Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 Next
Comments 77051 to 77100:
-
Tom Curtis at 13:14 PM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
mullumhillbilly @73, it does indeed sound weird, but only if you think of the CO2 as providing the energy. In fact it doesn't, rather it helps retain the Sun's energy more efficiently, and that retaining the Sun's energy more efficiently should retain more energy at the surface than is generated by a coal fire is not weird at all. The IPCC figure shows only forcings, not feed backs. The difference is that the effect of a feedback is a function of temperature in the short term, as for example with the water vapour content of the atmosphere. In contrast, industrial production of aerosols, and aircraft contrails (as two examples) are not a function of temperature in any meaningful way. -
mullumhillbilly at 12:21 PM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
Muon @70 Here’s a thought experiment. It doesn’t require believing that the atmosphere behaves literally like a greenhouse. Suppose we have two identical glasshouses a few metres apart, each of them with 70% floor area covered by water (let’s say a metre deep ie a large heat sink compared to the remaining area of lightly gravelled dry floor). Further suppose this is a special kind of glass which is completely transparent to all radiation wavelengths. By day, the doors are opened and the roof is vented so air and surface temperatures and humidity are same as the surroundings. All vents closed at sunset, and one glass house has extra CO2 added (at ambient temperature) so that it has say 256x the concentration of the other (8 doublings). Surplus air is vented so that pressure is also constant. Heat energy within the enclosures is equal at the start of the night. Then as the night cools, heat in the form of longwave infra red radiation LIR is emitted from the ground and the water. So what happens to the temperature and heat energy vs time profiles in the two glasshouses? What I think will happen is this. In the CO2 enriched state, more of the outgoing LIR is intercepted and re-radiated. Some of the re-radiation leads to (i) collisions with N2 and 02 thus raising the air temperature (kinetic energy) and (ii) greater evaporation and higher water vapour content in the air. So a temp-vs time and heat energy content vs time chart of the CO2 enriched state would show slower declines than the ambient air state. However both greenhouses are ultimately losing their heat to the surroundings. If kept in the dark for long enough, they will both fall to the same temperature in equilibrium with their surroundings. So, the key question here is how long does it take for the two glasshouses to get to the same temp and contained energy state? The area between the two temp-time or energy time decline curves is the quantum of GHG warming. If we measured temperature on a minute-by-minute basis through the night, we’d find that the “average” temperature has increased in the CO2 enriched glasshouse because the early evening temperature is higher for a period. However if we only measured overnight minimum and daily maximum, then provided the time to cool to equilibrium was less than 12 hours, there would be NO apparent difference between the two. The enriched system still returns to the same overnight minimum as the control, it just gets there a bit more slowly. Is this what is happening in the atmosphere (and oceans)? If the energy states equilibrate overnight, then average temperature has increased because of the early evening slower decline of the curve, but climate HAS NOT CHANGED because ultimately the energy states of the control and enriched systems are at the same point each morning sometime before dawn. The CO2 enriched system has not “gained” any energy to be carried forward (in say the water bodies). Over the long term, we would see NO energy gain in the enriched system, even though we have observed a rise in average temperature. With no accumulating energy gain, there is nothing to drive the hurricanes, floods, droughts, heatwaves, snow dumps, melting ice etc etc. Can anyone point me to a paper which shows empirically that overnight heat energy loss from the Earth’s atmosphere does NOT equilibrate before dawn, so that energy is actually accumulating in the system (and thence “climate change”) ? -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:20 PM on 18 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Tom @ 35 I no more think that a doctor specializing in either end of the alimentary canal is an expert on climate science than you do. However, there are scientists in disciplines directly relating to climate that their opinions should matter. Case in point from Doran-Zimmerman: "An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth). To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete..." To get the 97% figure, only the "expert" climate scientists who published 50% of their papers on climate change were counted. That figure may or may not be important, but what about the other professionals who were asked to be part of the survey. Why were they asked if their opinion is not considered? Is there a complete version of the study and questions available for public consumption. I am not sure there is a way of vetting either the signers of the Oregon Petition, or the respondees to the Doran survey. Shoving to the side the signers of the Oregon Petition because one disagrees with their position is inherently wrong. -
