Recent Comments

Prev  1351  1352  1353  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  Next

Comments 67901 to 67950:

67901. KR at 04:03 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Spherica, Tom, TOP - I introduced the term "radiative greenhouse effect" quite some time back in this thread - for the specific purpose of avoiding abuse of and confusion between convective (glass) greenhouses. I realize that's perhaps not a standard term, but I've found it useful in disambiguating the discussion. My apologies if it has been confusing. I would suggest continuing a practice of expanding acronyms the first time they are used. TOP - G&T's paper mostly consists of an extended and repetitive set of strawman arguments. They misrepresent the radiative greenhouse effect as the convective greenhouse effect, they misrepresent various energy transfers as the net transfer (heat), most clearly in their Fig. 32 (where they simply and distortingly do not show the full set of energy flows), etc. And once they have created these strawmen, they attack arguments that are not physical, and simply not made, by the scientific community. Add to that the near-Victorian language, the continual tone of 'scolding', and lots of irrelevant side trips such as the 8-10 pages of semantic games with the definitions of greenhouse effects, and G&T lack rigour, content, or any connection to reality. The entire paper is semantic games, rhetoric, and strawmen. Hence the multiple (and to date unmet) requests for you to identify something in the paper (other than semantic gaming) indicating some physical basis for objecting to the (radiative) greenhouse effect that G&T don't seem to actually discuss.
67902. Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP, I note that you haven't yet come up with some clear idea of what physical quantity your IR thermometer measures. The basis of G&T's obfuscation piece is to confuse people like TOP to think that heat, in the thermodynamic sense, is the same as energy. Energy can flow from the atmosphere to the surface, heat can not. Their game is made easier by the fact that the word is used with less care than it deserves in popular explanations. Nowhere in radiative atmospheric physics is there a sugggestion that heat flows from the atmosphere to the surface. Anyone who believes that will be fooled by G&T's game. I don't know how this paper made it through peer-review, it is of no interest whatsoever. I reiterate that G&T do not have a point. However, there is no shortage of individuals who are not really qualified, yet draw from it enough arrogance to go on pontificating that atmospheric physicists have it all wrong. That is why this thread was necessary, not because there is any substance in G&T.
67903. JoeTheScientist at 03:30 AM on 18 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Richard Arnett@30 "I thought that CO2 followed temperature by around 700 years." There is more than one mechanism at work causing the temperature increase associated with ice age terminations: Ice age termination is initiated by orbitally driven (Milankovich) increases in insolation. This insolation causes the initial leading temperature increase - the first mechanism. In ice sheets that have grown to a critical mass in terms of latitude and elevation extent, this temperature increase initiates runaway melting of the ice sheet. Said runaway melting dumps enormous amounts of fresh water into the oceans, which alters ocean circulation. Altered ocean circulation results in venting of the deep ocean - where atmospheric CO2 was being sequestered during the ice age - and releases it back to the atmosphere, causing the atmospheric CO2 increase associated with warm interglacial periods. This increased CO2 results in greenhouse warming which causes additional temperature increase above and beyond the insolation-driven energy balance. Thus, in this second mechanism, CO2 leads temperature. The additional warming due to CO2 greenhouse provides the additional boost needed to melt the entire North American and Euro-Scandian ice sheets. Insolation alone would probably not do the job.
       Moderator Response: [muon] Any follow up to this informative comment should go to the End of the Hothouse thread, which specifically deals with mechanism for the onset/termination of a glacial stage.
67904. Tom Curtis at 03:14 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP @1226, if you wish to discuss G&T's purported discovery that a particular definition of the Radiative Green House Effect (?) is a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, summarize their argument including quotes of the most important sections, including, most importantly, the definition they are challenging and the cited source of that definition. Failure to find a cited source of the definition probably establishes the definition to be a straw man. You should probably confine your argument to this point as it is only this point that is actually on topic on this thread (which is not a generalized refutation of G&T).
67905. Bob Lacatena at 03:05 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1223, Tom, Thanks. I hadn't reread the opening in a while, but you are right... the original point of the experiment was as stated, and the real problem is that the conclusion (amazingly) has little to do with the intended design. Wood sort of derailed there. But agreed, Wood is way off topic. This is best resumed by TOP, if he so chooses, after the Wood post is up on on that thread. That would be the right place for it. [Somehow, I now find myself dreading that day, however.] Am I right in thinking that TOP's use of the term RGHE refers to "radiative greenhouse effect?" (A term presumably created to distinguish it from "convective greenhouse effect?")
67906. TOP at 03:05 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1225 Tom I guess if definitions aren't important to science then G&T is pretty well meaningless. IIRC they are trying to avoid word play by defining what they mean very precisely. How can one talk about RGHE if it is not well defined? G&T studied fourteen IIRC definitions of the RGHE and found at least one of them to describe a "Perpetuum Mobile of the 2nd kind" which I take to mean they found that definition of RGHE to be a violation of the 2nd law in that it described a perpetual motion machine. And yes, I'm tired of hashing over Wood too. So much more to discuss.
67907. Tom Curtis at 02:48 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP @1224, heat may always only travel from hot to cold, but only if you use a very specific, technical definition of heat to mean "net thermal energy". Energy, including thermal energy can travel in any direction including from cold to hot. G&T employ the former technical definition in order to refute the second possibility (as indeed you are also doing). It amounts to empty word play and has nothing to do with real science.
67908. TOP at 02:40 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1210 RW1 If you read G&T carefully you will find out that they do not state that IR photons or any other photons emitted by a gas do not travel in straight lines to whatever they are then stopped by. In fact they, as physicists who have published on quantum physics they have quit a nice explanation of how photons are involved in the transfer of heat both in conduction and radiation. Where they G&T disagree with you is in your definition of RGHE that, IIRC, you say requires heat to flow from the colder CO₂ in the atmosphere to the ground. I believe G&T would use the term "Perpetuum Mobile of the 2nd kind" for what you are describing as your description of RGHE seems similar to one of the definitions they took exception to. Photons from the atmospheric gases (let's include all species here) can go in any direction but heat always flows from hot to cold. It is the basis for radiative heat transfer as described in G&T.
67909. Tom Curtis at 02:39 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Sphaerica, I may have misunderstood you but you appear to say that the purpose of Wood's experiment was to disprove the greenhouse effect. That is not correct. Rather, it was to show that actual greenhouses (made from glass) where warmed by preventing convection rather than by the radiative effects of the glass. As he said in his article:

       "THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents."

