Recent Comments

Prev  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  Next

Comments 75701 to 75750:

75701. Bob Lacatena at 14:45 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       117, Norman, I'm not sure what you're saying about latent heat. Yes, certainly air with moisture has a greater ability to retain heat. Latent heat usually raises the temperature of the surrounding air through condensation, and so comes into play at higher altitudes where clouds form (or at cooler temperatures, when dew or fog condenses). But you are wrong to say that moist air will warm more slowly and reach lower peak temperatures than dry air. The opposite is true, as demonstrated by desert air temperatures versus those in, say, a rain forest. Simple observation refutes your statement. As far as conduction and convection go, if that were the case, you would expect to see desert air being warmer than it is, and that is not the case. That isn't to say that it doesn't happen, but the reality is that heating through radiation is far, far more important and effective than conduction and convection in transmitting heat.
75702. Norman at 14:42 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Sphaerica @ 113 I believe 14 micron wavelength is the Carbon Dioxide portion of the IR spectrum that water does not interfere with. I believe that most temperature sensors that are showing a warming globe are located a few meters above the Earth's surface so this measured warming would be the result of the lower atmospheric contribution of CO2 on warming and should then be measurable. The warming produced by collisions would not return to ground and heat the earth or the near surface air (that the thermometers are measuring). The oxygen and nitrogen that are heated by collisions with CO2 would become lighter and rise and have little empact on SST or global warming sensors or melting ice caps. These phenomena would only be effected by the actual downwelling radiation that returned to earth. Since the negative consequences of Global Warming would only take place at the near surface, measuring the downwelling IR in the 14 micron range should still then be able to determine the exact energy CO2 contributes to these negative consequences (melting ice caps, rising sea level etc.)
75703. Norman at 14:32 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Sphaerica @ 114 Conduction and convection are also powerful heat transfer mechanisms. The desert air will heat via initially conduction of air in direct contact with the hot sand, then by convection as the heated air becomes more bouyant and rises.
75704. Norman at 14:29 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Sphaerica @ 112 "At the same time, a desert cools very, very quickly at night exactly because it lacks water vapor in the air above it, and so the greenhouse gas effect there is minimal. A desert is a case-in-point example of what would happen if the earth's atmosphere did not have a greenhouse gas effect, and that the DTR increases without greenhouse gases. More greenhouse effect equals lesser DTR." If I can find an online calculator I will work on the data for this point. You claim it is lack of greenhouse gases that cause rapid cooling in the desert. What about latent heat of moist air? Dry air holds less heat than moist air at the same temperature. The hotter the air the greater this effect is as the warmer moist air can hold a lot more water vapor that needs to be heated but latent heat does not increase the temp. A desert can warm rapidly during the day because the air is dry and hence has little latent heat that slows warming. At night it cools quickly because the air again has little latent heat and cools much quicker than moist air. Moist air takes more energy to warm so with equal amounts of solar insolation (even without evaporation taking place), moist air will warm slower and reach lower peak temperatures than dry air and it will cool off slower at night as it has more energy to give up.
75705. Marcus at 13:49 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Anyway, Camburn. Until you have the decency to provide some *evidence* to back your claims-& not simply say "this won't work 'cause I say so" or "this process is safe 'cause no-one has told me otherwise"-then I really have nothing more to say to you on this subject-except to finish by noting that, for a farmer, you seem to know a *lot* about the technical aspects of the oil & gas industry.....
75706. muoncounter at 13:47 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Norman#108: You brought up the contrail question; I just connect the dots. As I recall, it was a brief period of unusually clear weather. The study summarized here suggests contrails are a feedback, not a forcing. "This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect," ... "During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady," he added. But you must admit some, if not all of the implications: - Human influence on climate is a proven fact. - High cloud cover can trap heat (contrails and the hypothetical GCR-nucleated clouds, if any exist, are both high cloud forms). - If sensitivity was small, why would there be any measurable effect of contrails? They are a small subset of the overall cloud cover.
75707. Norman at 13:44 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       muoncounter @107 "And certainly there can now be no doubt that sensitivity is quite high, as there were measurable temperature differences for what must be considered a relatively small causal agent." I guess I can doubt a high sensitivity. Some actual measured graphs of temp vs radiation amounts. In these graphs you can get good readings of temp increase with radiation increase. On one graph 110 watts/meter positve radiation gives about a 22 C temp increase. That would be around 0.2 C increase with 1 watt/meter additional energy input. A doubling of CO2 has been calculated to increase downwelling IR by 3.7 watts/meter so the temp increase from the actual graphs would be about 0.74 C
75708. Marcus at 13:43 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Examples of contamination incidents from frakking in the United States: http://coloradoindependent.com/38146/wyo-fracking-contamination-case-eerily-similar-to-colorados-divide-creek-accident http://www.workers.org/2010/us/fracking_1209/ http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2011/08/22/fracking-shell-admits-safety-is-not-a-given/
75709. Bob Lacatena at 13:40 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       110, Norman, Just an added observation... note that your quote identifies that the temperature of the sand is far above that of the air. Again, it is the lack of H₂O as a greenhouse gas that aids this differential. The air can't heat, because the only thing there that can absorb the emitted IR (for the most part) is CO₂. There's none of the more prevalent (normally) and effective H₂O to absorb the radiation and heat the air. So instead the IR just passes right through to higher up where there is moisture.
75710. Marcus at 13:37 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       "I am all for alternative energy sources where practical. So far, those alternatives have not proven to be practical." LOL Camburn-you sound the guy who says "I'm not racist, but...." You're quite happy to support fuel sources which have a very poor record for safety, yet you keep making unfounded claims about the non-practical nature of alternative energy sources. If you read a little further than the local Oil Industry newsletters, you'd know that there have already been significant breakthroughs in practical alternative energy over the last 20 years-24/7 solar thermal plants, Vanadium Redox Batteries allowing for base-load energy from Wind, small scale hydro-power schemes, high density algal biomass, land-fill & sewerage gas, anaerobic digesters for converting farm & forestry waste to methane (& an organic sludge that can be used as fertilizer). Seriously, if all of these technologies were so impractical, then why have so many individuals & nations adopted these technologies-in spite of the massive road-blocks thrown up by the Fossil Fuel Monopoly? According to this survey in Wisconsin-though it only dealt with Anaerobic Digestion at Waste-water plants, shows that electricity from many of these facilities is *currently* being sold at around $0.04c to $0.06c per kw-h. Hardly sounds like its economically impractical to me. http://www.mrec.org/pubs/Anaerobic_Report.pdf
75711. pbjamm at 13:28 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       I am not suggesting you prove a negative Camburn, but a link to an actual safety report would be worth much more than anecdotes.
75712. Bob Lacatena at 13:28 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       111, Norman,