mullumhillbilly at 12:14 PM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
OK thanks Tom@71, I accept that correction to my arithmetic. So in fact the GHG energy effect is equal to the combustion energy in just 0.66 years !! (32.4kWh/yr x 3.6MJ/Wh x 0.66 yrs =77 MJ). That's just as wierd from the opposite end, hundreds of times more energy from the byproduct than in the combustion ??! BTW I thought the 3.7 W/m2 per doubling did already account for the feedbacks (at present with 0.33 doublings, it's 1.66W/m2 incl all feedbacks?) IPCC AR4 Fig 2 -
Tom Curtis at 12:07 PM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
Correction to 71: where I said conservative by a factor of 100, that should be by a factor of 10. -
Tom Curtis at 11:00 AM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
mullumhillbilly @67, accepting your figures for the sake of argument, I come to your calculation of the energy input from the greenhouse effect. Specifically, adding 4.6 Kg per m^2 atmospheric CO2 (doubling from pre-industrial levels) results in an a forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. 3.7W/m^2*(60*60*24*365.25)seconds = 116.76 MegaJoules for a single year, not the 77 MegaJoules for 660 years that you calculate. The error appears to be where you write:"From point 4 above, the additional 4.6kg of CO2 produced by burning 3.2kg of coal leads to 3.7W x 24 hours x 365 days = 32.4Wh per year."
In fact, 3.7 *24 * 365 = 32,412 WattHours, not 32.4 has you calculate. Returning to the correct value, by your corrected estimation burning 3.2 Kg of coal per m^2 of the Earths surface would release 76.8 MJ/m^2, which would rapidly dissipate. The CO2 from that combustion would have a forcing of 111.76 MJ/m^2 per year for 660 years, or 73.7616 GigJoules, or 960 times the amount. This in fact underestimates the effect of the greenhouse forcing for it does not take into account feedbacks, which increase the amospheric forcing of the CO2 to 8 to 10 W/m^2 (sorry, don't have the exact figure to hand). That at least doubles the effect. As you can see, by these back of the envelope estimates, the estimate in the article above estimate is conservative by a factor of 100. This is because it compares current greenhouse forcing with current annual non-renewable energy production, and does not include the life time effects of CO2. -
muoncounter at 11:00 AM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
hillbilly#68: "you are really referring to temperature, not heat energy." You asked about the heat from your fire, a high temperature source. But the real question is indeed the comparative quantity of energy -- and a daily average of 250 W/m^2 across a verrry large number of m^2 represents a lot more watts than fires, power plants and cars. Hence the waste heat = 1% of GHE conclusion. You're coming to this thread quite late; I suggest you review the prior comments here as well as the 400+ comment thread Waste heat vs. greenhouse warming. One of the key questions raised there was this: why the continued warming during times of economic downturn when waste heat input declines? -
scaddenp at 10:59 AM on 18 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Camburn, I think you are misunderstanding a lot about the uncertainties and the value of paleoclimate studies. Just because TSI reconstructions are difficult, does not mean that they are unbound. Climate theory as used in predicting future climate is not based on paleoclimate studies but on straight physics. Paleoclimate is very useful because it provides a test-bed for those theories. However, with anything outside the satellite era you have the issue of accuracy in climate measurement and accuracy of climate forcings. You can invalidate model when it fails to reproduce climate (within uncertainty and prediction window) using forcings within their limits. I dont think you have shown any threat to climate theory with the latest TSI data. I do not think that early 20C warming is SOLELY due to changes in TSI. (GHG and aerosols are also important). Where is that claim made? Also present measures of TSI may have some issues with absolute accuracy, but not with precision. That's important because forcing is about change more than absolute value. -