       Wood's experiment does in fact demonstrate exactly this point, ie, that physical greenhouses in fact prevent convection from carrying heat away from the surface, and thereby raise the temperature. However, he goes on to say:

       "Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions. I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar."

       However, that was not the ostensible purpose of the experiment, and nor does it follow from the results he obtained. Like many a denier since, Wood has simply misinterpreted his own result. What is more, his experiment is clearly irrelevant. The greenhouse effect was deduced by an imbalance between the temperature of the Earth's surface, and the temperature the Earth' surface needed to be to balance the incoming solar energy with outgoing IR radiation. Because the effect is calculated and predicted purely from the physics of radiative transfer, the fact that convection cannot carry energy into space can in no way undermine the theory. So while it is in principle possible to falsify the greenhouse effect, it is not in principle possible to do so using Wood's experimental design, and that is exactly because it allows as a significant method of heat transfer a means (convection) which is precluded in space. (It is in principle possible to refute the greenhouse effect with a similar experiment as described in my 1213, although the performance of such an experiment would bitterly disappoint deniers everywhere.) It follows from this that all discussion of Wood's experiment is a red herring, something you already appreciate. All it shows of relevance is what everybody admits, that the "greenhouse" analogy is inexact. Finally, I understand your frustration with TOP. All he seems to do is waffle on vaguely, misrepresent the opinions of others and never get to any substantive point. I heartily recommend that further discussion of Wood's experiment be declared off topic on this thread, and that TOP be required to answer your very reasonable question at 1219. His failure to do so, I think, would be clear evidence that his only purpose here is trolling.
       Moderator Response: [muon] Indeed. This thread is about the 2nd law of thermo, not about boxes or greenhouses. Wood's experiment is off-topic.
67910. TOP at 02:22 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1218 Sphaerica You haven't answered my point. I did read 1175

       First, the purpose of the Wood experiment is not to "determine whether radiation or convection controls the temperature of the air inside the box." The purpose is to determine whether or not in a system where convection is not present radiation alone will have the capacity to control temperature in the boxes.

       In the context of both Wood and G&T the convection was with the bulk outside atmosphere. G&T also made that clear with their discussion of the warming of a car interior with closed windows. Anyone knows that convection will occur inside any closed, gas filled container with a temperature differential and gravity. Of course in such a small box, convection will soon come to a halt as the enclosed gas reaches an even temperature. Your comment is obfuscation and a lack of taking the experiment in the context in which G&T offered it. The term RGHE was not coined by me, I just contracted it from "Radiative GreenHouse Effect". It was coined on this thread by someone else and such contractions are commonly used here. If you don't read the thread as you accuse me of doing, what can I say? G&T also proposed using a different term, "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and low and behold, what do you know, it is the first that phrase that occurs in the abstract quoted as the SoD here. G&T don't support their assertions? Did you read the paper?
67911. Bob Lacatena at 02:00 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1220, TOP,

       the point being tested in the experiment was that greenhouses function by preventing convection

       No. You misunderstand, and this is why you can't get past the Wood experiment. How in the world could GHG's "block convection"? Scientists know that convection contributes to the behavior of the atmosphere. Why would this factor be ignored? As far as the way a real greenhouse works... that's silliness. Of course GHGs don't work exactly the same way. It's an analogy! It's used to introduce a complex concept to people before getting into the nitty grity. If your issue is that the word "greenhouse" is inappropriate (as with G&T) then you are wasting everybody's time! And please stop saying "RGHE". What the heck is "RGHE?"
67912. Steve Case at 01:57 AM on 18 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       http://www.skepticalscience.com/glacier-update-0809.html#70066 "Although reliable figures are often missing, considerable detrimental changes due to shrinking glaciers are universally expected for water availability in river systems under the influence of ongoing global climate change. We estimate the contribution potential of seasonally delayed glacier melt water to total water availability in large river systems. We find that the seasonally delayed glacier contribution is largest where rivers enter seasonally arid regions and negligible in the lowlands of river basins governed by monsoon climates. By comparing monthly glacier melt contributions with population densities in different altitude bands within each river basin, we demonstrate that strong human dependence on glacier melt is not collocated with highest population densities in most basins." Most needs to be defined, but that says that most people don't rely on glacier melt water. And where it does if it does, it all boils down the difference in melt rate between ice and snow.
       Moderator Response: [muon] 'Most' does not need to be defined here. Please do not attempt to bog a discussion down in such pedantics (defined as 'excessive concern with formalism and precision').
67913. TOP at 01:55 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1215 Sphaerica I'm going to have to break the rules with the moderator's indulgence (-snip-)
       Response:

       [DB] This is tedious.  Your entire agenda revolves around presumption (as defined by your repetitive use of the word seems): presumption of posts you have not read nor understood in their entirety, presumption of what other people are saying without clearly asking them, presumption of what the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases actually is and presumption of just how much leeway you will be given in your prosecution of your agenda.

       An agenda which, in the absence of substantive points by you (and failing to answer the repeated clear questions of others) devolves to wasting everyone's time here.

       Get to the point, clearly and without dissembling, or cease.

67914. Bob Lacatena at 01:54 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1216, TOP, I asked a simple question in comment 1208 and you ignored it. Again, this discussion goes no where if you simply choose to ignore things that are presented to you. I will not waste my time jumping from point to point and simple repeating the same things over and over. To repeat: G&T spend a lot of time making assertions, but do not support them. Most of their assertions and the vast bulk of their diatribe consists of pointless word games and not science. Please identify some scientific or mathematical observation that you believe is demonstrated by G&T and which you are not on your own able to discount or untangle. Please identify some way in which G&T "prove" that greenhouse gases do not work as the rest of the scientific world understands and accepts.
67915. Bob Lacatena at 01:50 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1216, TOP,

       Are you saying that it did not in fact show that real greenhouses work by blocking convection cooling and not radiation trapping? That was what was being tested in the experiment.

