Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  Next

Comments 75901 to 75950:

  1. Models are unreliable
    Thank you both. I've copied your replies back to the "The Conversation" and have bookmarked this thread for further reading. Great job!
  2. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Despite the angst that seems to have developed I have enjoyed the intellectual stimulation. I think people should discuss and argue their beliefs and everyone should have a right to voice theirs. Definately the last post - hopefully not the military version. PS - I don't believe in the flat disk model so I'm definitely not a flat earther.
    Response:

    [DB] "Despite the angst that seems to have developed"

    Your conduct here is the intellectual version of poking a bee's nest with a stick.  That that activity generates a response you characterize as "angst" should be of no surprise.

    "I think people should discuss and argue their beliefs and everyone should have a right to voice theirs"

    This is a science website.  The conversations and dialogue center on climate science using logic and evidenciary chains.  Not fuzzy terms & beliefs & opinions.  Evidence-based discussions of climate science using peer-reviewed published studies from reputable sources.

    Given your persistence in avoiding using any of the latter some "angst" should be expected.

  3. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    The last post. I don't understand why everyone seems to insist I calculate some sort of average - I don't. I think the only relevant thing is the maximum at any time as we all know things will lose energy and cool. I am simply trying to explain why it is possible that Venus when irradiated by the ~2640 W/sq m in the vicinity it occupies in space can have a blackbody temperature of ~464K - much lower than observed but also much higher than usually calculated. I have used the examples of the Earth and the moon to demonstrate because we have some reliable data for these. the graph of the moon above shows varying temperature over various latitudes and agrees with what I posted before the insolation varying as the cosine of the latitude. It also shows a maximum temperature of ~ 380 - 390 K as would be expected using the solar constant. I cannot see any flaw in this logic so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The use of the sine and cosine to break a vector down into its normal and tangential component is well established scientific method.
    Response:

    [DB] "I cannot see any flaw in this logic so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

    The flaws in your logic, physics and math have already been pointed out to you.  That you refuse to accept that is telling.

  4. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Sphareica @120 Sorry for the confusion. I used the incorrect term in my discussion. It should be heat capacity of moist air vs dry air, not latent heat. The heat capacity of mosit air is greater than dry air. It will take more energy to heat moist air to a given temperature than dry air. I think your example would confirm this. Desert air warms much faster and reaches a higher peak temperature than moist air given the same energy input.
  5. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    muoncounter @ 116 "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." I could agree to the first one (but the degree of influence is not so certain). Not sure about the GCR debate, looked into it some but not heavily. Last one, the measurable effect of contrails is localized but it can imply clouds (Spencer) do play a significant role in Earth's energy balance. Here is a quote from an article: "Ongoing debate In a study published in 2004, for example, Minnis and colleagues reported that contrails are capable of increasing average surface temperatures sufficiently to account for a warming trend in the U.S. between 1975 and 1994. But some climatologists believe Minnis and his colleagues may have overestimated the contrail warming effect. Even if Minnis's estimates are correct, other climate experts feel that any warming from contrails is not something to fret about. In a study published in 2005, James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and colleagues ran models that increased the contrail coverage in Minnis's study by a factor of five. Even with this significant increase, Hansen's team found that global mean temperature change was in the neighborhood of 0.03°C (0.05°F)—a minute amount." Hansen believes it has very minimal effect on the global mean temperature. A cloudy day can cause significant temp difference in a local area but not effect the global temp much. Source article for above quote.
  6. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Sphaerica @ 121 CO2 and H2O absorption. The CO2 at 14 microns closes the window on H2O leakage. 4 microns looks like a solo CO2 peak but it is not as broad. "Your statement that the negative consequences of Global Warming would only take place near the surface is completely wrong. It affects the entire depth of the atmosphere, and it is in fact by raising the altitude at which the planet finally loses radiation to space that greenhouse warming really occurs." But what negative consequences would there be if the air 5 miles up raised temp by 10 C? Graph of atmposphere temps. (sorry I do not post graphs directly, I have tried without success) So from the graph I linked to, you go from -50 C to -40. How is that going to have a negative empact on life on earth? What would the negative consequences be that I am wrong about? "Your statement about individual O2 and N2 molecules becoming lighter and rising is flat out wrong. This does not happen. The parcel of air simply becomes warmer. It does not rise because the CO2 is well mixed, and the same thing is happening billions of times all around." From how you described the GHE in your 113 post your claim is that collisions with O2 and N2 are more frequent in lower thicker layers. This would mean that lower layers would be warming faster relative to the rate of collisions in the layers above. Being warmer than the air above the air below would then tend to rise.
  7. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Sphareica @ 112 "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." It might actually be as simple as I suggest. As far as I can tell in your response I do not see how atmospheric complications would effect in any way the energy emitted by the hot sand as IR. I think it is straight physics there. Temperature of substance (hot sand) and its emissivity directly translates to energy emission via the Stefan=Boltzmann law that has been empirically validated. The hot sand will emit IR based upon its temp. It does not change its emission with the processes you describe. Only the sand temperature will change the emitted energy. In my example I am using the same place, so effects would cancel out. The hot sand emits much more IR than the cooler night sand. If you use the 140 F given above as a possible daytime sand temp and if the sand cools to 100 F by morning (I wish I has some real world sand temp samples, all hypothetical now). 140 F sand would emit 533 watts/meter using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator (used emissivity of 0.76 for sand). The 100 F would emit far less 403 watts/meter. Lacking the interference of water vapor the CO2 in the air should be sending back much more radiation during the day as compared with the night as much more energy is going up. The effects you mentioned, why would they change from day to night? You would get more collisions during the day but it is not a one way process, the O2 and N2 atoms will collide with CO2, excite it and now it may emit a downwelling IR photon. I am not sure that you did demonstrate why the GHE would not be much greater during the day than at night at least in an overall general sense.
  8. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    119, Norman, Virtually all of your statements are incorrect. For the overlap between CO2 and H2O, see the graph below: Concerning temperature sensors and the CO2 contribution, no. Again, your model is too simplistic. Looking at only the CO2 emissions a few meters above the surface is like looking at the edge of a dense fog. It is not giving you anywhere near the full picture. Your statement that "warming by collisions would not return to the ground" is inaccurate because your model is inaccurate and too simple -- it's really neither right nor wrong, but just not a meaningful statement to make. Your statement about individual O2 and N2 molecules becoming lighter and rising is flat out wrong. This does not happen. The parcel of air simply becomes warmer. It does not rise because the CO2 is well mixed, and the same thing is happening billions of times all around. Your statement that the negative consequences of Global Warming would only take place near the surface is completely wrong. It affects the entire depth of the atmosphere, and it is in fact by raising the altitude at which the planet finally loses radiation to space that greenhouse warming really occurs. Again, your own model of what is happening is far too simplistic. I would suggest that you find some sources of information on molecular physics and more details on exactly how the greenhouse effect works. You have some rather simplistic misconceptions about the mechanisms involved. You will not be able to build an accurate mental picture, and structure valid understandings and arguments, until you correct these deficiencies.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.)
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.....
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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/
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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?
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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!
  34. 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."
  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    @Dave123 #26 No need for you to be snooty. Your phrase, "physical models" is a tad unusual.
  38. 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 ?
  39. 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.
  40. 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!
  41. 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!
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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:
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

Prev  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us