Camburn at 10:39 AM on 18 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Tom: Thank you, I have limitied time right now, but will study the links. -
Camburn at 10:36 AM on 18 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Scaddenp: Thank you. This is not what I was referring to, but it does show the difference within specialists in this field. I asked Dr. Svalgaard about his paper that he had mentioned about 6-8 months ago, and he said he was not in the "TSI food fight at this time" I can only take his advice, that TSI is certainly not deffintive, and even present methods of trying to measure it via satillite are not very good. He did say that Judith Lean does not back her Lean 2000 reconstruction with the newer understandings. So, being the true skeptic that I am, from at least my understanding, I will not accept that the early 20th century warming was tied to an increase in solar as there is too much disagreement within those who are experts in this field to have any confidence level in this idea. Also, the L&P effect is something else new as well. So much to learn, so little known. Thank you very much for your help. -
FiveString at 10:25 AM on 18 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
I guess I really thought that trying to appeal to Postma from an astrophysical point of view would help him see his error. What's interesting about it is that my own background in stellar atmospheres led my intuition astray too. The difference is that when I saw that my intuitive view of how nature works conflicts with every non-loony authority, my response was to step back and try to figure out where I went wrong. And it didn't take long to find the mistake. Just like grad school all over again... I've apparently greatly underestimated the blinders on these latter-day Galileos. The most depressing part of it is that the only long-term result is likely to be that this 'dramatic new theory' will become a permanent talking point for the right-wing nuts. If I have to pick sides (and from my interactions on that site, apparently I do) put me on the science team, please. -
mullumhillbilly at 10:18 AM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
Thanks Muon, The IR photos and S-B ^4 were helpful explanations for my small open fire, but you are really referring to temperature, not heat energy. I can think of two situations where the temperature is lower and the explanation may not hold. For example I can cover or contain the fire, or make it burn very slowly. The waste heat from a coal-fired power stations CFPS is ultimately equal to the energy content of the coal. It just comes out in various forms, steam from condensation towers, cooling water re-circulated in dams, the walls/roof heated by boiler radiation, transmission resistance in lines, and finally the actual electricity produced that goes into lighting or electric motors or whatever, all of which give off some low grade heat. So most of that waste heat from the CFPS is in fact similar to the background and would therefore seem to have as much chance of being absorbed by CO2 (or H20) as the night time losses from the natural land/water surface. And what if the coal was burnt very very slowly? For example, like a rotting log. Suppose it takes 10 years to decompose the 3.2 kg of coal in my first question. The heat (energy, not temperature) liberated by oxidation is still 24 MJ//kg, and it will still take 660 years for the warming produced by GHG emission to equal that amount. (assuming CO2 is already doubled so it has the effect of warming at 3.7W/m2). So it seems if you take out the rapid IR loss, the conclusions from my fire analogy still stand. The GHG warming energy from the emitted CO2 (in the short term) is a miniscule fraction of the energy released by combustion. Why is that GHG warming energy (night time only , near ground) not lost from the system as easily as the combustion energy? -
muoncounter at 10:17 AM on 18 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Tom, That is pirate's homework assignment. He's the one pushing '30+ climate scientists,' so let him tell us who they are. Hint: Spencer - not. Lindzen - yes. -
Tom Curtis at 10:09 AM on 18 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
muoncounter @34, good luck with that - signatories do not have their specialization attached to their name, so even identifying the 39 climatologists would be a challenge. -
Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 18 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
apirate @33 1) To quote from your 13:" We can then compare that to the 75 out of 77 who were deemed worthy of contributing to the oft reported 97% figure of climate scientists who support the AGW theory. 32 vs 77. Maybe, just maybe, things aren't as cut and dry as some would like them to be."
