Recent Comments

Prev  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  Next

Comments 68101 to 68150:

68101. Tom Curtis at 16:20 PM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP @1247: 1) Not only could, but clearly did. Their interpretation, as illustrated by figure 32 (page 78) is plainly absurd. 2) You have provided no explanation as to why you are relying on G&T as a source despite their obvious misinterpretations and equivocations. The only abbreviation of SoD that is relevant is "Science of Doom" an online science blog, and G&T are certainly not the Science of Doom. Nor is the fact that SoD discusses and eviscerates G&T justification for using it as a source. Quite the contrary. Finally, you have merely asserted that fridges do not violate the 2nd law, which they do not. Never-the-less, if I place water at 2 degrees C into my working freezer, it will fall in temperature to -2 degrees C, freezing in the process. In the meantime the excess heat released by my ice cubes will be lost from the heat exchange at the back of the fridge to the 30 degree C ambient atmosphere.
68102. TOP at 16:19 PM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1246 Tom Why not simplify even more? Using Trenberth as a reference point and taking the surface of the earth as the boundary within which we are accounting for heat: 396-333 = 63 W/m² radiative heat across boundary. Of that 63 W/m², 40 W/m² goes directly to space and 23 W/m² increases the heat content of the atmosphere from ground radiation. No confusion about heat flowing from cold to hot, no confusion at all by doing this simplification. And no chance for the 2nd law naysayers to squawk. It then makes it easier to put into perspective the effect of RGHG.
68103. EOttawa at 16:00 PM on 18 December 2011
       Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
       ahaynes @15 - I'm not sure what timeframe your reference about Lindzen defending his iris theory is from. However in an article in SEED magazine, An MIT climatologist's quixotic struggle against global warming science Lindzen's attitude was interesting: In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. “That was an old view,” Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. “I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this.”
68104. TOP at 15:54 PM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1243 Tom 1) I suppose G&T could have misinterpreted Stichel. 2) Why I am using G&T as a source? It is the SoD! Nowhere in a refrigerator or air conditioner do you find heat flowing from hot to cold. The cooling coils inside are always colder than the inside box and the radiator on the outside is always hotter than the outside air. The fact that work is being added by the compressor to change the working fluids volume is not a heat flow.
68105. jyyh at 15:50 PM on 18 December 2011
       NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
       Living on the 80% zone, I'd imagine this is for the loss of winter cold. Multimodel mean estimates at A1FI (was this the BAU?) of the zonal shifts in vegetation (where plants would prefer to be) http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/shifts.htm of course the CMIP5 studies are being done now so the picture may change quite a bit (for the projected precipitation changes f.e.) And of course multimodel ensemble is towards the conservative side for the inclusion/exclusion of the Arctic T estimates in the calibration period. Can't really imagine 80% of the trees around here changing to some other species over that time, but have considered planting the most southern species currently present in nearby areas.
68106. Tom Curtis at 15:48 PM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP @1244, it certainly is easier to say that: 1) Adding CO2 to the atmosphere reduces the net rate at which energy flows from the surface to the atmosphere, which 2) Cools the atmosphere, resulting in a reduction in the rate at which which energy flows from the surface and atmosphere to space, and 3) The additional CO2 also (and independently) reduces the rate at which energy flows from the surface and atmosphere to space; which 4) Results in the surface warming because the net rate at which energy leaves the surface has reduced while the rate at which energy enters the surface from the sun has remained the same; and that consequently 5) The increasing surface temperature (from 3) increases the net rate at which energy enters the atmosphere, thereby warming the atmosphere, and 6) therefore increases the energy leaving both the surface and atmosphere to space until the original balance of energy leaving for space is restored, with 7) both the surface and atmosphere being warmer in the final equilibrium condition than in the former equilibrium condition. There you have the entire greenhouse effect in a nutshell with no mention of back radiation, and no heat flowing from colder to warmer regions. It should be noted that the reduction in heat flow from surface to atmosphere is primarily through a reduction in convection the balance of which is restored in days, and further that the cooling that results in the atmosphere is concurrent with warming from preceding additions of CO2 in the atmosphere, so that given noisy data the signal of that initial cooling is undetectable. However, as soon as somebody asks, "How do you know? I must introduce the physics of radiation, and hence upward long wave radiation, and downward long wave radiation and all the other complexities you want us to avoid. If you want an account for children, then we can ignore back radiation. If not, we cannot.
68107. muoncounter at 15:17 PM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP#1244: "they are heated or receive heat of evaporation or fusion to be lifted up ... So by analogy why treat the "cold" back radiation any differently." You're kidding, right? Because there is no 'analogy.' Latent heat and convection are not radiative. Analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
68108. TOP at 15:05 PM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1241 muon I know. I added them up. Other than a little rounding the math is fine. Not saying anything about the math. I meant to say me and Trenberth. @1242 Sphaerica Follow it just fine. @1243 Tom In #3 you sort of get my point in 1239. Both sinking cold air and rain, snow or ice all have heat content when they reach the earth. It's just that they are at a lower temperature so when the cycle begins again they are heated or receive heat of evaporation or fusion to be lifted up in the atmosphere. So by analogy why treat the "cold" back radiation any differently. Why not just say that the net upward radiative heat flow to the atmosphere is 23 W/m²? It makes it a lot easier to put in perspective the effect of RGHG (Radiative GreenHouse Gases).
68109. MarkR at 13:15 PM on 18 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       10 Steve Case: Yes, that's true. Total precipitation is expected to increase. But as temperatures rise, regions currently near 0C will go above 0C, so see less snow. Also, the Hadley cells are expected to expand, meaning an extension of the try zones above and below the equator. So it depends on where you are!
68110. Tom Curtis at 11:35 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP @1231, Stichel's definition is a perfectly acceptable definition of the greenhouse effect, if somewhat abbreviated. However: 1) If you look at G&T's more detailed discussion of Stichel's definition, you can see that they have interpreted him as saying that the greenhouse effect takes heat from the stratosphere and moves it to the surface, thus warming the surface. Stichel did not say this, and this is just one of many bizarre misinterpretations by G&T. As an aside I will note two examples of their misinterpretation. In the definition by the German Meteorological Society (3.3.8, pp 40-1) it says:

