Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 Next
Comments 76001 to 76050:
-
Albatross at 15:40 PM on 3 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
I highly recommend that readers consult this excellent (and easy to read) summary of this sad situation that has been published by Dr. Michael Ashley. -
Albatross at 15:29 PM on 3 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
This should be about the science, but sadly Spencer and his fellow 'skeptics' (e.g., Michaels, Lindzen, Christy) have been actively politicizing the science in any sympathetic media outlet or right-wing think tank that will give them space. Remember how Spencer held a press conference in Cancun the very hour that Dessler's paper was no longer embargoed? Also don't forget Spencer's recent ramblings about the economy and his self-styled role to protect the free market. And last but not least the fact that Spencer exaggerated his own findings in the press release. Regarding the science. The problems with Spencer's work have been shown here at SkS and elsewhere, the problems with his methodology and his model are valid, yet he ignores them, just as he initially ignored scientists when they noted that something odd was going on with the UAH satellite data. It has now come to light that a further refutation of his dubious Remote Sensing paper will be coming out in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal next week. How much more evidence do people uncritically supporting Spencer require before they conceded that this is a) no longer about science for Spencer and that b) he is driven not by a genuine curiosity to understand the climate system but rather any opportunity to attack the IPCC and imaginary enemies and is as a consequence producing very questionable science? After his latest rants on his blog and at WUWT, I'm surprised anyone can take Spencer seriously anymore. Hopefully "skeptics" who post here note that Spencer is now censoring people who have the temerity to challenge him (ironically at the same time that he is accusing others of censorship). -
Camburn at 15:16 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Marcus: There are not many farmers using anerobic digestion to produce power. I know of two: one in Washington state that is heavily subsidized and another in Kansas. They are both dairies. IF you are a soil scientist, then you have a lot to learn. I will put my farming practices and yields against anyones. And I will also put my increase in organic matter in my soils the past 25 years against anyones. You can not achieve an increase in organic matter by removeing organic matter. It is that plain and simple. And when you talk of the fertility of the by product of anerobic digestion system, remember you are only moving soil nutrients from one point to another. N is leachable, but P and K are a finite resource of each ton of soil. You must be a young fellow. But this is not the subject of this thread. -
Camburn at 15:01 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Marcus: Are far as globally, where it is monitored rigorously, and the rules enforced, as in ND, the safety is very evident. -
Rosco at 15:00 PM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
You still have not demonstrated how the solar constant is reduced from 1368 to 342. How do you explain the temperature on the moon ? -
Camburn at 14:59 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Marcus: I live in ND, I am talking about ND. The fellow went on and on about Fracking, and how bad it was. It has been used in ND for decades. A bit of history about oil and ND Apparantly it can be done safely. North Dakota proves this. -
Marcus at 14:52 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
btw, Camburn, you got anything beyond "anecdotal evidence" to prove the safety of the global fossil fuel industry over the last 50 years? -
Camburn at 14:50 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
muoncounter: Ah....sorry, but yes we do. Fracking has been used along with horizontal drilling in ND for over 20 years. The Bakken formation is a shale formation. Only when the price of oil went up did the drilling and production accelerate as it became much more economical to extract. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/newsletter/NL0308/pdfs/Horizontal.pdf -
Marcus at 14:49 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
LOL Camburn, I'm a soil scientist, & can honestly say that the only one displaying ignorance here is you! There are plenty of farmers in Europe & the US who are already using anaerobic digestion to generate gas *without* harming the productivity of the soil-indeed, the other by-product of the process is so nutrient rich that it *improves* the productivity of the soil. Yet you'd rather we invest in a process which, when it goes wrong, can wreck the water table for decades to come? If that's the way you feel, then I doubt very much that you're a farmer. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:14 PM on 3 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
So I have this straight, Wagner's (only) stated scientific reason for resigning is "The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers." Ref 7 is Trenberth et al "Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top‐of‐atmosphere radiation" and it relies on Forster and Gregory "The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data" for lambda (or Y). The main difference between SB11 and FG06 is that SB used lagged linear regression and FG used linear regression with no lag. My view is neither can be correct, the variables are not linear nor are they independent. -
muoncounter at 14:10 PM on 3 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Pielke's diagnosis of politicization appears to source here: Wagner is not an expert on the subject of the Spencer and Braswell paper, so he must have relied on input from individuals who were critical of their paper. He cites one reference (in addition to weblogs) Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., O’Dell, C., Wong, T. Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, L03702 Is Pielke suggesting that simply by citing Trenberth, Wagner must be playing politics? By Pielke's standards, Trenberth et al 2010 is properly peer-reviewed and 'robust' (apparently one of his favorite words). How can citing such a robust source be evidence of bias? Who is being political here?Response:[DB] Pielke apparently takes issue with someone resigning a position in order to call attention to a crappy paper...like Box did with the FKM paper earlier this year (prior to yet another record melt in the Arctic, yadayadayada).