So, we have a denominator less comparison of 32 "climate scientists" for the Oregon Petition to the 77 "actively publishing climate scientists" from Doran; and we have an assertion that things aren't "cut and dry" in an explicit discussion of the proportion of climate experts who accept AGW. That represents a very clear implicit argument that that the 97% is significantly wrong, and that a comparison of the 32 with the 97 gives a better idea of the correct value. No explicit argument was msde. Consequently you implicit argument was exactly as I stated it. If that was not you intended argument you need to withdraw that claim and apologize for stating what ever your actual argument was in a way which invited misunderstanding. 2) My point stands whether you include members of the Oregon Petition, or just those surveyed by Doran. A petrologist is no more likely to be expert in climate science than is a dentist or proctologist. You do insist that the opinion of geochemists and geophysics is as relevant to assessing expert opinion on climate change as the opinion of actively publishing climatologists. But their opinion can only be as relevant to the expert opinion on climatology if they, by virtue of being geochemists and geophysicists, are as expert on climate change as are the actively publishing climatologists. -
Keith Hunter at 08:31 AM on 18 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
Myself @6: Spotted a mistake. The saturation depth in the Pacific gets shallower from south to north, not as I mistakenly stated @6. -
scaddenp at 07:34 AM on 18 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Sorry, link to Svaalsgard is here. Note that this is a review and proposal but it contains a good review of reconstructions. -
muoncounter at 07:10 AM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
hillbilly#67 : "where is all that heat from the fires going?" The surface of the earth radiates at 288K (~14 C); suppose your fire burns at 400C (673K). The radiated power varies with the 4th power of temperature (in K); there's a huge difference between 2884 and 6734. So the short answer is hot objects lose energy as infrared radiated to space very rapidly. See recent IR photos of wildfires (example here). See the Stefan-Boltzmann law wikipedia article for a reference. -
garethman at 06:52 AM on 18 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
As a self confessed sceptic I was really saddened by this interview. I’m sure the guy is an intelligent person who has a much greater potential than dodgy interviews on a news programme renown for being economical with the truth. Come on Joe, you can do better than this, you have the power to do much for the science. Reductionism and black and white thinking is always wrong, whatever side you are on. -
muoncounter at 06:48 AM on 18 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
pirate#33: "there are 30+ who signed the petition" Let's stop throwing that 30+ number around without knowing what it means. Find out who the 30 are and what kind of work they have done. Are they are mostly fringers and cranks (of the caliber of Salby, Bastardi, etc) whose signature means nothing credible? Where do these 30 work? What papers have they published? How have those papers been received, commented, rebutted etc? You know, questions that skeptics might want answered before believing that this petition constituted some form of 'evidence'. Go over the petition with the same sort of microscope that you apply to Doran. -
Paul D at 05:19 AM on 18 August 2011Another two reviews of Climate Change Denial
It's Brians Satchel! eg. the guys name is Brian and he has a satchel :-) Unless I am missing a joke?Response: No, error on my part, have updated the post with Brian's correct name (next time should read the blog title more carefully). -
Bob Lacatena at 05:08 AM on 18 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
5, Chris Colose, It is certainly worth at least some effort, just to have a record of it. It serves three purposes: 1) For a handful of deniers who believe this stuff, there's a chance they'll actually behave skeptically long enough to find your post, read it, and maybe put Postma aside in hopes of a more believable excuse for their denial. 2) For people on the fence, or in denial but able to understand the truth when they see it, you are providing a resource which will help them to not only move on past Postma's gibberish should they stumble into it, but also to see how easily the unwary can be confused by high-faloot'n sounding gobbledygook. 3) It will provide a log of yet another example of denial Climastrology, a growing and fantastic branch of alchemy that, if it grows large enough, will eventually serve as a huge, blinking neon sign for everyone to look at when considering how inane not only Postma's but almost all other denial arguments on the table really are. The sad fact is that a huge, huge number of deniers are Dunning-Kruger victims of the ilk of Postma (many can be found posting ridiculous comments on this very site). Not all (but many) are able to put together a web page or PDF of complex and therefore seemingly plausible gibberish. They are the poster children for those many more who don't or can't go that far, but also think they know better than everyone else because they rose in the ranks of their chosen but narrow field of engineering or science, and were able to solve any problem with their one hammer of choice. Because of the air-play that Postma is getting, his nonsense needs to be thoroughly debunked. -