       No. That is not what was being tested. You misunderstand the experiment. I explained this to you already in comment 1175. [As an important side note, if you are going to demonstrate that you either do not read or completely ignore responses to you, then this conversation is a waste of everyone's time. The tactic of simply repeating the same thing over and over as if your points have not been refuted is common and unacceptable. If you simply missed my response I apologize, but I have no time for games.] The purpose of the experiment was to determine if infrared radiation could be "trapped" and slow the cooling process. To do this, the system attempted to control convection and all other factors so that they would be the same in both environments. The only difference in the two setups should have been the ability to emit IR (which would be blocked in one case). The setup failed in this regard. Convection and other factors were unrecognized, so that they warmed the glass plate and the rock-salt plate equally, causing it to emit IR and creating no difference . I have no idea what "RGHE" is. Please don't define your own acronyms and then use them as if they are common place.

       The IR thermometer I have is not capable of registering any significant back radiation from the green house effect.

       I don't know how in the world you get this. This is very simple. We'll work with an analogy. Everyone is in a crowded gymnasium, trying to get an autograph from someone famous at one end. Thus, most of the people are crowded at that end. There are less people milling around in the middle of the gym and almost no one at the far end. One person there is your friend, who has already gotten his autograph and is waiting for you. You are right next to the person signing autographs. The noise there from all of the people clamoring for autographs is deafening. You turn your ear in the direction of your friend to listen to see if he is calling you. What you hear is an ear-splittling cacophony. Based on your logic, you conclude that your friend is able to speak incoherently and deafeningly with several hundred voices at one time. Lets go back to GHG. The air near the surface is far more dense than the stratosphere. The number of CO₂ molecules is far higher. The air near the surface is also far warmer. As such, the amount of IR being emitted by the air around you is far, far greater than the IR being emitted by the stratosphere above, and that IR in turn has layer upon layer of intercepting greenhouse gases between it and you. You have no chance of measuring the IR emissions of the stratosphere from the surface of the earth, because it will be masked by the IR emissions of the entire atmosphere, bottom to top, in between.
67916. TOP at 01:33 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1214 Philippe G&T don't have a point? Apparently they have some kind of point that needs addressing or this thread wouldn't exist. G&T made the assertion from basic physics that the concept of radiative balance is meaningless. They are well qualified to make this assertion in peer reviewed literature and have published on climate related issues on other topics. It is the assertion that they made regarding the concept of "radiative balance being bad physics" that I would like to see an answer to here. You can't just brush that off by saying they are wrong. And no, muon's graphs don't answer the assertion but are to be interpreted by the physics they assert are true. I'll have to check whether Halpern made a rebuttal to this point in his response to G&T. But I don't remember seeing it.
67917. TOP at 01:20 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1209 Sphaerica So if what you are saying is true about the blocking of the back radiation was the true reason the glass windowed box in Wood's (1909) experiment had a lower temperature rise rate, then if the boxes were pointed at right angles to the sun, the box with the IR transparent window should also show a higher rate of temperature rise assuming that it started at a lower temperature. After all the CO₂ that is radiating this back radiation is all around us. Sorry, I missed the flaw in the Wood experiment. Are you saying that it did not in fact show that real greenhouses work by blocking convection cooling and not radiation trapping? That was what was being tested in the experiment. I have half a mind to try to repeat the experiment using DOE methods. Turns out that rock salt windows are commercially available in optical grades at reasonable prices. Now you made a statement that my IR thermometer was possibly measuring the IR from the RGHE when I pointed it skyward. I did a further experiment with the IR thermometer to see if it was in fact measuring any back radiation from RGHE. It does not. The experiment was simple and I will describe it here: Using the flame of a common household propane torch as a source of IR from a visible flame composed primarily of H₂O and CO₂ at several thousand degrees F measure the flame temperature by pointing the IR thermometer at the flame 6 inches from the torch nozzle and slowly move the detector down the flame towards the source until the IR thermometer is pointing at the nozzle of the torch. Results: Some small temperature increase over background (75F vs 55F room background) from the flame until reaching the metal nozzle at which point the temperature reading jumped to 400F. Discussion of Results: Either the handheld IR thermometer measures a lower temperature than the actual gas temperature because the IR emitted by the high temperature gases was not in the narrow band specific to the semiconductor device or the emissivity of the high temperature gases was so low that the detector could not pick it up (this instrument not having a correction for emissivity available) and of course remembering that T&G don't believe the term emissivity can be applied to the radiation from gases at all as that applies to black body radiation which is not the radiation coming from a gas (no it isn't a different kind of photon, it is a different kind of geometry). Further refinement of the experiment: An aluminum reflector was placed behind the flame and the temperature measured increased significantly, but still nowhere near the actual flame temperature. Conclusion: The IR thermometer I have is not capable of registering any significant back radiation from the green house effect. We'll leave that to the folks who made muon's graphs. RGG emit IR in a very narrow band and require expensive instruments to detect. My IR thermometer was likely just indicating the low end of it's range when pointed at clear sky and the temperature of the moisture in the clouds when pointed at the bottoms of clouds. Note: The IR handheld did detect the correct temperature of hot water which means it should detect water droplet temperature.
67918. Tom Curtis at 00:34 AM on 18 December 2011
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       skept.fr @20, I welcome the return of the fact based focus which have made your posts such enjoyable reads for me, with the exception of certain recent departures. I appreciate your excellent summary of the situation. I find little to disagree with, and nothing fundamental. My only quibble is with your claim that peak production of gas inevitably means "exploding market prices". Price increases are effectively limited by the price of the nearest effective substitute. For gas this may be supposed to be some combination of renewable energy on the assumption that, renewable energy in 2050 will be cheaper in real terms per kilowatthour than currently, and that in 2050, carbon prices will make coal too expensive. In that circumstance, rising prices associated with peak production will just drive energy supply across to renewable (or nuclear) energy. If Renewable Energy is already cheaper than gas per kilowatthour, there may well be no price increase with peak production, but only a retreat into specialist uses such as the Haber-Bosch process in which gas retains a competitive advantage.
67919. skept.fr at 00:10 AM on 18 December 2011