       Why is it so hard to get good empirical data to prove the exact amount of greenhouse contribution of CO2?

       The answer to this question is similar to the previous one. The interactions of CO2 are not nearly as simple as a simple, linear "radiation-up-CO₂-radiation-down" model. Your sensors at the surface of the earth would detect the radiation being returned by the lowest layers of CO₂ only, because CO₂ and atmosphere in general is far more dense there. Radiation from higher layers of the atmosphere would be obscured, much as fog obscures your vision. There are a few things you have to realize about CO₂ in the atmosphere. The first is that while CO₂ will absorb IR, and then if given the chance radiate it away, it is more likely (until you reach the more rarefied upper troposphere) that CO₂ will collide with an O₂ or N₂ molecule and pass the energy on that way, heating the atmosphere itself. As you get higher and higher in the atmosphere, and the chance of collision becomes less and less, then there is more and more chance of CO₂ emitting IR, and even of being excited through a collision with O₂ or N₂ and then emitting IR, thus cooling the atmosphere at that level (i.e. taking energy from the surrounding O₂/N₂ and releasing it to space through radiation). This is why greenhouse gases are cooling the stratosphere while warming the surface. So if you want to measure IR in the way you describe, to properly observationally quantify it, you need a whole array of sensors at all different altitudes (at different spots around the globe). It's just not nearly as easy as sensors at the surface. Beyond this, there is some overlap with various gases and their absorption frequencies. In particular, water vapor overlaps with CO₂, so that becomes even more difficult to tease out. And then, of course, water vapor densities vary differently with altitude from CO₂ (which is why CO₂ has a greater effect where it matters, higher up in the troposphere where the atmosphere actually succeeds in radiating heat into space). Does this help clarify things?
75713. actually thoughtful at 13:20 PM on 4 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       Congratulations to Professor Wolfgang Wagner for taking a principled position based on personal responsibility. So many preach personal responsibility, but fail to practice it. Nice to see someone in the public eye make a stand. I am sorry this will probably harm his career when he is actually doing the right thing.
75714. Bob Lacatena at 13:12 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       110, Norman, The problem with your scenario/model, as with most attempts to visualize the greenhouse effect with a simple model, is that it is too simple. The interactions are far more complex. Not all of the radiation is "returned" and the return is not one way and immediate. There are many other interactions and factors at work. For example, the air over a desert is warmer in the day and cooler at night because it is dry. It lacks the most prevalent and effective greenhouse gas, water vapor, with it's abilities to somewhat neutralize incoming radiation and more importantly to remove heat during the time daytime hours through evaporation. At the same time, a desert cools very, very quickly at night exactly because it lacks water vapor in the air above it, and so the greenhouse gas effect there is minimal. A desert is a case-in-point example of what would happen if the earth's atmosphere did not have a greenhouse gas effect, and that the DTR increases without greenhouse gases. More greenhouse effect equals lesser DTR. But the answer to your question doesn't lie entire in those details, but rather that the processes of radiation, convection, conduction, molecular collisions, clouds, varying densities of air + CO₂ + H₂O, etc. lead to a far more complex scenario than your simple hot-in-the-day-so-stronger-GHE-in-the-day implies. The bottom line, though, for your scenario is that it is too simple to reliably reach any such conclusions about DTR.
75715. Norman at 12:58 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Why is it so hard to get good empirical data to prove the exact amount of greenhouse contribution of CO2? Climate scientists spend a lot of money on super computers to run the mathematical models and vast amound of time programming in all the many variables. It seems so much more cost effective to develop maybe a hundred or so specialized sensors around the globe under various conditions and climates. You build a sensing device with sensors that only measure the energy emitted by the earth in upwelling IR energy and on the same device you have sensors that only measure the downwelling raditaion. You can put filters on the top sensors to block all wavelengths but the CO2 fingerprint (14 micron). Now you have the energy going up measured directly and you have the energy returning to earth that is the result of CO2. Why is this so difficult to set up? If you ran these on clear cloudless nights you would have a very accurate way to determine how many watts/meter CO2 returns to Earth.