John Q. Credibility at 04:13 AM on 18 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
A second paper? The Postma always ding-a-lings twice, it seems. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:43 AM on 18 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Tom at 32 1. I was not making an implicit argument about the percentage of scientists disagreeing with AGW. I plainly said that there are 30+ who signed the petition. However, for you to include comments in parantheses (i.e., whatever sort) is an implicit condemnation of scientists for which you have no basis other than your own arrogant sense of superiority. 2. I was not offended in the least by your comments in 29. Instead I found them amusing and off-topic. I am not insisting that actively publishing climate scientist not be considered the experts that they are. You insist on putting words in my mouth. I am no more insisting that a dentist be considered an expert than you are. But, then again I was not referring to the Oregon Project. I referring to the fact that there were plenty of scientists in the Doran Survey who were sent the survey who were not "climate scientists". Those respondees in other disciplines were placed to the side to achieve the higher percentage that is often quoted. From the article "With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, geology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change." -
Chris G at 02:13 AM on 18 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
I've gotten the impression that there is a class of people I call symbol manipulators. Basically, these are reasonably intelligent people who have a hard time knowing when the equations apply to the physical world and when they don't, or when they apply, but only as an approximation. They can be pretty good at juggling math equations and laws of nature, but there is a disconnect between the symbols and what they mean in the real world. I'm getting the impression that Postma might fall in this category. An extreme example: There was a fellow engineering student I knew who read something to the effect that no matter exists at absolute zero. All the rest of us took that to mean the entropy and the diffusion of energy guaranteed that all matter had some, possibly very minute, amount of heat energy (molecular motion). He took it to mean that, if you could somehow reduce matter to a temperature of absolute zero, it would cease to exist. He wasn't a bad person, and he was capable of producing language and formulas that were consistent with most laws of physics, but he was missing a connection with reality at a fundamental level. It might be that Postma would benefit from an explanation of how the composition, the density, and the temperature of the atmosphere vary with altitude, and why that is, because that is where simple atmospheric models suffer a disconnect with reality. Then again, that is knowledge that is readily available; so, he has probably been exposed to it before. Is this pattern a Dunning-Kruger effect, a result of cognitive dissonance, or something else? I don't know. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 02:01 AM on 18 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
From Idiot Tracker "For months "Climate Etc" has been plagued by thousands upon thousands of comments triggered by her efforts to debunk some obvious denier fallacies about the greenhouse effect, which she has collectively labelled a "greenhouse dragon." Presently Judith's lead is a rather mundanely titled effort: "Postma on the greenhouse effect." "But I rather like what must be her original title... ..."A slain greenhouse dragon"." Her introduction mentions this Skeptical Science blogpost. -
Mighty Drunken at 01:38 AM on 18 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
suibhne I am not convinced. The reason I am not convinced is that mortgages are a fairly safe bet as long as you take a little care on who you lend to. This means the limiting factor on the number of mortgages you can lend is how much capital you have available. Its clear that this was not the case for Northern Rock, they had to keep burrowing money for the capital they required. Many a say a good rule of thumb is that a bank should not ever have a leverage ratio of more than 10 - if you do not want a banking collapse. -
mfripp at 00:36 AM on 18 August 2011SkS Weekly Digest #11
Great cartoon! -
Tom Curtis at 00:26 AM on 18 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Camburn @75, I agree it is one of many interesting areas of study in climate science. However, I do not see it as much of a threat to the consensus. To see why, consider this reconstruction of climate forcings over the last 1000 years from Hegerl and Zwiers, based (I believe) on previous work by Hegerl which I'm to tired to chase up at the moment):
As you can see, they have no difficulty reconstructing early twentieth century temperatures (or indeed, temperatures for the entire 1000 years) with a change in solar forcing closer to 0.1 than 0.125 W/m^2 over the period 1900-1950. Part of the difference is made up by a stronger volcanic influence than in other reconstructions, however, it should be remembered that on the standard reconstructions for attribution studies as seen in the IPCC can reconstruct all of the 20th early 20th century rise with natural forcings alone. If one of those forcings is weaker than expected, the probable consequence is that natural plus anthropogenic forcings will still be able to reconstruct the temperature series, but that natural forcings alone will do so less well, possibly to the point of statistical significance.