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       OK, as I first did in #16, let’s keep on a science-based discussion and avoid OT futilities. I will discuss here the different proposals of your text. SkS : ‘Of course in an ideal world, renewable sources would meet all of our energy needs.’ We must first precise that is not an ‘ideal’, but a necessity. No civilization can be founded on non renewable resources like fossil fuels, and it is extremely likely the actual 80% fossil world energy mix would lead us to an energy, climate and economy collapse during this century. Even for a layperson blind to deleterious climate change, the dependency of our economy and society to fossil fuel is to be viewed as a highly risky bet. There is no consensus between experts on the total amount of recoverable quantities of fossil sources (eg Höök 2010, Chiari 2011) and some analysts (for example Lipson 2011) even suggest our current recession is partly due to a too high depedency to fossil energy sources (notably already-depleted conventional oil) and their high volatility prices (also of interest Jin and Fan 2011 on commodity effect, Chen 2010 on bear market trend, etc.). All that is subject to debate among specialists (see Segal 2011 for an example of counter-interpretation), but it would be at least unreasonable to plan the long term development of humanity and welfare of future generations on such a fragile socle. For a more precise example, as SkS mentioned the gas as a possible and less pollutant than coal part of baseload power during the coming transition, in a recent estimate of gas ultimately recoverable resource ( Mohr et Evans 2011) comparing six scenarios with different assumptions, gas production should peak between 2025 and 2066 at 140–217 EJ/y. As a production peak implies an exploding market price, with deleterious effect on economy and society, and as energy transition are decades-long challenge, we can rely partly on gas for the first part of the century but our energy targets for 2050 and beyond should by no way include gas as an inexhaustible resource it is not. Of course, when present and projected climate externalities of fossil use are integrated, the probability of collapse (at least sustained recession and associated problems) is even higher because part of our precious but rare energy will be devoted to costly adaptations to climate change, rather than to productive activities. So, the ‘precautionary principle’ as well as the physical limits of resources indicate that a renewable-based energy mix will be a necessity for this century, not jus an ideal. One of the SRREN 2011 robust conclusions is that even for scenarios without ambitious climate targets, the part of RE in the primary energy supply is planned to increase in coming decades for all models. And of course, the more ambitious our climate targets, the more fastly RE will penetrate the energy system. I think there is no reasonable objection to these basic facts. As most REs have lower known externalities than fossil or nuclear sources, and as they can supply the long term goals necessary to all human society, the only objections to a large deployment we can meet in literature is either the relative cost (economical objection) or the large-scale feasibility (technical objection). The point of this SkS article is the second family of objections, and I’ll make some further observations about each RE.
67920. mspelto at 23:06 PM on 17 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       Shrinking is not quite the right word for the annual mass balance losses that are the focus of this bulletin. Shrinking will occur with ongoing mass balance losses and this makes 22 straight years of global mass balance loss, and we thought Chrysler and Greece needed a bailout. The loss of a glacier is just no longer unusual. It could be the Swiss, Cavagnoli Glacier or the Milk Lake Glacier in Washington today we have had to publish a model for forecasting glacier survival (Pelto, 2010)
67921. Tom Curtis at 22:48 PM on 17 December 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1, clearly you do not understand. What determines the strength of the greenhouse effect is the difference in the energy as it is radiated to space from energy radiated from the atmosphere, and the energy that would have been radiated from the surface in the same spectral band with no atmosphere. Therefore, the thing which determines the strength of the greenhouse effect is the temperature of the gas or cloud top which radiates to space relative to surface temperature, not the temperature of any intervening cloud top or gas which may absorb IR radiation in the same spectral band. The consequence of this is that in the band of strongest absorption (and emission by CO2), it contributes almost all of the greenhouse effect when compared to low lying cloud or water vapour. It will still contribute most of the greenhouse effect over medium level cloud. Over high cloud, the effect will be similar, depending on the cloud. Consider the spectrum below taken over the Sahara. It was taken on a day with high humidity as can be seen by the strong H20 signal in the spectrum. From the temperature difference between the black body curve of the surface (320 K) and the water vapour bands (280 K) we can tell that the effective altitude of emission to space from water vapour was about 6 Km, approximately the boundary layer between midlevel (alto) clouds and high level (cirrus) clouds. The effective altitude of emission to space of the CO2 is approximately 15 km is this case, which is also approximately the altitude of the tropopause. The important regions of the chart for this discussion are the yellow and green areas. The yellow area is approximately the area of overlap between the absorption/emission spectrum of the water vapour and the CO2. The absorption band of water vapour weakens in that area, so that in the absence of cloud and CO2 the H2O absorption/emission band would in fact slope up to 320 K within the yellow area, so that the yellow area overstates the greenhouse effect of water vapour in the area of overlap. Of course, solid cloud tops of that temperature would result in a spectrum following the 280 K black body line except for a trough in the green area, and an ozone peak from the stratosphere. Importantly, that means that in either case, the green area represents a contribution to the greenhouse effect which exists regardless of the presence or absence of H2O, either as water vapour or clouds. More importantly, in the complete absence of water vapour or clouds, the CO2 trough would have occupied almost the entire area of both the yellow and green zones. In this situation, the most accurate description is that in the area of overlap, CO2 contributes the entire greenhouse effect, as CO2 would have contributed all of that effect regardless of whether H2O was present or not. There are circumstances in which CO2 actually counters the greenhouse effect of very high clouds. There are also circumstances in the Antarctic winter in which CO2 contributes an anti-greenhouse warming effect. Consequently it is wrong to assume that the globally averaged effect of CO2 with water vapour present is the same as its globally averaged effect without water vapour present. But none-the-less, CO2 contributes a substantial part of the greenhouse effect in the spectral band where CO2 and H2O emissions overlap, and therefore best estimates place the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect at about 20%, with a further 5% coming from other well mixed green house gases (O3, CH4, NO2, etc). Therefore your persistent claim that CO2 contributes 10% or less of the greenhouse effect is just false. Finally, I note on rereading your posts that you continually claim that half of absorbed radiation is emitted upward to space, while half is emitted downward to Earth. For a layer of atmosphere thin enough to have approximately the same temperature through its entire thickness, this is true, but it is not true of the atmosphere as a whole as can be easily determined by looking at the diagram @273. That you should think so suggests you continue to use a single slab model of the atmosphere to guide your thinking. Such models are false representations of the atmosphere,and only used in climate science as instructional tools to introduce more complex models with (in typical cases) around 20 layers. Using a single slab model reduces the atmosphere to a 2 dimensional shell, making my comment @275 exactly correct. Please take due note of the Trenberth et al diagram, and of the explanation above, and allow some reality into your model of the atmosphere.
       Response:

       [DB] Note:  This comment was inadvertently deleted and has been reinstated.  Apologies.