Apparently skeptics consider it rather "poor form" to hold up their inadequacies to the light of day for all the world to see.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:04 PM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Sphaerica @44, I get that he won't get it. But perhaps some reader will not be familiar with spherical geometry, and will now see for themselves that Rosco is spouting complete and utter tripe. -
DSL at 14:04 PM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Rosco: "PS - I am not arguing from what seems to be right to me." Rosco: "I get the geometry I just think it isn't relevant for a dynamic system." Eh? -
muoncounter at 14:01 PM on 3 September 2011Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
Ken#26: "the green-energy companies backed by the current government are going broke and walking away with our tax money." Please provide some substantiation. Where I live, the green energy is wind - and its keeping my lights on and AC running while thermal plants can't handle the heat. And it was the prior government that negotiated sweetheart deals featuring ridiculously low royalties for wind energy. While you are at it, include the ongoing subsidies to the US oil industry (and the ongoing tax breaks to the top income brackets). The current government has kept those alive. "People getting wealthy with government subsidies"? That must also include the beneficiaries of earmarks: Of the top ten Senators requesting the highest amount of $ in solo earmarks 6 are Republicans. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:00 PM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
43, Tom Curtis, You're wasting your breath. Look at his comment here, where he says:Why is it valid to reduce solar insolation by a factor of 4 to calculate the "effective blackbody temperature" of a planet - especially Venus with it 200 odd earth day long day ? I get the geometry I just think it isn't relevant for a dynamic system.
It's really hopeless, and pointless. -
DSL at 14:00 PM on 3 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
What does Pielke mean by "politicized"? All science is politicized from the get-go because funding must be provided--in all sectors. Decisions about the worth of a study must be made. Those decisions are essentially political. I can only assume that Pielke means that Wagner only further brings climate science into the maw of mass media and public opinion, which is where it should be. People should be thinking about it. What the science indicates is serious trouble, and an informed public is never a bad thing. Pielke, then, laments the possibility of more people engaging the situation, for surely he couldn't be lamenting the idea that more idiots get a crack at the situation, not when he's let garbage slide right by him without correction or comment on various blogs and in association with the NIPCC. And he implicitly defends Spencer's work (surely he's read it and the criticisms). I suspect Wagner got an early look at Dessler's upcoming destruction of Spencer and realized that Spencer wasn't going to admit to the errors, much less work through them. -
muoncounter at 13:51 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Camburn, "a pretty good track record. 20 years of fracking..nothing to write home about." Once again, the frac jobs of 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago) do not compare to the frac jobs of today. When I left the oil business in 2002, shale gas was a drilling hazard; 5 years later it was the hot play. So you don't have a 20 year track record with this technology. -
Ken at 13:37 PM on 3 September 2011Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
Rob Painting, The Wright Brothers were competing with Langley for one who launched his biplane off a house boat in the Potomac River. It crashed because he has insufficient power. Man has to change the environment to survive. We are the only animal who has to do that. If it bothers you that people are getting wealthy with government subsidies, we are on the same page, because the green-energy companies backed by the current government are going broke and walking away with our tax money. Free-enterprise is not a zero-sum game. If you have data that shows that there is a limit to the products and services that can be offered to others for a fair price, please let me know the reference. I am an out of work aeronautical engineer, software engineer, university instructor and professional grandfather. I am also an amateur astronomer, so I just designed and had manufactured a one-of-a-kind telescope mount prototype. A company is now producing the first production model, which I will test and approve the final production design. No government grants or subsidies and no guarantee of success. Just my idea, my time doing the design and drawings, a few hundred dollars for the prototype, and an independent spirit. If you do not get the picture, I do not know what to say. If just a few percent of the energy being spent on this site were being spent on productive endeavors, we would not need this site. As things are, these dialogs should continue. Honest dialog is good for the soul.Response:[DB] "If just a few percent of the energy being spent on this site were being spent on productive endeavors, we would not need this site."