You are correct about Shapiro being an outlier. What is more, he uses an innovative technique which I gather to be quiet controversial. Intuitively it is dubious to me, but I think its one the solar physicists are going to have to sort out between themselves.
-
Camburn at 23:24 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Tom: Can you tell me more about Shapiro? I looked him up and he seems to be an economist. Is this correct? -
Camburn at 23:11 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Tom: Thank you. I will have to study your links as time permits. I would also hope I have created interest in studying this area again. As you noted, there are quit dramatic differences in reconstructed TSI as of late, which require re-examination of previous reasons of early 20th century warming. Shapiro would be considered an outlier with his results at this time. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:07 PM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
8, Kevin C, People do tend to not find what they don't look for, don't they? Funny how that works. But it's all part of the nefarious deception. -
CBDunkerson at 21:11 PM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale, you might not like it, but think how this series looks to others. When presented with a logic chain which contradicts the conclusion you support you do not say, 'hmmm... maybe the conclusion is wrong'. Instead, you decide to deny the validity of the starting data. The logic can't be refuted, so the only remaining way to 'defend' the conclusion is to assume a conspiracy to falsify the data. Yet, as Dikran has pointed out, Salby accepted the accuracy of the data. Thus, we can still clearly see that his analysis MUST be wrong... unless you can identify some flaw in the logic progression that Dikran walked you through (which was an excellent analysis BTW). Failing that you are essentially now arguing against Salby's assumptions (i.e. the data is correct) as the basis to 'defend' his conclusion (i.e. the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is due to natural emissions). This is inherently self-contradictory. Your claim that we must wait for Salby to publish in order to see if there is a flaw in his position is disproven by the fact that you cannot maintain support for his conclusion without contradicting his assumptions. This is the kind of logical inconsistency / cognitive dissonance which SHOULD make people say, 'Hmmm... there seems to be a flaw in this position'. You haven't done that. Is it any wonder that this causes some people to suspect your integrity? Personally, I think it more likely that you are sticking to the position out of some sort of faith or emotional resistance to being incorrect. That is, you aren't so much lying/trolling US as you are doing so to yourself. However, the effect is the same... rather than making logical conclusions you are leaping to incredibly thin conspiracy theories (e.g. human emissions data accepted by all parties is overstated by more than 100%). -
Fitz1309 at 20:47 PM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
CBDunkerson and DB Thank you for your replies and graphs! Very helpful indeed! The "How reliable are CO2 measurements?" article was also interesting, I particularly like the animation at the bottom of the page! :-)Response:[DB] If you liked that video then you should love this one, from SkS author Robert Way:
-
Robert Murphy at 20:33 PM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
#201 "What if heat causes CO2, which I gather is an emerging theory?" No, it's an old falsified claim that pops up every now and then in different guises by some "skeptics". I assume you mean the claim that the rapid rise in CO2 over the last 150 or so years is mostly due to rising temperature. That higher temperature will over a long time result in outgassing of CO2 from the oceans is not controversial and has no bearing on the recent spike. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:31 PM on 17 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale wrote: "In terms of the evidence presented in this thread, the cause is human emissions." Good, I'm glad you agree. So unless Salby can refute the data used here, his theory is dead in the water? "But I do proviso that statement with "in terms of the evidence in this thread". In his podcast Salby says the anthropogenic emissions data are the only reliable data we have. The Mauna Loa data are so solid even WUWT accepts them as accurate, and it is the atmospheric growth data that Salby uses (listen to his podcast). Those are the only datasets used here, and Salby endorses both of them! "For instance, how are human emissions calculated?" The anthropogenic emissions data would have to be an overestimate by a factor of two to change the result. The uncertainty of emissions data isn't anything like that large. The uncertainty is also likely to be assymetric with under-estimate more likely than an over-estimate, simply because energy usage is taxed, so energy companies have no benefit to be gained by over-reporting. "Which also brings questions on how the natural in and out figures are calculated. How accurate to reality are they?" This comment suggests that you still don't understand the mass balance argument as it does not assume any knowledge about the "in and out" figures for the natural environment. It is a method for calculating the difference between them without knowing their values. -
Kevin C at 19:20 PM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Arthur Smith deals with the non-spherically averaged cases for both non-rotating and rotating planets here, in response to another similar claim. From the paper, p11:(There does not seem to be any readily-available data on separate day-time and night-time average temperatures for the Earth, which is very curious, while there is a wealth of data on daily average temperatures. The day-time and night-time averages are extremely important and would go far in helping to determine the heat retention capacity and properties of the atmosphere.)