67922. John Russell at 20:50 PM on 17 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       There is more info and a more up to date picture of the Chacaltaya glacier here. Last time I was in Chile, the issue of reducing glacial run off from the Andes was becoming very important for agriculture as it accounts for most of the irrigation required on the coastal plain to the west. I would guess it has similar effects to the east where glaciers feed the headwaters of some of South America's major rivers. A good summary here.
67923. oneiota at 17:11 PM on 17 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       @1 What are the specific issues arising in California? The "flow-on" effect (forgive the pun) of glacier retreat whilst not particularly on the topic is an interesting one. I guess it is where science will inform policy. I'm aware that one of the howling points raised by the doubters has been the IPCC's assessment of numbers of people who could be affected by loss of melt water from glaciers. There is a recent paper: Contribution potential of glaciers to water availability in different climate regimes that attempts to correlate dependence on melt water with population density: "Although reliable figures are often missing, considerable detrimental changes due to shrinking glaciers are universally expected for water availability in river systems under the influence of ongoing global climate change. We estimate the contribution potential of seasonally delayed glacier melt water to total water availability in large river systems. We find that the seasonally delayed glacier contribution is largest where rivers enter seasonally arid regions and negligible in the lowlands of river basins governed by monsoon climates. By comparing monthly glacier melt contributions with population densities in different altitude bands within each river basin, we demonstrate that strong human dependence on glacier melt is not collocated with highest population densities in most basins." This sort of study will hopefully help the IPCC sharpen its pencil in this area.
67924. Bob Lacatena at 17:06 PM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1212, skept.fr, The Wood experiment was poorly designed, and due to its flaws it proves nothing one way or the other. SkS will have a post on it (hopefully) soon, as a matter of fact, but for the basic synopsis see my previous comment on this thread. I don't believe the falsification exists in the peer reviewed literature, just because it's so old (and the experiment itself was never peer reviewed, either). Everyone knows that it's wrong. Refuting it would be rather like writing a peer reviewed paper to refute Ptolemaic model of the solar system. It's just not necessary.
67925. Riduna at 15:58 PM on 17 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       It would be interesting to know how deterioration of glaciers is effecting human populations and their agriculture. We know that contraction of glaciers on the Sierra Nevada is causing competition between urban populations and Central Valley agriculture in California. Is this evident elsewhere?
67926. Philippe Chantreau at 15:02 PM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       There is nothing to address. G&T do not have a point. They play on words, trying to describe something for what it is not and then attack it. G&T is the ultimate strawman. That you can be fooled by it indicates that my assessment is accurate.
67927. Tristan at 13:24 PM on 17 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       Yes, that's the paper. Unfortunately I don't have the scientific background to eloquently describe how bad it is.
67928. Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 17 December 2011
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       skept.fr @18: 1) Reference to "poisoning the water" or "poisoning the wells" is reference to a rhetorical tactic, and hence is a comment on your methods, not your motives. What is more, as you apply similar (and inaccurate) methodological claims about myself (see your point 3), and have directly questioned other commentors motives in other threads, your challenge here is hypocritical to say the least. 2) The [r]Evolution scenario was widely, and unjustifiably, attacked based on its authorship at the time of release of the SSREN report for political reasons. I have extensively argued against that attack both here and on the blog of Mark Lynas, the author the Nature Climate Change article to which you refer. Applying Lynas' implicit standard that employees of, and papers commissioned by, advocacy groups should automatically be excluded IPCC processes is unsustainable both because it excludes some work of genuine quality, and because a similar standard is not applied (and could not be applied) to industry groups, notably fossil fuel industry groups. 3) You said in the Farenheight 451 thread:

       "[KR] I think renewable energy development can be a definite win-win scenario [skept.fr] I already gave above the numbers from IPCC SRREN 2011 concerning real capacities of RE in 2050 according to the median estimate of energy-economy scenarios. So you have to be specific : in a 450 ppm target in 2050, RE are planned to likely produce something like 250EJ/y, half of what we need now for 7 billion (500 EJ), not to say what we will need tomorrow for 9 billion."

       The context of that discussion was your challenge to the pausibility of achieving a 450 ppmv target, which you then when on to so sarcastically describe. I note that the various SSREN scenarios all allow for an increasing population and ongoing third world development. As the entire basis of your argument against a 450 ppmv target is that it is incompatible with population growth and third world development. Given that you purport that we should accept the IPCC conclusions (at least whenever they agree with you), then we ought also to accept the conclusion that a 450 ppmv target is consistent with ongoing population growth and third world development. There is therefore, no straw man here of my construction. I see that you have been picking a lot of cherries, however.
67929. skept.fr at 12:01 PM on 17 December 2011
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       #17 Tom 1) SkS Comments Policy indicates : 'You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives' So please, stick on that and stop with insulting metaphor like "Your attempt to poison the water". My point above was informative and IPCC-based. I don't want to lose time with endless over-interpretations of each of my word here. 2) You call "pick out" some informations that have been widely discussed, notably in Nature Climate Change. So I suppose my "pick out" is nor more that information for readers from the science news on climate. Every one can read here and here this debate about the SRREN 2011. Of course [r]Evolution is eligible to SRREN (it has been!) as are the fossil-funded scenario I mention on my comment. And in a previous comment in the WEO2011 discussion, I speak of Dr Teske as a scientist and lead author of SRREN 2011 (that is of course compatible with the fact that the [r]–Evolution model Dr Teske manages is an order from EREC-Greenpeace). 3) As far I remember, I've quoted these data in the IEA WEO2011 discussion not for "proving" the 450 target cannot be sustained (our point). Here is what I actually said : Unless you cherrypick optimistic models (exactly as some persons cherrypick optimistic CO2 sensitivity, but they are not serious for that reason), you have a higher probability of modest contribution of RE in the future energy mix : about 50% of the primary energy we consume now, but in 2050 there will be 9 billions humans to feed, heat, educate, etc. and we hope in better conditions than now. Most of these models depend on nuclear, biofuel, CCS coal, etc. Another strawman from you : I said exactly what I say here, quite in different terms, 248 EJ/y from RE is half our current production, most scenarios rely on nuclear, CCS, etc. 4) "What is lacking is not the ability but the political will" You can perfectly defend this personal and general interpretation, that was not my point. I just give some results from SRREN 2011, informative for anyone is interested in the energy conditions of climate mitigation.
       Response:

       [DB] "stop with insulting metaphor like "Your attempt to poison the water""

       Straw man.  Tom criticizes your methods, not your motives (as your quotation from the Comments Policy clearly points out).  No style points here are awarded for rhetorical techniques employed.