75716. Camburn at 12:54 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       pbjamm: Hard to post about a large accident when there has been none. The safety record speaks for itself. That is what I am trying to show to Marcus. It is up to him to prove that what I post is in error. I am all for alternative energy sources where practical. So far, those alternatives have not proven to be practical. I would hope that within 10 years there is huge advancement in alternatives. I know of some very exciting things that are close to being introduced.
75717. Norman at 12:51 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       General question. I am not sure how John Cook determined the point of his article. John Cook: "During the day, the sun warms the Earth's surface. At nighttime, the surface cools by radiating its heat out to space. Greenhouse gases slow down this cooling process." As the sun warms the earth's surface it starts emitting more IR based upon its temperature (which will be warmer than the air above it): "The temperature of desert sand and rock averages 16 to 22 degrees C (30 to 40 degrees F) more than that of the air. For instance, when the air temperature is 43 degrees C (110 degrees F), the sand temperature may be 60 degrees C (140 degrees F)." Source of desert quote. Since the ground is very hot it will emit a lot of IR during the day (much more than at night) and since the greenhouse effect returns this radiated heat back to the surface, the greenhouse effect will be more pronounced during the hottest part of day (more radiation to return, plug in numbers in the stefan-boltzmann calcualtor using the emissivity of sand). If greenhouse warming were the agent for DTR then it seems by logical conclusion of the physics involved that the DTR should actually increase. The daytime high should be warmer than normal caused by increased CO2 since more IR will return to earth during the hottest daytime temp. The night will also be warmer but the IR being emitted at night will be far less than that during the hot day. Point: Hottest time of day would have the greatest greenhouse effect and should be greater than the nighttime effect leading to larger, not smaller DTR's. Clouds explain this much better than CO2. Clouds cool the daytime but warm the night causing a smaller DTR which has been observed.
75718. pbjamm at 12:44 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn@39 I never made any claims about the merits or safety of fracking. I have never even asserted that your position is wrong. My only contribution was to point out that you had not provided any evidence to support your position other than with anecdotes and personal opinion. That is not a very strong argument.
75719. Norman at 12:33 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       muoncounter @107 Another point I would question: "And certainly there can now be no doubt that sensitivity is quite high, as there were measurable temperature differences for what must be considered a relatively small causal agent." I am not sure why you feel clouds are a small causal agent. Look at Trenberth's radiation budget. In it he has atmposphere and clouds reflecting 79 watts/meter Skeptical Science article by Trenberth. The amount of IR a doubling of CO2 will send back to earth for further warming is estimated in the 3 watt/meter range. I think a change in cloud cover may actually be much greater than the small casual agent you accept.
75720. Norman at 12:27 PM on 4 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       muoncounter @107 I like your clever intellect and how you were able to determine so much from my post. Your post reminds me of the Missouri River flood of 2011. My thoughts were contained in the banks of DTR but yours seem to have topped the banks and entered a lot of other area. I would like to question your point. "To rephrase, increased clouds in the east resulted in less OLR, ie, more heat retained. That nicely rebuts such silliness as Spencer's magic clouds and the general desire to hang a negative feedback on clouds (largely because its cooler on cloudy days)." There is another possibility you should consider. It may be that more heat is retained but another strong possibility exists to explain the OLR. The cloud cover has cooled the surface of the Earth so there is less available IR being radiated. Stefan-Boltzmann calculator. To simplify I used a one for emissivity in both calculations. Here is one for you to consider. The area not covered with clouds could reach a warmer daytime temp. I used 80 F in the calculator (after converting to Kelvin) for the cloudless area. The earth would emit 457 watts/meter at this temp and an emissivity of one. For the cloudy sky I used 70 F. In this case the earth would emit 424 watts/meter. I am not saying this was the actual case for your point. I am only using this example to point out that the earth's surface temp has a considerable effect on the OLR measured.