Curious. I was able to pull up hourly data from individual stations straight away on Weather Underground. Not sure if anyone releases hourly data in a curated form though. -
Tom Curtis at 17:03 PM on 17 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
apirate @30: 1) I notice you have shifted the topic of discussion. Previously you where defending the claim that the 39 climate scientists (of whatever sort) from the OISM petition and the 72 actively publishing climate scientists from Doran should be directly compared without reference to the relevant denominators. The implicit argument is that 35% of climate scientists disagree with AGW - a conclusion that is straightforwardly false. Having now recognized that ignoring denominators is irrational, you now appear to be arguing that actively publishing climate scientists are in fact not uniquely expert on climate science - a different argument entirely. 2) Turning to that argument, I need only point out that it is in no way a condemnation of dentists to say that actively publishing climate scientists are more expert on climate science than they. After all, expertise is not just a matter of possessing critical reasoning skills. It is a matter of having the relevant background knowledge; of being familiar with unusual but common (in the field) techniques; and of being current with the relevant scientific literature. To drive this point home, let us reverse the claim. Suppose I where to say of a dentist that they where no more expert at dentistry than the average climate scientists. That would be a resounding condemnation of the dentist. If it were true, they should be barred from practicing on the grounds of incompetence. Yet here you are insisting that actively publishing climate scientists should be considered no more expert than a random list of dentists, doctors, engineers, and other technically qualified people, only one third of whom have PhD's, and whose only known familiarity with the literature is an egregiously false propaganda piece that was deliberately dressed up to appear peer reviewed, complete with fake journal volume and page numbers. And while running this argument, you have the gall to be offended by my comments at 29. The simple fact is, if we want to know whether there is a consensus of the experts on climate science, then the only relevant opinions are those of the experts. And the experts are the actively publishing climate scientists. It is no insult to any other scientist to say they are not as expert in that field as are the actively publishing climate scientists. But it is an outrageous insult to the genuine experts say they are no more expert than any other scientists as you are doing. -
Doug Mackie at 17:01 PM on 17 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
Yes Tor, this is the 'snow line' we wrote of in the post and that Keith restated in his comment. In addition to the links I gave in my comment above, I think Ove did something else on this a while back at SkS (pauses to check) here. (Wow the comments then certainly present, shall we say, an interesting spectrum). -
Tom Curtis at 16:43 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Camburn, comparing Steinhiber et al to Meehl et al, both show a 0.5 W/M^2 rise in insolation between 1900 and the mid-century peak in insolation. Having said that, Meehl et al indicate that to be the rise in forcing, which suggests it is the globally averaged figure, compared to Steinhiber et al's TSI. In that case based on Steinhiber the rise in solar forcing should be 0.125 W/m2. Krivove et al, 2010 show a similar rise. A deficit of 0.385 W/m^2 is certainly large enough to be of interest. That deficit may be compensated for by a stronger usually accepted aerosol forcing. The early twentieth century saw a distinct lack of major volcanoes, resulting in a drop in the normal level of naturally occurring stratospheric aerosols. That would also require a stronger than currently accepted climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 to balance anthropogenic aerosols. Alternatively, recent reconstructions showing lower variation in TSI could simply be wrong. After all, some recent reconstructions, notably by Shapiro continue to show a large variance in TSI> -
Marco at 16:10 PM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