       In the future, please better adhere to the Comments Policy yourself rather than attempting to use it to chastise others.  And sticking to facts and citable sources from the peer-reviewed literature will better support your position instead of snark and sarcasm.

67930. Tom Curtis at 11:57 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       skept.fr @1212, the 2009 paper is a good catch, and thanks for the h/t. However, it is possible to perform a "classroom" demonstration of the greenhouse effect. To do so you require two sealed boxes, with transparent lids. One should be transparent to IR radiation, while the other should be opaque to IR radiation. Both boxes should be evacuated (contain a vacuum) to prevent convection. Further, there should be a transparent, IR absorbing filter with a low emissivity film on the side away from the lamp to screen out IR radiation equally from both boxes. The low emissivity film is necessary because otherwise the filter will itself radiate IR, which is then not properly controlled for. It may also be necessary to evacuate the space between the "lid" and the filter to avoid convective cooling of the lids with outside air. The experiment could be performed with "lids" consisting of two IR transparent plates with the space between filled with CO2 and Argon (or Nitrogen) respectively, however, I believe the gas would need to be at substantial pressure, or the apparatus very large, to detect a significant effect in this case.
67931. skept.fr at 11:23 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       #1209 Sphaerica : "As has been explained, the Wood experiment is flawed. You cannot take it to be a model for anything, or make any inference from it." Sorry, I'v not read the all thread, but I used to read Greenhouse was not a good analogy, notably because of Wood's experiment, even here for example in France in this (rather prestigious and totally 'mainstrem') ENS popularization website for teachers and laymen. This 2009 paper seems to replicate similar results, albeit with a more complex experiment, than Wood (who is quoted on 10). (To prevent any fanciful interpretation, the authors precised: "Our results apply only to the interpretation of classroomscale demonstrations; they do not call into question the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate or existing models of those phenomena.") So, finally, is there a replication / falsification of Wood's experiment in PR literature? Maybe it has been mentioned previously, but the 1200 posts are discouraging... Thanks for information.
67932. Composer99 at 11:17 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       RW1: Thank you for pointing that out. It sometimes feels like it's not often that climate science skeptics will so clearly call out basic errors on the part of other skeptics.
67933. Tom Curtis at 11:12 AM on 17 December 2011
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       skept.fr @16, I am having difficulty accepting the genuineness of your criticisms, which seem to be nitpicking and inconsistent: 1) Regarding EREC, that it is an industry body is clearly identified on the second page of the report linked above, so there is no concealment. Nor does it follow from the fact that it is an industry body that their scenario is unrealistic. If you have any specific criticisms of that report, and others relied on in the advanced article, you should make them. 2) Your preference for relying on the IPCC seems very inconsistent, and evaporates when doing so does not support your position (as I have shown on a previous thread). As a case in point, you quote the SSREN 2011 report as saying:

       "In scenarios that stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a level of less than 440 ppm, the median RE deployment level in 2050 is 248 EJ/yr (139 in 2030), with the highest levels reaching 428 EJ/yr by 2050 (252 in 2030)."