75721. Camburn at 12:21 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Marcus: Please read if you will. Both of the incidents in 2008 involved well head......not casings. Marcus & pbjamm: Show me where one incident involved fracking, the casings etc. I am all ears. I know that you won't be able to do so. muoncounter: I agree. An accident is bound to happen at some time. The law of averages dictates this. So far, with supervision, an accident of merit has not happened. I hope this continues. As far as pipelines, we already have pipelines. In fact, there are two that go through the county I live in. As far as routing, where I live makes a great deal of sense. There are no major waterways. There was a rupture some years ago 15 miles from where I live. It was cleaned up. In fact, an interesting discovery was made in that spill. The original mitigation area was over 4 acres. Cleanup started, and the mitigation area shrunk because we seem to have bacteria in this area that thrive on carbon. The soil hauled away ended up being less than 1/2 the original amount thought required. I am all for the Bakken Play as it is called. At least this formation has numerous horizontal barriers so the potential of contaminating ground water is very small. The Keystone pipeline will be built, and it will carry Bakken Oil as well as Alberta oil. Right now the world runs on oil. There are no alternatives to provide energy density for large scale engines used in tractors/transportation etc. That is reality. I would much rather have the Bakken oil used, as the safety record of this field is very good, than some other source with the potential of environmental damage.
75722. Dave123 at 12:14 PM on 4 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       @Badgersouth- 1... how so 2. see post #10. have you followed the various postings about the bogus curve fitting models from Spencer and Loehl?
75723. muoncounter at 12:07 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn#34: "you are booted out of the state" How will that work with the Keystone pipeline in your backyard? Can't exactly pick it up and throw it over the state line. But accidents sure can come see you in the form of pipeline spills, production accidents, ruptured saltwater disposal systems etc. Any oil field town I've ever been in, from Valdez, AK to Houma, LA knows this. In Ponca City, OK, they used to say that having the refinery right next to town was a good thing - 'you could smell the money.' It's a messy industry; accidents happen. There was a long track record of safe deep water drilling until one night in April 2010.
75724. Marcus at 12:03 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       yes, pbjamm, Camburn seems to have nothing but anecdotes & a "trust me" approach to evidence. Muon has given several links to actual evidence of the major issues associated with Frakking, & Camburn has provided *NOTHING* of substance to repudiate that evidence.
75725. Marcus at 12:01 PM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       "IF there was ever a serious problem, it would be headline news....period. In fact, the one breach of fracking fluids because of overland flooding was headline news," Camburn-I trust *individual people*, I don't trust an industry with a long track record of poor treatment of the environment. Your *blind* trust of this industry probably goes a long way to explaining your willingness to accept the anti-AGW propaganda that this industry has also funded. The fact is that there was a serious *reported* incident back in 2008 which resulted in supposedly tougher regulations, but that these regulations didn't stop 2 major incidents in the space of 4 months. So I'd call *three* major frakking incidents-in a single State-to be a very serious issue, yet you just choose to dismiss it casually-it doesn't sound like the attitude of someone who is *serious* about protecting natural resources!
75726. pbjamm at 11:57 AM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn, 'I know my neighbors and would have heard' is not evidence, it is an anecdote. Telling Marcus that he is wrong providing evidence that he is wrong is nothing but opinion. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
75727. Rosco at 11:33 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       I give in. I seem to be breaching the commentary policy by arguing that the basis for determining the energy input to a planetary atmosphere is important in determining the topic discussed here. I guess you will always oppose my point of view adn I will continue to oppose the factor of 4 reduction of insolation. But remember - energy cannot be created or destroyed merely transformed. Think about it.
       Response:

       [DB] The point that you are not grasping is that this thread is about Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect.
       

       You have given no indication of talking about that topic, despite able advice from others.  Other threads (nearly 5,000 in number) exist here at SkS on every subject imaginable that pertain to climate science.  Using the seach function in the upper left corner of every page here at SkS, search for that topic you want to hang your hat on and place a comment there (for example Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?).

       Dozens of regular participants here are ready to help you gain a better understanding of climate science.  So the choice stands before you:

       1. Continue in your present path of not listening to others and continuing to be off-topic, with the expected result of forcing the moderators to intervene
       2. Or follow the path outlined above

       Think about it.

75728. Rosco at 11:04 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       muoncounter @69 (-Snip-)
       Response:

       [DB] Off-topic snipped.  Continuing to perpetuate your intransigence in actually taking the time and bother to actually learn something about climate science has become intolerable.

       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 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.

       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.

75729. John Hartz at 11:02 AM on 4 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       @Dave123 #26 No need for you to be snooty. Your phrase, "physical models" is a tad unusual.
75730. Rosco at 10:54 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Tom Curtis @67 you think NASA would lie to Kids ? If as you say solar insolation is 240 W/ sq m over earth then the Stefan-Boltzman temperature tells you that Earth can never increase in temperature above 255 K. Again - The Stefan-Boltzman equation has 2 variables - radiative flux and temperature. When a surface is irradiated it reaches the temperature determined by that radiative flux. When a surface is not irradiated it will tend towards the temperature of its surroundings. For the moon with no atmosphere to distribute temperature around the sphere it is either irradiated by solar radiation and reaches an equilibrium temperature commensurate with that level of radiation (which has been measured as ~120 C or 393 K) - OR - it is not irradiated and begins cooling to reach thermal equilibrium with the erergy flux of free space which does not have solar radiation incident on it and that is a very low flux commensurate with the temperature of free space which is postulated to be as low as a few K. The extra energy postulated to come from Greenhouse gases to warm the surface of the Earth came from where originally ?
75731. Camburn at 10:41 AM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Marcus: I have no idea where your live or what your upbringing was. I think the tone of your responses indicates that you are not used to people being truthful, knowing their neighbor, in fact, living in a state with such a low population and a harsh climate that we all feel akin to each other. As an example, I can drive 50 miles, stop, and would know the person I was talking to through mutual personal contacts. In fact, I could drive 300 miles west and the same would happen. In fact, I know people from the west, and south throughout the state. I am not the only one like this. IF there was ever a serious problem, it would be headline news....period. In fact, the one breach of fracking fluids because of overland flooding was headline news, widely discussed, the enforcement of a large fine was publicly supported. As a result of this one incident, the state hired even more enforcement personnel, with the public demanding this action. I don't think you understand how serious we are about protecting our precious natural resources here. WE are veryyyyy serious and expect only excellent business practices. Anything less, you are booted out of the state.
75732. Marcus at 10:28 AM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn, muon linked to 2 serious accidents in North Dakota in the space of just a single year-yet you claim there have been no serious incidents. You claim there are only 2 digesters in the US, yet I've provided a link that shows there is more than 150. So on 2 occasions your claims & the facts have been at opposite ends of the spectrum-so odds are very high that your claims regarding the expense of the process are equally without merit. Also, you should learn to *read*-the organic matter isn't permanently removed from the soil. The waste is digested to obtain the methane, then all the remaining organic material is returned to the crop. Seriously, how can you claim any knowledge of the process when you clearly don't even understand how it works? So far I've brought one more link to back my claims than you have-if you want to be taken seriously, then evidence will help!
75733. Marcus at 10:20 AM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Camburn, you claim that its the absolute truth that there have never been any problems in the Bakken. Really? Are you 100% sure? Big problems, like those muon has linked to, are usually large enough to get wide-spread press coverage, but minor leaks-though still dangerous-often won't get reported. The same is true with nuclear power-the big disasters like Fukishima get massive coverage, but the frequent leaks at the Sellafield reprocessing plant is something you really have to go looking for!