       "in the infrared range of the spec- trum the radiation emitted form the ground is absorbed to a large extent by the atmosphere ... and, depending on the temperature, re-radiated in all directions."

       (My emphasis) to which G&T respond:

       "The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is rather obscure."

       (My emphasis) Well certainly it is obscure since it exists only in their interpretation, and is in direct contradiction to the claims of the German Meteorological Society. Later, in their response to Rahmstorf's definition (3.3.14 pp 43-4) G&T say:

       "Obviously, reflection is confused with emission."

       Perhaps, but the confusion is entirely on their part as Rahmstorf never mentions reflection. Indeed, G&T have again directly contradicted their source, for Rahmstorf he talks about:

       "... the portion of the long-wave radiation ... which is radiated by the molecules partly downward and partly upward."

       (My emphasis) Such blatant distortions of the views of those they criticize must make the work of a critique very easy, but also completely worthless. Returning to G&T's misinterpretation of Stichel, obviously a transfer of heat from the cold stratosphere (average temperature around -10 degrees C) to the warm surface would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It would also be completely insufficient as an source of the surfaces warming because of the relative heat capacity of the ocean and the stratosphere. It is also completely irrelevant to any sane discussion of the atmospheric green house effect as nobody proposes that as a mechanism of that effect. 2) The back radiation is a flow of thermal energy from a cold to a warm source. However, using a strict definition as, for example, is used by Philippe Chantreau's excellent comment @1229, and sometimes by G&T, it is not a flow of heat. Using that strict definition, "heat flow" is the net transfer of thermal energy between two points. That means (loosely*) that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states only that the net transfer of thermal energy between two points must be from the a hotter to a colder source. Because the 2nd law only talks about the net transfer way of thermal energy, it in not way prohibits transfers of thermal energy from the atmosphere to the surface. Further, as you can see from the energy balance diagram, the net thermal transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere. I note in passing that G&T only sometimes use the strict definition of heat. Indeed they frequently use that definition to justify the assertion that heat can never flow from a colder to a warmer location. However, in criticizing Rahmstorf's discussion of the 2nd law (section 3.9.3, page 78), saying:

       "Rahmstorf's reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of "net energy flow". The relevant quantity is the "net heat flow", which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redening the thermodynamic system on the fly."