Sorry, Chris, I just see more evidence he is one of those "Bozo the Clown"-Galileos. I really think he honestly thinks he is right. Problem is, no one can show him wrong, because he won't accept being wrong. He's right, period. He's Galileo! -
adelady at 16:07 PM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
stickybeak, I think you're probably referring to this, Murry Salby Confused About The Carbon Cycle. Not very promising. -
Tom Curtis at 16:02 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
scaddenp @72, your first link is a link to Meehl et al 2003 rather than to Svalgaard 2011. -
Stickybeak at 15:55 PM on 17 August 2011Climate's changed before
What if heat causes CO2, which I gather is an emerging theory? -
scaddenp at 15:03 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Camburn, Svalgaard's most relevant is probably this (2011). However, if you put this reconstruction in Meehl, it looks within the uncertainty bands to me. That said it will be interesting to see an update of Meehl with better estimates of all forcings. Someone with more time than me can probably access that from the CMIP5 archive already though it will certainly be part the next IPCC report when it comes out. -
Camburn at 14:44 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
DB: Thank you. I am not here to disrupt. That would be crass of me. There are areas of climate science that I feel the science is very good. There are also areas of climate science that I feel the science is not as up to date as it should be. This is one of those areas. I can't read everything, but collectively the knowledge of each can be shared with all. I am looking for additional knowledge. -
actually thoughtful at 14:37 PM on 17 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
Way, way of topic, but I don't know where else to post: I read in the current issue of Discover that a scientist has developed a method of pulling the carbon out of the air using only a small amount of PV and a lot of solar thermal. He ends up with either carbon monoxide or solid carbon. It was presented as a feasible solution to global warming. Am I missing something? Here is the article: http://discovermagazine.com/2011/sep/26-carbon-dioxide-into-bioplastics-2-birds-1-stone -
Camburn at 14:31 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
Dr. Svalgaards paper to be published, and it has been accepted, is based on the results of this paper. In his paper, he refines the data of F. Steinhilber,1 J. Beer,1 and C. Fro¨hlich2. TSI reconstruction for Holocene I am not trying to be a pest. If someone has a paper that is based on the newer TSI reconstructions that can show the early 20th century warming I would very much enjoy reading it. -
Camburn at 14:20 PM on 17 August 2011How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
scaddenp: ok.....the paper is based on a TSI reconstruction that does not match any current TSI reconstruction. I am sure the TSI reconstruction was the best available at the time the paper was written. as of late TSI reconstructions, and I don't have the links but I know the names: Svalgaard 2007 Prenminger 2006 Both show flat TSI during the early 20th century. Dr. Svalgaard is coming out/or it might have been published by now a newer reconstruction that re-affirms his previous work. With that in mind, the conclusion of Meehl 2003 is not applicable as they are using solar forcings as part of the bases for the increase in temperature. In the conclusion section of Meehl 2003 they state that the paper re-inforces that solar/ghg and aerosols account for the early 20th century warming. I don't know how to post pictures. I think in my archive I have the TSI reconstruction that Dr. Svalgaard is publishing. It does reflect the current solar max, and flattens the TSI even more in the early 20th century. So scaddenp: The thing that challenges Meehl is that the TSI reconstruction has been updated in peer reviewed papers and would not support his findings. So, I get back to the: what caused the warming in the early 20th century? -
Phila at 13:58 PM on 17 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Camburn, Bastardi said several things that are absolutely, demonstrably untrue. Do you agree that they're untrue? If you don't, please explain why. If you do, please explain why you think he said those things. This doesn't seem like a lot to ask, given that Bastardi's errors are the actual topic of this post.
Prev 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 Next