75734. Camburn at 10:13 AM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       Marcus: Concering anaerobic digestion. I not only claim it is expensive, it is expensive. Prove me wrong, other wise my claim stands. What are my "bogus" claims? And what proof do you have that my claims are not correct? The unwillingness to prove me wrong is all to familiar from those who do not have a credible idea of real economic costs. Oh, there is no question that I am a farmer. The question is, if you are a soil scientist why you don't understand the effect of removing bio mass from productive land. That one floors me, and shows that your understanding of your stated profession is ...... [ - snip -]
       Moderator Response: [mc] Easy there, Camburn; no need to throw the ad homs in.
75735. muoncounter at 10:10 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       TC#68: Rosco's moon has a low temperature of -233C and a high of 123C, both consistent with the color schemes in the LRO images (purple ~ 40K). It is his average lunar temperature that makes no sense. But consider this: If the lunar temperature is appropriate for its effective (non-black body) radiation balance, as you explain in #67, that means solar input really is driving planetary temperature. But that is in contradiction with Doug Cotton's temperature of the earth's surface is based on the core temperature fantasy. Since we can't have both, which one should we discard? Tom, you've disproved Rosco and Cotton in one shot - all in all, a nice day's work.
75736. Marcus at 10:01 AM on 4 September 2011
       The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
       once again, Camburn, you make a number of bogus claims without providing a shred of evidence to back yourself up. Seriously, where is your evidence that anaerobic digestion is expensive or unfeasible? Claiming it doesn't make it so. This unwillingess to provide evidence is an all too common failing of those who would "die in a ditch" to defend their beloved fossil fuel industry-even to the point of deliberately overlooking serious frakking accidents which might have permanently poisoned the ground water in your area- & yet [ - snip - ]
       Moderator Response: [mc] Easy there Marcus, this is a PG-13 science blog.
75737. Tom Curtis at 09:50 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Muoncounter @65, a minor point - the regions that never see sunlight have temperatures below 35 degrees K. The 120 degrees K is the average night time temperature of the moon, with the poles maintaining a more even temperature during day and night of around 220 K, except at the bottom of craters where the temperatures are much lower. This is probably the best image to see that.
75738. Tom Curtis at 09:30 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco @54, seriously, "Ask an Astronomer for Kids" is your source of astronomical information? Really? You could have at least tried the moon fact sheet from NASA, where we learn that the blackbody temperature of the moon is 270.7 degrees K. Let me see, 1366/4 * 0.89 (1-lunar albedo) = 303.9 K, or 33.2 K greater than the black body temperature of the moon. The reason for the discrepancy is well known - the divide by 4 approximation is only perfectly accurate for bodies with no temperature variation. Because radiated output varies with the fourth power of temperature, if there is temperature variability, the energy is radiated from the surface more efficiently, resulting in a lower temperature, as can be seen on the moon. That means the Earth's atmosphere and ocean, by redistributing heat do in fact warm the Earth, but they cannot warm the Earth to more than the 255 degrees K indicated by the usual black body approximation. Indeed, as they do not eliminate temperature variation from the surface (as they do on Venus), they warm it to less than that temperature and the total greenhouse effect is more than the normally stated 33 degrees K difference between 255 K 'expected' black body temperature and 288 K average surface temperature. As it happens, the actual black body temperature of the Earth is 254.3 degrees K, only 0.7 degrees K below the expected using the standard approximation, so it is a very good approximation. (I believe Chris Colose discussed this in more detail on this site recently, but cannot remember where.) The question may arise as to whether NASA know lunar temperatures well enough to determine the black body temperature of the moon. Afterall, determining that temperature requires measuring the Outgoing Long wave Radiation integrated across the entire moons surface and over the entire 28 day rotation period. Welcome to the Diviner mission: Lunar Temperatures by latitude and Lunar Hour: (Note, one lunar hour equals 29.53 Earth hours.) Lunar Day Time Temperatures: Lunar Night Time Temperatures:
75739. Bob Lacatena at 09:29 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       63, Rosco,

       I see we will never agree however the Stefan-Boltzman equation is either right or wrong.