To whom are you referring?
(I like to be sure I'm being insulted before reacting...'cause it sure seems like an insult)
-
Camburn at 13:33 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Marcus: What interest? I live in the Eastern part of the state and don't have any oil under me. We are a lightly populated state. I have many friends in the western part of the state. We all have the same concerns.....a clean environment, responsable extraction. We have been producing oil for well over 50 years here. We have not had one major environmental problem. Fracking has been in use for over 20 years since the development of horizontal drilling. Topic 2: collect and anaerobically digest organic waste. Marcus: Do you know the environmental cost of doing this??????? I am a farmer. When you think that taking away the organic matter from my soil is a good thing.....then this only shows how little you know about soils. I work to INCREASE the organic matter in my soils, not remove it. I have been offered money to sell my straw....sure...short term gain...long term producitity loss on a large scale. This is NOT a practicle solution at all. The environmental consequences are absolutely horrendous. 50 years.....nothing to write home about. I call that a pretty good track record. 20 years of fracking..nothing to write home about. That shows that we are monitoring the extraction pretty well don't you think? -
muoncounter at 13:26 PM on 3 September 2011Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
Ken#24 "our lifespan has increased 50% in the last 100 years. " Yes. How much of that was due to food safety standards, the National Institutes of Health, OSHA and (gasp) the EPA? Or due to regulating the railroads, mine safety, the FAA and even the National Weather Service? Don't believe regulation has value? From Engineering Ethics: Considering the much larger number of people engaged in modern industry today compared to a hundred years ago, it is likely that the accident and fatality rates in modern industry are much lower than comparable rates in the 1880s. What I would like to see are examples of a private-sector project that solved a problem on a massive scale - like the ones that could tackle climate-related problems. This question came up on the Challenge to the right thread; no takers yet. -
muoncounter at 13:15 PM on 3 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Pielke: "As it is, Wagner has further politicized climate science." Oh, how quickly he forgets. Spencer is the one who has proclaimed he is not a scientist, but a 'legislator.' -
Marcus at 13:10 PM on 3 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
"Interesting" Camburn? Predictable-yes, boring-yes....but not "Interesting". -
Camburn at 13:05 PM on 3 September 2011Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Roger Pielke Sr. has an interesting take on Wagner's reisnation: Roger Pielke Sr take -
Marcus at 13:04 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Also, Camburn, I'm extremely curious about what interest you have in defending the Frakking industry. Anything you want to share with the audience? -
Ken at 13:03 PM on 3 September 2011Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
muoncounter, The government is a perfectly valid customer for any product. The government did not pay Edison with tax payers money to develop the product. Do you see the difference? It is called free-enterprise, not government subsidy. The examples of free-enterprise are all around you, just take a (-snip-) look around. Why don't you do the calculations of what our environment would be like if every home was heated and had to cook on wood or coal fires. Then compare this with the central production of the power we need to produce the efficient power we have today. The pollutants and use of resources would be enormous to support our current population. Not to mention that our lifespan has increased 50% in the last 100 years.Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
Marcus at 13:03 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
"Maybe the big ones aren't that great, but the small ones that are in the Bakken do fine." Camburn, you are aware that most aquifers in a region are joined together? Pollute one part of the aquifer & you're polluting the *entire* aquifer. Some of us happen to believe that the *risk* of a catastrophic accident are too great for the supposed "rewards", especially when a host of much safer & cleaner alternatives are already available. After all, why risk ground-water contamination to extract gas, when you can encourage local farming communities to collect & anaerobically digest organic waste to generate both gas *and* nitrogen rich fertilizer? -