       (My emphasis) The clear import of these words is that scenarios in which Renewable Energy only constitutes 248 EJ/yr can meet a target of 440 ppmv (ie, inside the 450 ppmv guard rail). Yet you have quoted these figures from this report as proof that the 450 ppmv target cannot be met. If you wish to rely on the IPCC, then rely on the IPCC. Given your repeated mantra that we should only rely on the IPCC, your selective reliance shows you are pushing an agenda. 3) It is also noteworthy that you pick out as worthy of mention that the Advanced REvolution scenario was co-produced by EREC and greenpeace. In the first instance, that is incorrect. It was sponsored by Greenpeace and EREC, but it was produced by a number of scholars two of whom where employed by Greenpeace, but the rest of whom where academics. In the second instance you neglect the obvious point that it was accepted as a plausible scenario by the IPCC, including a panel with more members with commercial ties to the fossil fuel industry than those with ties to RE bodies, or activist organizations. In the third instance you neglect the fact that it was independently published in a peer reviewed journal. Your attempt to poison the water against this scenario is a further example of your inconsistency in reliance on the IPCC, which only appears when deployable as a rhetorical device in your arguments. 4) It is a simple fact that all existing power plants will exceed their current design life by 2060 at the latest, and most well before that. It is also a fact that renewable energy can currently supply energy at a cost that is only 2 to 3 times current costs using fossil fuels at most, and arguably current designs cost significantly less. Given that energy use represents a very small part of total GDP, and given the very large expenditures in our society on frivolities, there is no doubt that we have the technical capacity to meet nearly all our energy needs with RE by 2050 by the simple expedient of replacing obsolete plants with RE plants as the reach their designed age limit, and by ensuring all new plants are RE plants. What is lacking is not the ability but the political will.
67934. les at 11:07 AM on 17 December 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       I don't think it hurts them. Having lost the plot on the science front, they have nothing left but noteriety. Fame is like that. Addictive and done people will do anything to hold onto it.
67935. RW1 at 10:45 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       I have one question for those who think the GHE violates the second law: If downward re-emitted photons cannot travel from the colder atmosphere toward the warmer surface, how do the photons from the Sun travel through the colder upper atmosphere and reach the surface? Have any of you detractors of this ever felt the Sun's rays on your skin when you go outside?
67936. Tristan at 09:09 AM on 17 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       I'm looking for a comprehensive rebuttal of Sherwood Idso's 1998 paper. I heard that there was an issue of Climatic Change which served to do just that, but try as I might I couldn't locate it. Although it's pretty much guaranteed by the literature that his result for CS (0.4C) is wrong, I'm interested in a deconstruction of his methods. His paper consists of 8 simple experiments/analyses. I suspect any of the mods here could do it themselves (in their sleep with their pjs on backwards). Thanks in advance.
       Moderator Response: [muon] You're referring to Idso's CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change.
67937. skept.fr at 08:14 AM on 17 December 2011
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       In the "advanced" version of the text, you quote an European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)'s study. But EREC is an industrial lobby, as it is specified on their webite : "The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) came into existence in the year 2000, as the voice of the European renewable energy industry." You should inform your reader that there is conflict of interest in this case, because the 'EREC' denomination could suggest it is an independent or academic committee. More broadly, it is better to rely on IPCC report : SRREN 2011. First, informations are updated. Second, anyone familiar with energy literature knows that are lot of "scenarios" in publications, but to qualify them as "plausible" as you did for some is a value judgement quite difficult to found. If you look at the figure 9 of the SRREN SPM, you can see the best estimates of Global RE primary energy supply from 164 scenarios. This is a more clear, more large and so more robust information than selective case studies (and this is why, of course, IPCC reports are precious). The report states : "In scenarios that stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a level of less than 440 ppm, the median RE deployment level in 2050 is 248 EJ/yr (139 in 2030), with the highest levels reaching 428 EJ/yr by 2050 (252 in 2030)." (Note that he most optimistic scenario is co-produced by Greenpeace and EREC, previously mentioned, but some other scenarios used in this report are funded by fossil industry, not all scenario are from academic sources). The inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) of the RE supply in this most optimistic scenarios for climate mitigation (450 ppm target) is 180-320 EJ/y in 2050. Current primary energy production for 7 billon humans is 492 EJ (same source, year 2008). It has doubled from 1972 to 2008, as it can be observed in IEA key stats 2010 and it is expected to grow with demography and socio-economic development in emerging countries. Estimated population for 2050 is 8-10,5 billion persons according to the latest UN Population Division projection. The median-variant scenario, supposed to be the more likely, is 9,2 billion persons in 2050, a growth of 20% from now. So, the conclusion from IPCC SRREN 2011 report is that, for a large majority of energy scenarios, it is unlikely RE will be sufficient to cover all the energy supply/demand in 2050. Beside residual fossil use in the energy mix, these scenarios usually include nuclear and CCS (carbon capture and storage) so as to meet the 450 ppm target. They also rely on various assumptions on energy intensity gain in the coming decades so as to reduce the baseload demand (your first point on efficiency). These conclusions will of course evolve in coming years. As SRREN note : Enhanced scientific and engineering knowledge should lead to performance improvements and cost reductions in RE technologies. Additional knowledge related to RE and its role in GHG emissions reductions remains to be gained in a number of broad areas including: • Future cost and timing of RE deployment; • Realizable technical potential for RE at all geographical scales; • Technical and institutional challenges and costs of integrating diverse RE technologies into energy systems and markets; • Comprehensive assessments of socioeconomic and environmental aspects of RE and other energy technologies; • Opportunities for meeting the needs of developing countries with sustainable RE services; and • Policy, institutional and financial mechanisms to enable cost-effective deployment of RE in a wide variety of contexts. Knowledge about RE and its climate change mitigation potential continues to advance It must be finally noted that expected RE penetration doesn't imply necessarily all costs will decrease, as SRREN recalls : "As the penetration of variable RE sources increases, maintaining system reliability may become more challenging and costly. Having a portfolio of complementary RE technologies is one solution to reduce the risks and costs of RE integration. Other solutions include the development of complementary fl exible generation and the more flexible operation of existing schemes; improved short-term forecasting, system operation and planning tools; electricity demand that can respond in relation to supply availability; energy storage technologies (including storage-based hydropower); and modifi ed institutional arrangements. Electricity network transmission (including interconnections between systems) and/or distribution infrastructure may need to be strengthened and extended, partly because of the geographical distribution and fixed remote locations of many RE resources." As KR noted in #12, units are not systems, so the decarbonization of energy doesn't solely consist to add RE units.
67938. ribwoods at 08:11 AM on 17 December 2011
       Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
       Fred #52, A few month ago, for a different online forum, I examined a slightly earlier version ("More Than 650 ...") of Sen. Inhofe's presentation of that Marc Morano document. I examined just the first 23 scientist quotations given by Inhofe/Morano, and wrote: "What I'm going to do first is concentrate on one single category of elementary error, and show how frequently it appears in this anti-AGW document. The category is: AGW theory strawmen One of the elementary things a competent AGW critic needs to do is to at least correctly understand the AGW theory. I mean, isn't it fairly basic that when one is going to criticize a scientific theory, one ought first to understand what that theory says, and doesn't say? However, over and over and over in anti-AGW blogs I see folks supposing that AGW says "such-and-such", and then attacking that "such-and-such" -- but apparently without understanding that the AGW theory actually does not include the "such-and-such"! This is the rhetorical strawman device in action: Setting up something that is weaker (the "strawman") than the opponent's actual argument, then proceeding to demolish that instead of addressing the opponent's actual position. Now, it's not so unusual to see strawmen erected in great abundance in blog comments by the general public, but one would think that professional scientists would do better at avoiding that and sticking to the actual subject instead of some distortion. Further, one would expect that when a US senator collects statements by scientists, supposedly "debunking" the AGW theory, he would have his staff comb over the statements to be quoted, making sure that each one was a valid criticism, not a strawman attack, before publishing the quotes. But the document released by Inhofe does contain many "strawmen", each of which should not have been presented by someone who actually understood the AGW theory (and wanted to present a valid argument rather than an invalid argument). Here, I'll list some for you, showing how each one refers to an AGW strawman rather than the real, correct AGW theory. The quotes are from the Inhofe document. . . . That makes it 9 whole [strawmen] and 3 partials of 23." Yes, I easily found that half of the quotations that Inhofe/Morano led off with attacked rhetorical strawmen rather than actual AGW theory.
67939. Bob Lacatena at 08:05 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1197, TOP,

       In the Wood (1909) experiment, there was a small discrepancy in how fast the two boxes heated... So I jumped to the conclusion that if that was so...

       As has been explained, the Wood experiment is flawed. You cannot take it to be a model for anything, or make any inference from it. As far as the particular effect you describe, however, Wood himself recognized that particular problem and corrected for it (emphasis mine):

       When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate. There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures.