       This statement is utter nonsense. No one is disputing Stefan-Boltzman, and nothing that is being explained to you is in conflict with it. Stop simply making things up!!!!!!!. The argument is about how to distribute the energy that arrives at the earth on only one side over the entire surface of the earth, a fairly basic bit of geometry that you appear incapable of grasping. You instead would like to pretend that this energy is simply divided among the two hemispheres of the earth, as if it were a flat disk... Oh!!! Now I get it... you're one of those flat-earthers I've heard about. But the earth isn't flat. The energy has to be distributed over the surface of a spherical earth, not a flat earth. Really, I can't believe I'm trying to explain things to someone who can't get past the first page of any introductory climate science text. Please, Rosco, please go do some reading. By the way, throwing the word Venus into your posts doesn't cut it. There is no connection whatsoever to your discussion and the GHE on Venus. It is long past time for this to stop.
75740. muoncounter at 09:25 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco#63: "cannot explain the temperature on the moon" Your minimalist approach, picking the highest and lowest lunar temperatures and computing an 'average' for use in the SB equation, neglects a few important facts. Are you aware that the moon has negligible axial tilt, so that areas in shadow near the poles (where these ultra cold temperatures were measured) are hardly ever in sunlight? They never warm up, so they do not reach equilibrium with the illuminated portion of the planet. See the images here. The areal extent of these ultracold regions is quite small. What you have done with the lunar temperature range is equivalent to looking at a dataset consisting of {10,10,10,10,10,10,10,0} and concluding the 'average' is 5. Your conclusions about climate science based on that error are thus utterly incorrect. In short, if it doesn't 'fail for the moon,' it is valid for the Earth.
75741. IanC at 09:18 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco, The geometric reduction is meant to explain the average temperature over the entire earth/moon, and of course it doesn't explain the maximum "daily" temperature. You are confusing the two concepts. The whole point of the simple radiative model is to provide an understanding of how greenhouse effect increase the average temperature of the planet. If you insist that it should reproduce the maximum temperature in a day/night cycle you are missing the point.
75742. Paul D at 09:15 AM on 4 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       "The examples of free-enterprise are all around you..." Most had initial funding from governments or states: 1. Flight - Da Vinci and Langley were state funded. 2. The Internet - largely an idea to develop secure communications for the state military. 3. Web Browser, HTML, HTTP - designed by Tim Berners Lee whilst employed by state funded science programmes at CERN. 4. Electronic Computers - developed by governments to de-crypt enemy communication in WWII, Babbage was government funded as well. Most of Turings work had no commercial value, but was exploited later when technology was available. The mistake you make Ken, is to think commercial success equates to original thinking and research. It doesn't. Original thinking is not ideological. Ken said: "Then compare this with the central production of the power we need to produce the efficient power we have today." Efficient??? Power stations are extremely inefficient, even by ignoring the fact that most of the embedded energy of coal is never realised, the thermal cycle of a power station limits it's efficiency a great deal unless the heat energy is used for heating homes and businesses locally. Also, centralised power stations are just as much a socialist idea as anything. If you want free enterprise and individual responsibility, then renewables meet those needs. From a defence and security aspect, the renewables also come out on top due to their distributed nature.
75743. Rosco at 09:00 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       No - if the earth rotates once in 24 hours and every point on the earths surface is luuminated then the whole area of the arths is illuminated and not the area of the disk which has the same diameter so the factor of 4 used to reduce the solar "constant" of 1368 W/sq m TOA to 342 W/sq m TOA is invalid. I see we will never agree however the Stefan-Boltzman equation is either right or wrong. Climate scientists use it all the time and the way they apply the geometrical manipulations cannot explain the temperature on the moon. We can argue all day about planets where the atmosphere plays a significant role but the simple indisputable fact is if you apply the geometrical reduction to the moon you cannot explain the maximum temperature there. If it fails for the moon why is it valid for Venus, Earth or anywhere else ?
75744. Bob Lacatena at 08:56 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       60, Rosco, No, you are discounting albedo. The energy which is reflected is not absorbed. Note that the maximum temperature on the moon is 120C... that is, the spot on the moon that actually receives 1368 W/m², for the brief period it does so, can achieve a temperature of 120C (if it hits something black). Really, Rosco, you're tying yourself in knots trying to prove what you misunderstand, when you should be stepping back and saying "whoa, everyone here says something else, and all of science says something else, maybe I better reconsider my position, open my mind, and read and learn instead of posting nonsense."