       If you are using the strict definition of heat, then the term "net heat flow" is nonsensical. There cannot be a heat flow, both up and down at the same time in order for there to be a 'net heat flow' under that definition, so G&T's claim here is nonsensical. In fact what they have done is slipped into the common definition of heat to refute Rahmstorf while retaining the distinct and contradictory strict definition for the rest of you discussion. When you allow yourself such blatant equivocation, you can prove anything you like (including, in a favourite example from my childhood, that a penny is a shilling.) Given the way that G&T play loose with word meanings, and radically misinterpret their sources, they can not be relied on as an authority, or source of instruction in any way. Their paper is so bad that it could well constitute evidence of academic misconduct, and not just incompetence. I cannot understand why you are using it as a source. I note that G&T's first criticism of Rahmstorf over discussing energy ignores the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have been generalized to apply to all energy transfers. That Rahmstorf uses the physics of the 20th century, while G&T wish to restrict themselves only to the physics of the early 19th century is no valid criticism of Rahmstorf. (* I said loosely because fridges are a counter example to this definition, and hence to the definition as used by G&T, but not a counter example to the law as strictly stated.) 3) In nearly all instances of heat transfer by precipitation, the heat transfer is from the ground to the atmosphere. That is because when precipitation returns to the ground (as water in either solid or liquid form) it is typically colder than when it left it (as water vapour).
68111. Bob Lacatena at 11:17 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1240, Trenberth is fine. Thermals carry 17 W/m² up via warm air. That warm air is replaced by cooler, sinking air. Heat transfer is upwards only. Evapotranspiration puts 80 W/m² into water vapor (i.e. water that evaporates from the surface). It rises and condenses, releasing its energy as latent heat to the surrounding atmosphere, and then the water, now devoid of that transported energy, falls as rain. Heat transfer is upwards only. This is all, I think, fairly clear, and coincides with what I have already explained. Do you still not follow it?
68112. muoncounter at 11:14 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       TOP#1240: No fear, it's not Trenberth who's 'confused'. Run the numbers in that diagram again, they check.
68113. TOP at 11:01 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1239 Sphaerica Thanks for the link. I couldn't find the link to Halpern's January 25th material which G&T reference, but this will keep me occupied for a while. I assume most of what is here also found it's way into Halpern's refutation to G&T. Actually I don't know if was me or Trenbeth that was confused about latent heat and convection if you want to make a point of it. Look carefully at the diagram. Look just north of the Bering Straits.
       Response:

       [DB] "I don't know if was me or Trenbeth that was confused about latent heat and convection"

       You would have us choose between believing

       1. you are possessed of a well-spring of D-K (equating yourself the equal of a subject area specialist in climate science and then arrogantly saying that one of you is confused)
       2. you are simply trolling here to cause confusion and mayhem.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