Marcus at 12:59 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Wow, you really do have to love the lengths that people like Camburn will go to in order to defend an industry (oil & coal) with an extremely sketchy history in the area of environmental protection. Yes there are always risks in life, but why do we have to add even greater risks simply so that a multinational corporation can boost its profit margin? Also, how do you know that its been 100% successful? Minor leaks/contamination events often take many years for their ill effects to be felt. -
Tom Curtis at 12:49 PM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Rosco @39:"What you need to demonstrate is why this reduction is valid when at any point in time no matter what the undeniable truth is that at TOA Earth the solar constant is 1368 W/sq m and at any time the insolation on the Earth's surface is the radiation normal to the atmosphere minus the albedo and whatever is absorbed by the atmosphere. All climate scientists agree with the value of the solar constant as 1368 W/sq m. If the earth only receives 240 W /sq m whare did the other 1128 W/sq m go ? "
Basic Education: Area of a circle = pi r^2 Area of a sphere = 4 pi r^2 Ratio of the area of a sphere to the area of a circle of identical radius = 4 Total energy flux from sunlight intercepted by the Earth = 1368 W/m^2 * pi RE^2, where RE is the radius of the Earth. Total area energy flux is distributed over = 4 * pi RE^2, where RE is the radius of the Earth. Therefore, average energy flux of sunlight intercepted per square meter of the Earh's surface equals 1368/4 = 342 W/m^2. And the average energy flux of sunlight intercepted after albedo on the Earth's surface equals 342 * 0.7 = 239.4 W/m^2. What is the value of an education if you just assume any time that you disagree with a climate scientist that the PhD heavily published climate scientists have simply forgotten basic facts of geometry, and not one of the thousands of climate scientists world wide have managed to notice? Because that is what you have done. Your automatic assumption that because you have a bachelors degree in engineering, the PhDs in physics must have got it wrong would be hilariously funny if it where not so sad, and the issue serious. -
scaddenp at 12:46 PM on 3 September 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
As a further guide to thinking about the borehole data. Consider a simple 1D problem. Furnace with constant heat production inside. 2 layers of bricks surround it. Drill hole through brick and measure the temperature gradient. Given the gradient and the thermal conductivity, calculate the heat flux. Want to try that for borehole data? Remove one layer of brick instantaneously. Does the temperature of the surface for the remaining stay constant now? -
Camburn at 12:44 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
muoncounter: Maybe the big ones aren't that great, but the small ones that are in the Bakken do fine. At this time, there have been no fracing fluids detected in any of the test wells throughout the state. In life, there are always risks. They are mitigated to the best of our abilities. -
muoncounter at 12:31 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Camburn, It's the oil patch. Accidents happen; all the 'we are doing just fine policing this ourselves' in the world will not prevent them. The best you can do is be ready to clean it up - it's just that oil companies aren't all that great at doing that. Second frac spill Two spills during oil well fracture treatments in four months — the last one just Saturday — has the state’s chief oil regulator poised to bear down to prevent more incidents as drilling intensifies in the oil patch. Concerns about offgasing frac fluid The Whiting Petroleum Corp. well was shut down nearly two weeks ago after a valve near the wellhead failed and caused oil, natural gas and water to spill into a lined pit, the Associated Press reported Nov. 22. State health officials said all the liquid was contained and there was no environmental damage. -
Tom Curtis at 12:30 PM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Rosco @39:"Are you denying it was gravity which initiated all the fusion reactions in the stars through increasing pressure resulting in increasing temperatures which eventually reach the point where fusion reactions can take place ?"
The gravitational force is not consumed by the production of energy in stars. Therefore, regardless of the fact that it is essential for establishing the conditions of fusion, it is not the source of the energy. The energy in fact comes from the conversion of mass to energy by fusion in that the daughter elements in fusion are very slightly lighter than the parent particles."The core of Earth is hot due to gravity which is ultimately responsible for vulcanism and our magnetic field."