75745. Bob Lacatena at 08:50 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       50, Rosco, Your statement is nonsensical. The time over which the energy is distributed is irrelevant. Your inability to understand the factor of four is astounding. If you wish, lets use a day's worth of energy. As you stated, a Watt is measured in Joules per second, or an amount of energy delivered per second. As already stated, the total energy received by the earth in one second is 1.748310 x 10¹⁷ W. There are 86,400 seconds in an earth day, so if we multiply the two we get the total amount of energy (in Joules) received by the earth in 24 hours. 86,400 seconds times 1.748310 x 10¹⁷ W... or rather, 86,400 seconds times 1.748310 x 10¹⁷ J/sec gives 1.51053984 x 10²² Joules. If we divide that by the total area of the earth (again, from before, 5.1120196 x 10¹⁴ m²) we will get the average energy per square meter delivered to the earth in one earth day. So 1.51053984 x 10²² Joules / 5.1120196 x 10¹⁴ m² gives us 2.9548788 x 10⁷ Joules/m². That is the amount of energy in Joules per square meter delivered to the earth in one earth day. But we'd like to get that number in J/sec/m² (which is W/m²), so we'll divide by the number of seconds in one earth day, or 86,400 seconds. 2.9548788 x 10⁷ J/m² divided by 86,400 seconds is... you guessed it, 341.999862 J/sec/m², or rather 341.999862 W/m². Happy?
75746. Rosco at 08:47 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Properly applied physics says that the temperature is proportional to the radiative flux - Stefan-Boltzman. It is a simple equation with only 2 variables ! 342 W/sq m = ~278.68 K or ~5.5 C Maximum. 1368 W/sq m = ~394.12 K or ~ 121 C Maximum.
75747. Albatross at 08:39 AM on 4 September 2011
       Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
       Eric @19, Re my comment that "S&B state that one cannot (with the current observations and observation system) disentangle the two (i.e., conduct a feedback diagnosis), but then go on to repeatedly and very confidently claim that ...." You are, of course correct, what I mean to say is that ".....Spencer repeatedly and confidently claims that clouds are a negative feedback". One does not have to look very far to find confirmation of this. From his latest blog post: "As I have challenged Dessler to do, if he really believes that is happening, then he should do LAGGED regression to estimate feedback…that is, adjust for the time lag in his regression analysis. And when he does that, his weak positive cloud feedback diagnosis will suddenly turn into a negative feedback diagnosis. I’ve done it, and it is what Lindzen and Choi did in their recently published paper, which resulted in a diagnosis of strongly negative feedback." That is but one of several examples of Spencer arguing that the cloud feedback is low, and he is at least consistent in that sense, since one cannot argue for a climate sensitivity for doubling 1.5 C without the cloud feedback being zero or negative. And it is very troubling that he is citing Lindzen and Choi at truth, when it has been thoroughly debunked, and that paper does deal only with the tropics. The reality remains that multiple, independent studies have found evidence for a positive cloud feedback, as discussed here at SkS. Another example of a weak positive cloud feedback is the warming over the Arctic (and a strong positive WV feedback) leading to increased cloud cover which at those high latitudes leads to further warming (see Screen and Simmonds, 2010): "Changes in cloud cover, in contrast, have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the atmosphere during summer and early autumn." Spencer is now clearly using science as a political tool in his ideological and political vendetta against the IPCC and climate scientists who are rightly concerned about the impacts of us doubling (or even quadrupling CO2). I find that incredibly disturbing.
75748. Rosco at 08:39 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Sorry should have said 255 K or minus 18 C.
75749. Rosco at 08:37 AM on 4 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       All of this has everything to do with Venus. How does the mean daytime temperature get to 380 K on the moon with no atmosphere but the earth, irradiated by the same irradiation, is minus 18 ? What does the mean temperature on the moon have to do with anything ? It is either illuminated (`1368 W/sq m) and hot or dark (~0 W/sq m) and cold.
75750. Dave123 at 08:31 AM on 4 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       @Badgersouth- You've got to be kidding! Do you think the equations are just pulled out of the air, or are random polynomial expansions fitted to data? Let me give you a really simple example- the amount of temperature increase of an given amount of water exposed to a given amount of heat is governed by the heat capacity of water (fresh and salt water have differing heat capacities). The energy required to melt ice is a physical constant. Thus the rate of ice melting is governed by an equation based on this constant, the initial temperatuer of the ice and the amount of energy delivered to the ice. Each of these appears as an equation among many in the models. Insolation and heat retention are measured by satellite and become initial values and in part boundary conditions. Again- I've done this in industry, models are based on physics and chemistry...and they work when properly done. Mine did and there's check long since spent and hunk of crystal in my china cabinet that reflect the real world applicability of models. Pardon my confusion, but how could a model be any more physical?

Prev  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  Next