68114. Eric (skeptic) at 10:59 AM on 18 December 2011
       There is no consensus
       #489, Jdey123, the scenarios in your link in post 488 represent different emissions scenarios not lack of consensus over the climate change models. If anything, there is too much consensus in climate models IMHO. The guesses get wider over the long term because they properly reflect uncertainty in unpredictable natural variations that increase over time. Here's a good explanation of the additive uncertainty http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.06.html introduced by lots of factors that each have their own uncertainty. Having a model that produces a number or a small range in a 100 year climate forecast is impossible.
68115. Bob Lacatena at 10:40 AM on 18 December 2011
       There is no consensus
       489, Jdey123, You posted a link that, combined with your interpretation of it, demonstrates that you don't understand how modeling or science work. Climate science is of course inexact due to the large number of variables and the difficulty in measuring them. As a result, predictions must cover a broad range. This does not devalue the predictions or imply a lack of confidence or understanding. You don't complain when the weatherman tells you it will rain tomorrow, but does not accurately predict that the first raindrop will arrive at exactly 3:37 PM. Your observations and complaints in three posts add no value. They advance nothing. They pretty much make you sound like you're really grouchy, and climate science is telling you something you'd rather not hear. That, in and of itself, is nothing new. Lots of deniers do it day in and day out. Do you have anything substantive and meaningful to post, or to ask?
68116. Jdey123 at 10:09 AM on 18 December 2011
       There is no consensus
       So I post a link which shows there's no concensus even amongst the warmists as to what the climate change model is, and muon claims that this is off topic. No scientist threatens to delete posts which don't fit with their view of the world, they seek to uncover the truth and present evidence that cannot be disputed. I don't know what the purpose of this site is but it certainly isn't interested in climate change science
       Moderator Response: [muon] We'll try again.
       Perhaps you could start by reading the original post, which deals with the idea of 'consensus' among scientists, not 'convergence' of climate models. Follow that by a thorough reading of the Comments Policy; if you cannot abide by that policy, your comments should indeed be deleted.
       The thread about modeling, if you care to have a look, is #6 on the 'Most Used Climate Myths.' Read and learn. Then start asking questions; you'll find most here are glad to engage in reasonable debate. However, if you are here to just throw around jargon, make unsupported claims and lecture about your views on 'uncovering the truth,' you're wasting everyone's time.
68117. Jdey123 at 09:54 AM on 18 December 2011
       There is no consensus
       http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/slides/05.02.htm. The link.shows that the IPCC do not have a concensus on how much the earth will warm in future. The claim by warmists is that they can't be expected to accurately predict temperature change in the short term, but judging from the graph, over the long term their guesses just get wider.
       Moderator Response: [muon] You seem to have missed the moderator's response immediately above. There is a thread dedicated to climate modeling; use the Search function or view the 'Most Used Climate Myths' to find it. While you're at it, view the Comments Policy.
       Note, too, that unsubstantiated claims such as yours carry little validity and make you seem as if you are not very well versed in this science. Use of terms such as 'warmist' doesn't help make your case either.
68118. Jdey123 at 09:48 AM on 18 December 2011
       There is no consensus
       I don't see any links in the majority of the posts on here. Are you claiming that there is only 1 model predicting climate change increase and this is agreed by all warmists? The fact is that a real scientist seeks the truth by creating a model that fits observed data and then checks it's accuracy against new data. There is no model that has managed to accurately predict climate change. All we have is a load of excuses that no model is accurate over a time period less than 30+ years. No explanation as to why a model should not be accurate over shorter timescales has been presented to the best of my knowledge.
68119. Bob Lacatena at 09:10 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1235, TOP, You might want to look here for more about G&T. But... Based on your posts, my feeling is: 1) Your own foundation in science, while not "poor," is incomplete. The fact that you were confused by latent heat and convection as a heat transport mechanism in the atmosphere, as well as what you were measuring with a handheld IR thermometer, suggests to me that you need to start from scratch. Find a text on atmospheric physics and read it (learning it, rather than assuming that it is full of errors that you can riddle out as you go). 2) The bulk of your objection seems to fall back on G&T, i.e. an appeal to authority, when in fact that particular "authority" is alone, contradicted by all of the other authorities available, and who themselves are not able to clearly articulate their own case.
68120. Bob Lacatena at 09:07 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1235, TOP, I didn't answer any of your questions in post 1233, I simply pointed out that your response about the section of G&T claiming that GHE represents a perpetual motion machine has no foundation. They offer no support. They point to section 3.9 which gives the standard discussion of thermodynamics and perpetual motion machines, but they never demonstrate how this relates to the GHE. For your questions: 1) I can't begin to tell you, because as you point out, the G&T comment is mere assertion without further explanation or support. They do so throughout the paper, which is why it is a waste of words. 2) Again, an unexplained G&T assertion, although I would clarify that "heat" is not exactly a "form" of energy. Heat and temperature are both useful quantifications (perceptions) of energy. To clarify, consider that when you touch hot pavement what you are sensing as heat is the rapid vibration of the molecules in your (solid) skin, as a result of the heat transfer from the pavement to your skin. Those vibrations are caused by a combination of the transfer of kinetic energy from the vibrations in the molecules of the pavement as well as IR emissions resulting from the relaxation of some of those vibrations. On the other hand, when you sense heat in the wind from a hair dryer, because you are dealing with a gas and not a solid, the vibrations in the molecules of your own skin are caused primarily by the velocity of molecules in the gas (and, again, by IR radiation, as well as possibly vibrations and rotations if the molecules are complex enough — like H₂O — to have vibrational and/or rotational modes). "Heat" and "temperature" are concepts that arise naturally from the observations of the macroscopic world around us, but looking further into inner space we find that these are mere mathematical, perceptual constructs which help us to describe large systems in aggregate, but do not exist in and of themselves as distinct "things." Thermodynamics itself, in fact, is a holdover from an age where only macroscopic analysis, concepts, descriptions and relationships were possible. Unfortunately, too many people seem unable to move beyond this or, more importantly to reconcile the combination. That G&T get caught up in the distinction between heat and energy without themselves being able to clearly articulate how the distinction does and does not apply the the process behind the greenhouse effect speaks to either their poor abilities as communicators or their poor understanding of the subject they are tackling (or both).
