 PM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       One more question: The upper ocean warmed during the 1970s-1990s period together with the land+atmosphere. Then in the 2000s the strange pattern of warming deep oceans despite non-warming upper ocean began. At the same time, the atmosphere and the land surface continued to warm steadily. What changed during the 2000s?
63019. adelady at 14:54 PM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Sorry camburn, there are probably lots. But what came to my mind was something I read about flying. It referred to old-fashioned clunky type smaller planes of, from memory, 50s vintage. The instructor's words were that it was easier to control a plane in bad weather if you 'saw' yourself as swimming, diving or surfacing in currents, tides or waves.
63020. Bob Lacatena at 14:50 PM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       59, Peru,

       How can the heat had bypassed the upper ocean in the trip from the atmosphere to the deep ocean?

       One of your problems comes from the way you phrased this question. You make it sound like the system is a simple path for heat from atmosphere to upper ocean to deeper ocean. It's obviously far more complex than that.
63021. Doug Hutcheson at 14:43 PM on 27 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       JP40 @ 40, Yes the Foundation series has occurred to me as well, in this context. Perhaps we need to sequester as much of human knowledge as possible electronically, on another body in the solar system, ready to be discovered by some putative future generation after the Fall and Rise.

       It will be our technology that will liberate us from having to live in balance with natural ecology, and will save natural ecology in the far future.

       We place enormous trust in future technology. I hope it will save the day, but I am not so convinced that I could say with certainty that it will do so. I think you have misunderstood part of my last post, which was probably not very clear. My point is that greed drives the development of technology, not the other way around. Unless there is "something in it for me", I am unlikely to come up with a new tool or method. Our whole way of life revolves around satisfying our needs and that translates into greed when we seek to acquire more than we actually need as individuals. There is no basic 'need' to be a billionaire, but plenty of us aspire to it.
63022. Camburn at 14:38 PM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       adelady@60: Do you have any papers showing this? That the "water language" is similiar to atmospheric functions? The sheer difference in density of mass difference would indicate a HUGE energy differential required.
63023. Doug Hutcheson at 14:30 PM on 27 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       Here is an interesting article investigating the funding and tax-deductable status of Australia's Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), which has links to Heartland. Looks like a similar setup - how strange.
63024. JP40 at 13:47 PM on 27 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       Sorry for the misunderstanding. It seemed that you were saying that humanity deserves to be punished for its "crimes," and that it would be better if we stayed Australopithecus Aferensis. I do agree with you that our civilization will collapse in the next few centuries, causing a lot of collateral damage, but I don't actually think that it is very likely that there will be a repeat of the P-T extinction. Here are the numbers: by the end of the main phase of the extinction, co2 levels reached 3000 ppm. The IPCC's worst case scenario for co2 by 2100 is 1000 ppm, which isn't enough to cause the gassification of methane hydrate en masse. I think that by 2100 there will be enough anarchy to stop most co2 production, so this projection is optimistic (or pessimistic, however you look at it).  I am confidant that civilization will rise again. However, most of our knowledge will be destroyed, and the recovery will be much slower than if a small portion of it survived somewhere other than earth. Our current situation reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. In these books, a mathematician who has found a way to predict the future sees that the galactic empire will collapse, and builds a society on a planet on the edge of the empire, in order to compile and preserve all of the empire's knowledge, and to work to reunite it.  After the rise, we need to make sure that we don't ever rely on something that will have serious long term consequences. The earth may not be able to sustainably sustain very many people, compared to the number we have now, but that doesn't mean those extra people have to not exist, because we don't "only have one planet." There is the possibility of terraforming Mars and possibly Venus, which would give us 2 extra planets to live, outside domes, metal cans, underground complexes, and space suits.  You seem to be saying now that technology is the main cause of human greed, and only depletes resources. This view ignores both the cutthroat imperial politics before the industrial revolution, and technologies like wind and solar energy, that don't deplete any resources. Without our current fossil fuel-fuled economy, we wouldn't be enlightened enough to contemplate its demise. In fact, before the industrial revolution, most people were totally ignorant peasants who only knew what they heard by word of mouth. It will be our technology that will liberate us from having to live in balance with natural ecology, and will save natural ecology in the far future.
63025. andylee at 13:07 PM on 27 February 2012
       Scafetta's Widget Problems
       It sounds preposterous that planets can affect our climate in any astrological sense, and I think we can safely discount any radiative forcing from them, but it is well known that Jupiter and Saturn are largely responsible for the Milankovich effect modifying our orbit's eccentricity, although this happens over hundreds of millennia. I looked for some details of orbital mechanics and found these, (the resonances are fascinating):    http://mrob.com/pub/planets.html    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles As the Sun and Jupiter are the most massive bodies, their barycentre causes the Sun to wobble with an amplitude of 1.5m km over 12 years (0.01 AU). My thoughts on a cig packet: As this period is 12x longer than our year, Earth wouldn't 'see' all of that differential as a significant (1%) change in intensity, but I guess there may be some tiny decadal signal (1/12%) though I'm sure it would average out and be insignificant. Far far less than the effect of the Milankovich Cycle.
63026. adelady at 12:15 PM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       "How can the heat had bypassed the upper ocean in the trip from the atmosphere to the deep ocean?" It's only a concern if the mechanism for heat transfer was entirely conduction or general turbulence. We can knock out general turbulence immediately, the oceans do not behave like an earth sized washing machine. Conduction? Obviously an issue at various depths and places, but we already know that there are layers and specific places where the water temperature is very different from nearby waters. What's left? Convection. As soon as you allow for water at various depths to exhibit the same kinds of behaviour as air at various altitudes, it all makes sense. Winds, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes exhibit extreme versions of focused or funnelled transport of air at temperature differentials. Local features like hills, mountains, seasides promote consistent winds, or lack of them in some valleys, and temperature profiles. Translate these various features into 'water language' and it's not so hard.
63027. YOGI at 12:07 PM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Stephen Baines "What is the point of bringing up clouds?" Its the only fair equivalent to a blanket. Full cloud cover at night is the surest way to keep the heat in. But as the Earth is externally heated, it will cool with total cloud cover, as the albedo will be huge. GHG`s have huge holes so are not exactly a blanket.
       Response:

       [DB] Way back here, you were asked to succinctly put forth the one objection that you wanted to hang your hat on.  You have made 6 comments on this thread since then and in exactly...none of them have you done so. Failure to do that amounts to a de facto admission that you are here to simply waste the time of others.

       Cease making unsupported assertions (i.e., lacking support in the peer-reviewed literature published in reputable journals) until you can demonstrate that you are able to carry on a science-based discussion in this forum.

63028. scaddenp at 12:06 PM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       While I strongly doubt YOGI is actually interested in understanding this, but Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the first law of thermodynamics rather exhaustively covers this. Understanding however requires getting your head around the physics not looking for talking points. Claiming the diagram is "wrong" is tricky when those flows are from measurements.
63029. YOGI at 11:43 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Eric (skeptic) Venus has 92 bar surface pressure. Around 53 km up, pressure and temperature are comparable to those at Earth's surface.
63030. From Peru at 11:38 AM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       When I say that "surface temperatures are warming steadily" I want to say that is not true that surface and atmospheric warming has stopped or even slowed down. That was an artifact of the moderate-to-strong La Niñas of 2007-2008 and 2010-2011. The thing that puzzles me is how we can have at the same time this on the surface/atmosphere: Source: 2011 Temperature Roundup This in the upper 700 meters of the ocean: Source: ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data And this in the upper 2000 meters of the ocean: Source: Introduction To The NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomaly Data For Depths Of 0-2000 Meters How can a forcing warm the atmosphere and the land, while at the same time producing a much smaller upper ocean warming, and then producing significant warming in the deep sea? How can the heat had bypassed the upper ocean in the trip from the atmosphere to the deep ocean?
63031. John Hartz at 11:38 AM on 27 February 2012
       Climate change models underestimate future temperature variability; food security at risk
       During Niger's hotspell, the night-time temperatures sometimes do not drop below 100 degrees F.
63032. YOGI at 11:31 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       How come if 239W/m go in and 239W/m go out, that 396W/m exists within the system ? surely that violates the conservation of energy law ?
63033. From Peru at 10:34 AM on 27 February 2012
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       From where do Peter Hogarth found the data to make the wonderful figure of comment 54?
63034. From Peru at 10:25 AM on 27 February 2012
       Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
       Tom Curtis and Rob Painting: I will continue where you have indicated.
63035. Bob Lacatena at 10:19 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Actually, I think every denier should be forced to read this thread, and then to look in a mirror, and recognize that to a lesser degree they are doing the same thing. It may be easier to argue their position, or to talk themselves into believing their position has substance, but in 99% of cases it comes down to the exact same thing.
63036. Doug Hutcheson at 10:03 AM on 27 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       JP40 @ 37, I am sorry if you took the impression that I hate civilisation. That is too strong a view. Civilisation, with its opportunities for intellectual growth, has some wonderful aspects. What I regret, however, is the damage our advanced Western-style civilisation has done to the biosphere. Do you not find it depressing that we are candidly discussing the chances that humanity will cause the destruction of the very processes of nature that sustain it? The forces of destruction are largely fuelled by greed, which is arguably not a merit of civilisation. Technology allows us to exploit more of our resources and overpopulation places growing demand for that technology. Our growth is constrained by a limited quantity of exploitable resources as we only have one planet, but our economy collapses without perpetual growth. I have no problem with civilisation per se, but I do have a problem with our collective blindness. To quote from the original post:

       The world revealed by their research is a devastated landscape, barren of vegetation and scarred by erosion from showers of acid rain, huge "dead zones" in the oceans, and runaway greenhouse warming leading to sizzling temperatures.

       Is this not similar to the dangerous climate we are heading for, unless we change our carbon trajectory? Is this not the by-product of our greed-based economy? Yes, the sun will destroy Earth in some billions of years, but humanity has the capacity to cause mass extinctions well before that time. What you call "self-destructive nihilism", I call pragmatism. To avoid the worst outcome, we have to change course quickly and drastically. Being a pragmatist, I don't believe the vested interests of humanity will change quickly enough, or drastically enough, to avoid very bad consequences.
63037. scaddenp at 09:33 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Sadly, this thread is the happy hunting ground for the wilfully ignorant. It's wasting time trying to teach those who are determined not to let facts undermine their fantasies.
63038. JMurphy at 09:24 AM on 27 February 2012
       Climate change models underestimate future temperature variability; food security at risk
       Living in London, I've been hearing and reading all about our drought over the last few weeks - supposedly the worst since 1976 (which was more down to a Summer heatwave), but seemingly we've had the driest two-year period in 90 years. Temperatures are also the highest in February over the last few days since 1998 - now, what was the global temperature that year ? No rain expected for the foreseeable future but, then again, Scotland seems to have had the 20% that we are down. However, we are still the lucky ones, even with all that, compared to those in places like Somalia mentioned in the article.
63039. Eric (skeptic) at 09:09 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       OK cover the Earth with a blanket (FULL CLOUD COVER) and see how cold it gets Venus?
63040. Stephen Baines at 08:47 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       DM Yes, I totally agree. Were the doubters to take measurements and do the actual science, they would find that the GHE is perfectly in line with thermodynamics. But they don't do the measurements and instead engage in endless obfuscation, which indicates that they are not actually serious about the issue. It is downright laughable that physicists would not 1) recognize that the 2nd law was contradicted and 2) would not do anything about it if they did. It's also downright depressing that this thread is going on 28 pages!!!
63041. logicman at 08:18 AM on 27 February 2012
       Climate change models underestimate future temperature variability; food security at risk
       Here in the UK we are having a drought. The declaration of drought in winter is unprecedented. "The South East of England recently joined a long list of regions in drought. On Monday 20 February, the Environment Secretary announced that the South East of England has officially moved into drought status. This is due to the combination of persistent dry weather and the continuing decline in groundwater levels and river flows and increasing the risk to public water supplies, agriculture and the environment. As a result Hampshire, West Sussex, East Sussex, Kent, Surrey, London, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, and the east of Gloucestershire are now in drought." UK Environment Agency Food prices likely to increase The Mayans - a lesson from history.
63042. Dikran Marsupial at 08:16 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Stephen Baines The back radiation is less than the heat radiated from the surface, so the net flow of heat is from warmer to cooler, so it evidently does obey the second law of thermodynamics. I suspect that the problem is that the common definition of the second law that crops up pre-dates statistical mechanics and concept of a photon, in which case it is perhaps understandable that it doesn't specify the net flow of heat (implying that there may be an exchange of energy, but that it is biased in the direction from warmer to cooler).
63043. Tom Curtis at 07:53 AM on 27 February 2012
       Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
       owl905 @9: 1) The flat lining of surface OHC gain, accompanied by a more rapid warming of the deep ocean did not start suddenly in the 00's. It is a periodic occurrence that has happened in at least two major prior episodes, and two minor episodes in the last fifty years: Consequently your assumption that the situation is remarkable is unwarranted. 2) Below 500 meters, the temperature gradients in the ocean are very small, being in the range of just 1 or 2 degrees C over several hundred, or even thousands of meters. Consequently small changes of temperature in the deep ocean can significantly change the temperature profile and hence the rate of heat transfer to the deep ocean: What is more, the effect can apply over very large areas so that a small change in the rate of heat transfer can add up to a lot of heat. 3) If you have an issue with this (and it certainly appears that you do), can I suggest that you discuss it on this thread where the issue is canvassed in depth, and where the relevant evidence is already presented.