The Earth was heated to a molten state by impacts early in its history, but the heat from those impacts escaped to space in approximately 10 million years of the earths 4,500 million year history. It remains molten because of the energy released by fission of radioactive isotopes (primarily Uranium) in the core, along with a small amount of energy from tidal friction. Again in fission, the combined mass of the daughter isotopes (and particles) is slightly less than that of the parent isotopes, the difference being released as energy. Gravitation is completely irrelevant to this process. These may seem like minor points to you, but what they show to me an others on this site is a casual disregard for accuracy which permeates your posts and turn them into scientific garbage. As others have done, I cannot recommend highly enough that you sit down and read before continuing to post this nonsense online. -
Camburn at 12:19 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
muoncounter: Note that in both of these incidents, the water was contained, and the actual volume was very small. My water truck that I use for hauling water to my sprayer holds more water than was spilled inside the containment area. Both of these were well head blowouts, which is not the same as a caseing failure. To my knowledge, we have had no casing failures so far. There are approx 25 billion barrels of recoverable oil in this field, and the natural gas is also huge. Sheer numbers tell one that an accident or casing failure is bound to occur. The containment failure was dealt with the intent to make sure that the companies drilling, would understand that the financial costs would take away all the profit from that well. So...in simple terms.....don't spill or you will pay dearly. -
Rosco at 12:19 PM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
I've read the response. I've quoted the IPCC. I've made valid calculations using Stefan-Boltzman to arrive at maximum temperatures for different radiation levels and I have provided 2 example that demonstrate actual recorded temperatures correlate almost exactly with what was calculated. I am simply proposing something to think about. I am certainly not uneducated - I achieved honours in nearly every subject I undertook in my 2 degrees. -
Camburn at 12:09 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Ammend: The fine the company paid was several hundred thousand dollars. This was done to insure that this did NOT happen again. This has been the first and only spill so far in our states history. -
Camburn at 12:07 PM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Rob@8: No, the contaminated water is put in a containment basin. There are plans to put up a water treatment plant to refine that water. Most of the water is in the shale deposits tho. The contaminated water is a fraction of the total water used. We have several important aquifers in ND. The state in the early 90's developed a grid system to sample water throughout the state. The system was not in response to the fracing, but to the high levels of heavy metals that are naturally in the water. During times of drought, the heavy levels go up. Arsinic is a valid concern, as well as mollybedium, lead, etc. These are all natural pollutants. We are a very energy rich state, but at the same time we are also a very conservative state. We want to conserve the environment as Ag is still the principle industry and 99% of farmers are very conscious of any type of environmental damage. We have large livestock operations that require good water. There were a few deaths from arsinic poisoning in the 80's, (A time of a 3 year drought), and thus the test wells were developed. There was one temporary pit that had an overflow this spring because of overland flooding. The fine that the company paid was several thousand dollars, and they had to clean up the contaminated area. We have not had a well case breach at this time that is detectable in any of the ground water samples. Our state PSC is very conscious of the demands of the public that oil/gas extraction MUST be safe for all involved. All I can say is we live here. We breath the air, drink the water. It is our lifeblood. We are used to pristine water/air and will settle, nor accept anything less. Our coal fired power plants are owned by a co-op, and being owners of said co-op, the stockholders encourage and demand continued clear smokestacks etc. We do not need the Fed government to tell us what is good or bad. We are doing just fine policing this ourselves. My only wish is that other countries had the same resolve to do so. -
Rosco at 11:55 AM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
PS - I am not arguing from what seems to be right to me. I have a degree in Environmenta health Science and a degree in Engineering Technology. I was a professional Environmental Health Officer whose principal role was to enforce Environmental legislation especially prosecuting individuals or businesses responsible for pollution. I have retired. My last University attendance was in 1994 when I completed the Engineering degree. Basic physics involves breaking down a force into its components for example using the sine and cosine of the incident angle so there is plenty of precedent for the use of this concept. -
Rosco at 11:41 AM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Sphaerica said "false" to my assertion that "There has never been any demonstrated mechanism of trapping heat". OK - what is it ? Sphaerica said "Misleading or misunderstood" to my assertion that "Even the stars have an energy input through gravity" Are you denying it was gravity which initiated all the fusion reactions in the stars through increasing pressure resulting in increasing temperatures which eventually reach the point where fusion reactions can take place ? If you do assert this then I think you will find yourself at odds with every theory about the universe. From what I remember from my studies gravity is credited with the formation of virtually everything after the big bang - our rocky planets are thought to have accreted from the dust and gases of space until they achieved sufficient mass that this accretion process accelerated because gravity exerts a force proportional to mass - F = mass X acceleration. The core of Earth is hot due to gravity which is ultimately