68121. Jdey123 at 08:35 AM on 18 December 2011
       There is no consensus
       There was a concensus that the earth was flat for centuries. Science is about finding a model which not only fits retrospectively observed data but also accurately predicts the future. There is a concensus that the world is warming and that CO2 acts as a warming agent. That's it, there is no concensus on whether CO2 or another warming agent e.g. Methane is the primary warming agent. Nor does the IPCC have confidence in it's modelling, producing 5 potential scenarios in which the climate hardly warms at all, up to a potentially disastrous 4C increase.
       Moderator Response: [Rob P] - Indeed there was a consensus on Earth's flatness, but it wasn't a scientific consensus. The ancients Greeks realized the Earth was round two thousand years before Columbus sailed to the Americas, and Eratosthenes (a Greek mathematician) accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth around 200BC. "Nor does the IPCC have confidence in it's modelling" Citation? This isn't the wild, wild west of the intertubes where any old rubbish claim can be made. We expect you to support assertions with references to the relevant peer-reviewed literature, in other words - facts. Also, don't spam the threads. If you have a point to make, find the most appropriate and relevant thread to comment on by using the search function. Please read the comments policy. Failure to comply may result in your comment being deleted.
68122. Steve Case at 08:15 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#70126 ...what farmers need is steady flow in rivers throughout the year -- not seasonal floods and droughts. This discussion if allowed to proceed will wind up comparing the difference in melt rates between snow and ice.
68123. John Russell at 07:23 AM on 18 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       10# Yes, but -- as Kiwiiano writes -- what farmers need is steady flow in rivers throughout the year -- not seasonal floods and droughts.
68124. Bob Lacatena at 06:43 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1231, TOP, I'll answer your question 3 for now because it's the easiest. The "heat" doesn't come back down with the rain. The water comes back down, but the direction of energy transfer is only one way. Water evaporates, gains energy. Water vapor rises. Water condenses, transferring the extra energy to the surrounding atmosphere. Condensed water falls as rain. When cold air sinks to the surface... it's, umm, cold! No heat carried down with it.
68125. skept.fr at 06:34 AM on 18 December 2011
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       #21 Tom : I agree of course with your point. I was probably not clear because I mentioned SkS reference to gas, but my point was related to peak risk in the hypothesis of a business as usual scenario  – in fact, what we do for the moment. If a peak (oil, gas or coal) occurs when you haven't already and seriously engaged your energy transition toward other sources, and so limited your dependency to the peaking source, you will have major problems to develop rapidly substitutes because the economic effect of the unprepared peak will seriously damage your existing infrastructure and your economic capacity to invest. Such a short-termism is unfortunately the way we choose for the moment, we are blind to energy as to climate risks. I think we hope that the market prices correctly reflect the value of an energy source at all timescale. IMO, it doesn't. Not only market prices ignore the long-term externalities from climate, but they also ignore the real geologic quantities of carbon sources (asymmetry of information) and the time/effort needed by a human society to engage an energy transition (moral hazard, unrealistic discount rate). Market prices, at least in their current condition of emergence, are the produces of such short-term and poor-informed anticipation that they are not pertinent for climate and energy policy choices. But I'll not deepen these points here, as the real subject of the SkS article is the technological level of RE alternative to fossil energy.
68126. Steve Case at 06:34 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#70120 An aspect that isn't made clear here is that if the retreats are due to reduced snowfall ... The IPCC tells us: For a future warmer climate ... Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.
       Moderator Response: [muon] fixed closing italics tag.
       Note the use of the word future in your IPCC quote. Note also the words globally averaged mean water vapour. Clearly glaciers are not a global mean occurrence.
68127. perseus at 06:12 AM on 18 December 2011
       NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
       Interesting, because the 'vulnerable countries' (presumably this only takes account of human requirements) appears to be almost the opposite ofhose with 'ecological sensitivity'!
68128. Kiwiiano at 06:12 AM on 18 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       An aspect that isn't made clear here is that if the retreats are due to reduced snowfall in the icefields, eventually the river flows will diminish. If they are due to a change from snow to rain, even with no change in annual volume, an additional problem arises of the rain pouring down the mountains in a rush, boosted by melted ice, leading to flood pulses that may overwhelm storage or protection systems.
68129. mspelto at 06:04 AM on 18 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       Glacier runoff does not generally increase or decrease the total annual runoff. It does alter the timing of the runoff and hence the seasonal distribution. As the glacier shrinks in area the amount of water it releases via melting declines during the melt season, which is typically the dry season. Runoff will generally increase in winter and during the spring melt when streamflows are generally high. The glacier acts as a natural reservoir. The smaller the frozen reservoir the less the melt it releases. This is widely observed already today, during retreat, that glacier runoff in the melt seasons declines and is not offset by the increased melt rate once significant area loss has occurred (Pelto, 2008). The loss for example has enhanced the increasing low summer flows in many rivers including the Skykomish River (Pelto, 2011). Now picture yourself as the water manager involved with the Artesonfaju Glacier where is the extra water? In this case since you are losing your melt source, and evaporation of precipitation is high, net annual runoff is already declining.
68130. Steve Case at 05:49 AM on 18 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       It's also worth pointing out that as long as the glaciers continue to recede, the total amount of water in the various watersheds will exceed the amount of precipitation. If the glaciers no longer recede or disappear, the water in the watersheds will reflect the amount of precipitation. Should the glaciers grow again, the amount of water building up in those growing glaciers won't be flowing in the rivers. In other words, taking ground water and evaporation into account, the water available to be dammed up and fed through the various reservoirs, canals & channels for irrigation is the sum of total precipitation in the watershed plus or minus the glacier melt or ice build-up. Countries that rely on water from watersheds that contain glaciers as a source will enjoy more water than supplied by precipitation as long as the glaciers continue to melt. They can't continue to melt forever, the recession will either stop or the glaciers will disappear, either way the volume of water currently available will decrease.
68131. TOP at 05:43 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Sorry, how is this? response to Halpern
       Response:

       [DB] Close enough that I was able to fix it.  :)

68132. TOP at 05:05 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1233 Sphaerica Which question were you answering? It would help me if you specified which question you are answering. I'm pretty thick you know. You asked me for specific questions. The least you could do is give specific answers. I have Halpern and I have response to Halpern. I also have versions 1-4 of G&T's paper. Still working through them.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Your link is corrupted.
68133. TOP at 04:56 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1230 KR Figure 32 It just raises the question which I raised in 1231 Question 3, "Where is the boundary across which RGHE is expressing a heat balance?" G&T put it at the stratosphere. Ternbeth uses the term "atmosphere" in depicting some nebulous boundary. G&T go on to quote Rahmstoff in discussing the figure, but Rahmstoff uses the term atmosphere not stratosphere. Rahmstoff clarifies, "However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.” It seems like the RGHE is trying to mix microscopic phenomenon "radiative energy transfer by means of photons" with macroscopic effects, heat flow. Is the major transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface in either direction primarily through conduction or radiation?
68134. Bob Lacatena at 04:49 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1231, TOP, Okay. Please note that G&T do not in any way make their case. They do absolutely nothing more than to say, in so many words, "2nd law, you lose." Their entire section 3.9 is nothing more than a repetition of explanations of accepted Thermodynamics. They then finally get to page 78 where they quote Rahmstorf as saying that the second law is not violated, to which they simply say what Rahmstorf would agree with, that it is energy, not heat, being exchanged, which could be an argument for exactly why the second law is not violated. In the end, they have made no point. They then attack a phrasing of the issue in Wikipedia. Wow. What earth shattering scientific prowess they show! They have published a peer-reviewed paper to correct Wikipedia! And yet G&T present no evidence or clear argument whatsoever. They do nothing more than stomp their feet and shout "2^nd Law." There is nothing there to argue with. G&T is a total and complete waste of everyone's time. Honestly, the International Journal of Modern Physics must be a pretty crappy journal to have published it. I'd refer you to Comment on "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics" by Halpern et al.
68135. TOP at 04:35 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1230 KR You do realize that one or both author's (Gerlich & Tscheuscher) speak German as their first language? I wouldn't take this as indicative of some attitude on their part. I have read other author's who speak German as a first language and have found some of these turns of speech prevalent there also. German grammar is different that English grammar an can color the lanquage of a non-native speaker. I appreciate that they took the time to communicate in English and most of all to translate important quotes into English.
68136. TOP at 04:30 AM on 18 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       @1224 Tom and 1219, 1221 Sphaerica First of all to Tom. While I am writing responses to posts other post are made which I don't see until I submit my post. If you take this to be avoiding answering 1219, so be it, but I think you will find I was writing 1220 at the time 1219 was also being written and submitted. I seem to be having to answer several posts simultaneously and this has to be done one at a time. And of course I can no longer respond to 1221 or 1223 either. Tom I appreciate that you restated much of what I stated in 1220. To clarify RGHE see @465,859 and others. KR uses this term frequently in this thread and others without complaints. Now to ask the question that Sphaerica requested: In G&T they quote this definition of RGHE from Stichel:

       “Now it is generally accepted textbook knowledge that the long-wave infrared radiation, emitted by the warmed up surface of the Earth, is partially absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 and other trace gases in the atmosphere. This effect leads to a warming of the lower atmosphere and, for reasons of the total radiation budget, to a cooling of the stratosphere at the same time.”

       to which G&T respond, " "This would be a Perpetuum Mobile of the Second Kind. A detailed discussion is given in Section 3.9. Furthermore, there is no total radiation budget, since there are no individual conservation laws for the different forms of energy participating in the game. (T&G p39)" Question 1 G&T make the assertion that Stichel's definition of RGHE is a violation of the 2nd Law. Is this definition a violation of the second law and if so why or why not? In particular I believe Stichel's choice of the term "warming" has something to do with G&T's response as in the colder atmosphere is raising the temperature of the warmer ground. Question 2 G&T make the assertion that there are no individual conservation laws for different forms of energy [which I take to mean that energy has to be taken as a whole to be conserved]. If you look at Tom's point #1 in 1181 he produces a picture of from Ternbeth et al, 2009 showing 333 W/m² of something called backradiation flowing back to the earth's surface. Is this back radiation a "heat flow" that can raise the earth's temperature? If it is a "heat flow" is it occurring from a colder to a warmer body in general? Question 3 I will also add a question about Ternbeth's graphic since it appears so many places. It shows a convection (thermals) and a latent heat flow of heat in one direction, up. Why does it not also show the counter convection heat flow and latent heat flow down as occurs when rain falls or cold air sinks to the surface? When I took thermodynamics we had to clearly define the boundaries around which we considered heat and work moving in and out.
68137. John Russell at 04:06 AM on 18 December 2011
       Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
       Re:#5 It's worth pointing out that in the area I mentioned at #3 -- the coastal region between the foot of the Andes and the Pacific, which is over 2,000 miles long and ~100 miles wide (and the reason Chile is called 'El Spaghetti' by the locals) -- meltwater from the Andes is vital for agriculture in the warmer central and northern areas. Without this water the area would suffer major drought, as in some places the annual rainfall is only 120mm. The rivers flowing off the Andes are dammed and the meltwater is fed through a series of reservoirs, canals and channels to irrigate the entire plain. Though the plain is not densely populated in places, the food grown there is vital both for feeding the population in the cities and for growing produce for export. The reduction in the size of glaciers is greatly concerning the South American countries that rely on this source of water.
68138. 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.
68139. 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.
68140. 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.
68141. 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).
68142. 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?")
68143. 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.
68144. 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.
68145. 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.
68146. 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.
68147. 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?
68148. 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?"
68149. 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').
68150. 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.

Prev  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  Next