       To clarify, all that happened here was that the glass plate blocked incoming IR, and so that box warmed more slowly. One thing Wood got wrong, though, was that the bulk of the IR that was being blocked was not coming from the sun but rather from greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere (the same IR that you measure when you hold up your hand-held IR thermometer). So at that point it was actually the greenhouse gas effect that was interfering with his ability to prove or disprove the existence of the greenhouse gas effect!
67940. Bob Lacatena at 07:53 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP, G&T is a rambling diatribe of everything they could think of. I am really having a hard time finding any science in it at all. The only true science would be in section 3, but even that is mostly devoted to arguing against flaws in various greenhouse analogies (who cares?) and other things (like, as if anyone gives 2 [your-pick]s, "An Inconvenient Truth"). I had to get to page 47 before it hit any actual science, and then it did what most amateur attempts do, which is to repeat all of known science as if this is a text book, and they must walk the reader through every single foundation concept. Please help me. Find a statement -- a brief, scientific or mathematical statement, not a rambling load of arrogance -- that you believe sufficiently makes the case that the greenhouse gas effect violates the 2^nd law of thermodynamics. Please note that your two quotes from this comment of yours do not represent any sort of argument, but rather just ill-considered whining. There is nothing of substance in the statements. Please identify some scientific or mathematical observation that you believe is demonstrated by G&T and which you are not on your own able to discount or untangle.
67941. TOP at 07:34 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1206 Philippe Well the inability to make a reasoned point goes both ways. I haven't seen a reasoned discussion of the points that G&T made regarding the fundamental physics of RGHE, but rather comments about my own less than perfect grasp of the world, the universe and why taxes go up. Perhaps you can address G&T's claim that the concept of radiative balance wrt RGHE is nonsense. (-Snip-). (-Snip-).
       Response:

       [DB] Trolling snipped.

67942. Philippe Chantreau at 06:24 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP: "I am trying real hard to make a reasoned point" I'm not sure about that and even if it is true (one could find several different points you have tried to make, none of which is very impressive in terms of reasoning), that's part of the problem. You believe you have a point to make. I don't see that you have done the work to get to the level of understanding where that would be possible. Engage in serious study and your possible "points to make" will melt like snow under the sunshine of understanding. If I were you, sincere as you claim to be, I'd consider taking a course or two at a nearby college or even online.
67943. TOP at 05:56 AM on 17 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1200 pbjamm At some point the title of this blog got changed. Used to be about G&T's paper on the Falsification of the Greenhouse Effect. Same references. It has just been trimmed down to one quote out of that paper.
67944. SirNubwub at 05:51 AM on 17 December 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Bob Loblaw Crap...I said "land and air" and i should have said "oceans and air"....sorry.
67945. angliss at 05:27 AM on 17 December 2011
       Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
       dana1981 (#58): In my opinion, the portions of the summary I quoted indicate that the Douglass et al 2008 authors are calling into question whether or not any tropical tropospheric amplification has occurred since 1979. This implies to me that they're calling into question whether AGW is occurring at all and whether models have any predictive ability. Again, I feel that meets Jim's original criteria. You and Chris clearly disagree. Fair enough. My concern remains, however - given the small number of papers (~60) Jim identified, I'm simply concerned that the criteria were too stringent and kept out a number of what are, IMO, anti-AGW papers. I understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that someone will criticize where it was drawn wherever you draw it. I also understand that some papers will lie atop that line no matter where you draw it. But I think that applying stringent criteria in this case detracts from the conclusions and provides a point of contention that "skeptics" can use to minimize your conclusions. Less stringent criteria would likely still have made the point (that "skeptics" have almost no actual peer-reviewed papers) and yet left those "skeptics" less ground upon which the conclusions could be criticized. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
67946. Bob Loblaw at 04:00 AM on 17 December 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       SirNubWub: By the phrase "global warming has stopped" I mean "the total heat content of the global environment is no longer increasing". OK, so to further discuss this, if you are viewing the deniers positions (I intentionally use denier instead of putting "skeptic" in scare quotes) - choosing one metric (e.g. surface air temperatures) is wrong, because that is not a complete representation of the system. When you say "both land an air", that is still not complete, as it ignores deeper oceans. - there is still a disconnect between the concepts of "total heat content" and the changes in heat content due to atmospheric CO₂ increases. Total heat content depends on more than just CO₂ forcing. It is not unexpected to see total heat content decrease if other forcing factors besides CO₂ push things that way. To pretend that this disproves the warming effect of increasing CO₂ is to ignore the sound science that tells us that other factors do play a role. This is a major inconsistency in the deniers positions: on the one hand, they argue that climate science ignores factors other than CO₂ (they don't); while on the other hand they make an argument that doesn't make sense unless you do ignore other factors. (I think I should write this up and contribute it to the Contradictions page.) To deal with this latter issue (other factors affecting heat content will temporarily obscure the slow change forced by CO₂, you have two common ways of dealing with it: 1) take data over a long enough time that the short-term fluctuations cancel out (that's where the 17+ years argument comes in) 2) account for the short-term effects and remove them from the measurements, so that the long-term trend is easier to see. That were studies like Foster and Rahmstorf (as discussed on Tamino's blog come in.
67947. Rob Honeycutt at 03:35 AM on 17 December 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       SirNubwub... What you're describing is exactly what "Trenberth's Travesty" is all about. The work Kevin Trenberth does is, basically, doing a full accounting of where the heat energy is going within the climate system. The "travesty" he talks about is the fact that science is still so limited in its ability to track where that heat is going. We have top of atmosphere measurements that tell us the planet is retaining heat, but we primarily look at only one measure that directly relates to us, and that's surface temperature. So, when there is a slowdown in surface temperature, it's not because the Earth is retaining less heat energy, it's because the heat energy is moving around in places where we can't adequately measure it.
67948. DSL at 03:26 AM on 17 December 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       I believe it is, Les. And judging from the bizarrely overblown response from the denialati stormtroopers, I'd say the association of Tattersall with the theft hurt someone.
67949. muoncounter at 03:01 AM on 17 December 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       SNW: Thank you for a very reasoned response. There's a lot to learn; we all benefit from informed debate.
67950. muoncounter at 02:45 AM on 17 December 2011
       Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
       Eric, Dragic used DTR because it was something they could quantify and measure. See the comments and quoted section here. It is not that they 'only look for a DTR' a few days after the FD; that's when the DTR change showed up. The unanswered question is why it takes a few days; another example of the weakness of this whole idea.

Prev  1351  1352  1353  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  Next