63044. Stephen Baines at 07:25 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       I have to agree with Rob above. If there was some disagreement between the GH effect and the 2nd law, it would have been noticed by at least one of the thousands of scientists, all steeped in the Laws of Thermodynamics, who have studied some aspect of GHGs over the last 150 years. Instead of arguing about semantics and analogies, the doubters need to produce a reproducible experiment that can withstand peer review. The fact that haven't done so, despite the fact that it would yield a Nobel Prize, is telling.
63045. Stephen Baines at 07:03 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Mods...Sorry about the triple posts...thread didn't update properly. Delete accordingly.
63046. Stephen Baines at 06:58 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       YOGI What is the point of bringing up clouds? The blanket analogy is meant to explain the effect of greenhouse gases on loss of heat from the earth's surface. Clouds require a different analogy entirely, one that also accounts for changes to albedo or incoming energy. As Phil notes, in this analogy the absorption of solar energy by the earth's surface is the equivalent of heat released by the human body as a result of metabolism. Both the earth and the human body are open systems thermodynamically, although they receive energy in different forms. From that point of view atmopsheric GHGs and blankets act similarly, both reducing loss of heat generated by absorption of solar energy or metabolism. The analogy does break down eventually if you take it far enough, as all analogies do. For example, the human body actively alters its metabolism to maintain a relatively constant core temperature, while the earth actually appears to amplify variations in solar radiation. That makes calculation of equilibrium surface temepratures different in each case. But the point of the analogy is not to represent energetics of the earth system, but simply to make the GH effect tangible by relating it to common experience. The blanket analogy succeeds on that front.
63047. Sceptical Wombat at 06:55 AM on 27 February 2012
       Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
       Tom Curtis @6 All your points are well taken. However one thing that stands out to me is that the triangle at the bottom left of the diagram is remarkably similar to the one at the top right. That is is looks as if warming was accelerating to about 1940 then took a dive before accelerating again in the 1950s. Any comments?
63048. william5331 at 06:35 AM on 27 February 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       A positive feed back can also be limited by the cause running out. For instance, if all the methane of the Arctic permafrost rapidly enters the atmosphere due to the observed warming of high latitudes, this will cause a run away green house effect until it is all used up. Over a few decades, the methane will oxidize to Carbon dioxide which will reduce its effect. We could see some severe bounces in temperature which then decrease to a higher level than before the bounce. I wonder how many of us will be around following such a rapid change in our climate.
63049. Rob Honeycutt at 06:35 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       YOGI... This is the point where I usually suggest to "doubters" that they need to collect and publish their findings, if they can. To everyone else reading this, we accept the past 150+ years of research that makes up the basis for the greenhouse effect. This is established physics and is not in question by... well, by anyone really. You're incomplete understanding, and your desire to find some fault somewhere, is driving you into a circuitous pattern that has no end. If, somehow, someway, you managed to connect all your dots and come up with a theory that was complete it would literally mean re-writing the past 150 years of physics. You'll please excuse me if I suggest that the likelihood of this is extremely low, to the point of being a near impossibility. But if you want to try, knock yourself out. Outside of that you are clearly exhibiting a Dunning-Kruger effect and wasting everyone's time and energy.
63050. Rob Honeycutt at 06:23 AM on 27 February 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Daniel @ 1346... Actually, I think that's officially called the "He who must not be named" thread.

Prev  1253  1254  1255  1256  1257  1258  1259  1260  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  Next