responsible for vulcanism and our magnetic field. Sphaerica accuses me of "Fuzzy thinking of no value". OK - well demolish the arguement posted above. The fact is you cannot unless you reduce the solar insolation to ~342 W/sq m then again by the albedo to achieve ~240 W/sq m. You must justify this by reasoned argument. What you need to demonstrate is why this reduction is valid when at any point in time no matter what the undeniable truth is that at TOA Earth the solar constant is 1368 W/sq m and at any time the insolation on the Earth's surface is the radiation normal to the atmosphere minus the albedo and whatever is absorbed by the atmosphere. All climate scientists agree with the value of the solar constant as 1368 W/sq m. If the earth only receives 240 W /sq m whare did the other 1128 W/sq m go ? The IPCC state ~50% makes it to the surface - this is broken down to 30% reflected (albedo) 20 % absorbed by atmosphere - and don't tell no insolation is absorbed because it is shortwave because there are plenty of bands available to absorb the > 50 % of insolation that isn't visible light - ~ 44% of the insolation is in the infrared wavelebghts while ~ 8% is ultraviolet which is the most energetic. There is indisputable proof that the radiation TOA Earth is capable of raising the temperature much higher than minus 18 C. NASA quotes the maximum temperature on the moon as in excess of 120 C. This explains what a fantastic shield our atmosphere is.Moderator Response: You continue to refuse to get a basic education. You are derailing this thread. All other readers, I suggest you simply stop responding to him. -
Rob Painting at 11:20 AM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
"We have been using horizontal drilling for 20 years in North Dakota." Where have they been dumping the contaminated water? In your local waterways? -
muoncounter at 11:08 AM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
Camburn#6: True enough, but the early horizontal wells in North Dakota were for enhanced recovery in existing oil fields. Horizontal drilling was attained at 10,737 ft (measured depth) with a resulting radius of 630 ft. The well was completed on September 25, 1987 for 258 BOPD and 299 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of gas. That's not a bad well, but not necessarily in need of a frac job. Not the same as the massive fracs they are doing now. It's an industrial-size process. Accidents will happen. -
Camburn at 10:52 AM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
muoncounter: We have been using horizontal drilling for 20 years in North Dakota. The 5% of wells that fail, maybe out east, I don't know. IF we had 5% well failutre here we would know about it. We have a test well system checking the water supply throughout the whole state, not just in the oil fields. I only know what has been happening in the Bakken formation of North Dakota. It is working well here. -
muoncounter at 10:00 AM on 3 September 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
DCotton#204: Your borehole plot here is only 9100 m in depth. The radius of the earth, last I checked, was 6.36x10^6 m, so the borehole is a sample of 0.14% of the whole. If you want to go on forming opinions based on that sample size, enjoy. Seismology, however, constructs a thermal structure for the whole earth.
Note the vertical scale; where would the 9.1 km borehole appear?
Actual science does not support in any way extending the borehole down to the core with a straight line. Not to burden you with another paper to read, but van der Hist et al 2007 found the core's heat loss at a whopping global average of 50 to 100 mW m–2. Note the use of mW; that's milliWatts.
BTW, how's the search for peer-reviewed research supporting any of your ideas coming along? Or are we still in the realm of your personal opinion?
-
scaddenp at 09:39 AM on 3 September 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
DC - thermal flux from the earth is around 40-60mW/m2, ie trivial compared to solar. Your statements about interpreting the borehole data is not supported by physics (modelling temperature flow in sedimentary basins is what I do for a living - it critical for determination of when oil is generated). I can only assume you have made a truly gross error in your calculation. How about you show us your working for a 1D heat diffusion equation that can come us with a result so different from the oil industry scientists? -
DouglasCotton at 09:22 AM on 3 September 2011Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
#199: The orbital effects are transmitted via variations in the total gravity of Moon and planets, which generates frictional heat in the liquid core and the crust itself. #200: There will be plenty of data in my paper confirming the correlations I have explained. This is hardly the place to post such. DB: The whole of this and my previous post is very much on the topic of "tracking earth's energy." I also asked a question relating to Trenberth's curved trend for seas surface data, as in this article, to which no one has responded.
Response:[DB] "Your own bolehole plot proves my point"
Quite the opposite, actually.
"The onus is upon proponents of AGW to prove otherwise"
Sorry, not in the business of disproving something that doesn't exist. And the only business I'm in is the propounding of the scientific method and climate science.
"because one of their assumptions is that there can be no other forcing agent that could have caused the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age."
Straw man, to the point of incoherence.
"I say there can be another forcing agent"
As Lincoln said, calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. You can say anything you want; doesn't make it true.
"No one has as yet been able to show any other reason"
You mean, other than the global borehole plot I supplied earlier which shows you wrong?
"Unless this can be debunked"
Been there, done that.
"AGW is not proven."
Straw man, no one said it was. AGW stands the test of time due to the consiliance of multiple, independent lines of converging evidence. All of which you'd have to overturn in order to have your hypothesis endure. As such, it fails quite miserably.
And we're back to this: the onus being on you to produce any peer-reviewed, published evidence to support your hypothesis.
We're still waiting.
-
Rosco at 09:15 AM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
What is wrong with the exchange of ideas and analysis ? -
adelady at 09:09 AM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Oh dear. 'Discussion' here is a bit (not very much, but a bit) like discussing an English or history topic at an educational institution. Reading the material first is an unavoidable requirement of talking or writing on the item in question. You've been given quite a few excellent references. Stop writing, thinking, discussing for a while and do some reading. You only need to choose a couple of those offered to start with. But you do need to get started. -
Rosco at 09:02 AM on 3 September 2011Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
I hope you will consider posting this - it is an analysis of energy input to a planet's atmosphere that is surely a starting point for discussion. You wanted a concise analysis well this may meet your requirements. The solar constant TOA Earth is ~1368 W/sq m agreed ? The solar constant TOA Venus is ~1.91 times that ~2612 W/sq m agreed ? I will talk about earth initially because we have better knowledge. The sun's radiation is approximately parallel. When it hits an atmosphere at 90 degrees to the tangent it will be absorbed at the maximum. When it hits at an angle to the tangent some will be reflected and some will pass into the atmosphere. The maximum component of the radiation that enters at 90 degrees to the tangent is the cosine of the latitude of the point - hence at the mid point the angle is 0 cos 0 = 1. Let’s stop the planet rotating - the solar constant is still 1368 W/sq m. The earth presents approximately a hemisphere to the sun's insolation. At the midpoint of the hemisphere the tangent to the atmosphere is at 90 degrees to the insolation and the angle between the incident radiation and the normal is zero - at the poles the tangent to the atmosphere is parallel to the radiation and the angle to the normal is 90 degrees. The tangent to the atmosphere at any point North or South is the cosine of the latitude. The insolation at any point varies as the cosine curve of the latitude. So let’s stop the earth at midday on a point on the equator when the sun is vertical to the equator and consider a line from north to south. At the mid point the insolation is 1368 W/sq m minus the albedo minus absorption by the atmosphere. If not, why not ? If you consider any other point on the hemisphere the angle the sun's parallel rays make to the tangent is the cosine of the latitude. Therefore the factor to reduce the insolation incident on the atmosphere is the cosine of the latitude – that is it varies from 1 at the midpoint to zero at the “pole”. So at the equator the insolation is ~ 684 W /sq m - 1368/2 - additional source is IPCC - Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science P115 -"About half the solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface and warms it." This energy is capable of causing a maximum temperature of 331 K or ~58C which if my memory serves me well is approximately the highest temperature recorded. If the albedo were uniform over the earth - which it isn't - the maximum insolation should vary as a cosine curve from the midpoint north or south. For example consider Baghdad - ~ 33 N (why choose Baghdad ? - A well known desert location with "normal albedo low cloud and a well documented temperature record) - the maximum insolation is cos 33 x 684 = ~573.65 W/sq m. Maximum temperature for this insolation is ~317 K or 44 C. Meterological records show Baghdad's maximum temperatures are ~ 44 C in summer. So how does this even matter ? It demonstrates that maximum is different to average - obvious. It demonstrates that Earth and Venus may possibly receive more radiation and hence have higher temperatures than is calculated by reducing solar insolation to ~240 W/sq m to calculate the average temperature on Earth or to ~132 W/sq m on Venus. Again, I have not denigrated anybody's opinion simply proposed some discussion points. -
muoncounter at 09:00 AM on 3 September 2011Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
Ken#20: Edison made his first fortune by selling an improved telegraph to Western Union. Their money came from following the railroads, financed by the federal government. Marconi: A series of demonstrations for the British government followed—by March 1897, Marconi had transmitted Morse code signals over a distance of about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) across the Salisbury Plain. On 13 May 1897, Marconi sent the first ever wireless communication over open sea. I'd like to see some examples of the so-called free market actually solving a vast-scale problem, something like the Dutch Delta Project (government-run). The track record of 'free enterprise' includes great advances, but also such enduring gifts as air and water pollution, clear cut lumbering, mountain-top removal mining, oil spills, chemical waste, etc. -
Rob Painting at 08:55 AM on 3 September 2011The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
No more fracking here in NZ, or there will be........trouble. -
Composer99 at 08:54 AM on 3 September 2011Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
Ken: Kindly show how that rambling, evidence-free comment @20 relates to the errors of fact made by Michaels and the incorrect inference he makes resulting from those errors. Otherwise I suggest you are off-topic.
Prev 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 Next
