Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 Next
Comments 77101 to 77150:
-
RyanStarr at 00:16 AM on 19 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Where's Michael Mann? He of the hockey stick generator and upside down proxy inputs.Response:[dana1981] Mann does not purvey climate myths and therefore does not belong on the list. You would be well served to read some of our entries on the hockey stick.
-
les at 23:55 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
If I might... For me the pictures, let alone other info people have suggested, risk moving this more and more into the "witch hunt" domain. I'm happy enough for a page with names to aid navigation, I'm even quite fond of the "Spencer slip ups" type badges - but please, please be careful that SkS doesn't slip from "these are people who [also] do bad science" to "these are bad people"... -
skywatcher at 23:47 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Also McIntyre, Watts, Wegman? Two have failed attempts at fudging the Hockey Stick (and some egregious secret ranking of their data too), one a plagiarised Congress report, and one has a lame attempt at finding errors in the surface station record, quite apart from the promotion of any old rubbish that happens to disagree with the accepted science. Those three have many hits between them.Response:[dana1981] Like Armstrong (see comment above), Watts and McIntyre are on our 'unpublished' list. Hopefully at some point we'll have the time to complete their entries and add them to the public list. Ditto for adding Wegman eventually.
-
ms2et at 23:31 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
You could also include Vincent Courtillot. His presentation makes the suggestion that the sun might be able to explain observed changes in the global mean temperature anomaly. There's more interest in analyzing the work of actual scientists than there is in debunking the likes of Abbott who debunks himself! -
clonmac at 23:28 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
This is a great list. I can't wait to see where you go with this and I think it is a great idea. You should add J. Scott Armstrong in there. The marketer who thinks he can discredit global warming science by comparing it to other unrelated scientific studies. -
dorlomin at 22:53 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
"Monckton unfortunately packs a punch above his weight and I can only apologise on behalf my fellow Brits," Monkton is a ready made caricature, he is also a huge embarrassment to many skeptics that there is a tendency in some places to complain that using him is a ruse to make all skeptics look foolish. I think of him as a Terry Prachett character come to life. There is a certain hierarchy with the likes of Lindzen at the top with Ridley and Salby not too far behind while the bottom is most crowded. -
Paul D at 22:37 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Mind you, Monckton unfortunately packs a punch above his weight and I can only apologise on behalf my fellow Brits, that the US and Australia have to suffer his presence on what appears to be a regular basis. -
Paul D at 22:33 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Is that the best we British can do?? Actually the good news is that there is a big boost in the number of students studying physics in the UK. It's become a 'cool' subject due to 'The Big Bang Theory' comedy series and the 'Brian Cox' effect. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8708742/A-level-results-maths-and-science-surge-due-to-Brian-Cox-effect.html -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:09 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Garethman: As far as I can see there is nothing here to suggest any form of ranking of skeptics in any way, it is just a way of navigating to suitable discussions of mistaken ideas that they have promulgated.Response: They're currently ordered alphabetically. -
CBDunkerson at 22:05 PM on 18 August 2011Polar bear numbers are increasing
Garethman: "Do I smell the scent of double standards and hypocrisy?" No, I'm afraid you're smelling something else there. Can polar bear numbers decrease due to hunting? Why yes... yes they can. Until the 1960s there were no restrictions on hunting polar bears and the population dwindled to just a few thousand bears. They were on the brink of extinction. Can polar bear losses due to hunting be reversed? Again, yes... yes they can. When hunting limits were put in place the polar bear population exploded (~500% growth) over the next 30 years. From these things we can see that allowing hunting can decrease polar bear numbers and restricting hunting can increase them. There are laws and ongoing monitoring in place to determine whether hunting is decreasing polar bear populations and to adjust quotas accordingly. Ergo, hunting does not seem to be a long term threat to polar bear survival. Now, let's look at habitat loss. If the area where the bears hunt and den gets smaller can polar bear numbers decrease? Yes... less area for polar bears equals less polar bears. Indeed, polar bear numbers are now decreasing in many areas where hunting has not increased... but sea ice has retreated. Do we have laws and monitoring in place to reverse habitat loss when it causes polar bear numbers to decrease? No. So... regulated hunting is not a threat to polar bear survival... while unregulated habitat destruction is. Gee, which issue is it hypocritical to focus on? -
skywatcher at 21:57 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
#1: On climate science, most of these people do have the same level of achievement and understanding of climate science. They've all earned their place on this 'honours board' with ideas ranging from the fanciful to the outright false. I approve of Gore's recent straight-talking speech, and his turn of phrase could be used for all manner of wacky, self-contradictory hypotheses that this crowd have dreamed up. I don't really care if the likes of Salby has some academic baubles in his past, he should have known that the misinformation he promoted was the inconsistent garbage it clearly was. He was out of his field and out of his depth, yet his misinformation contributes to a delay in dealing with the problem. That makes him no better for climate science than Monckton, or colourless, odourless Tony Abbott! You're absolutely right about Monckton though... -
CBDunkerson at 21:49 PM on 18 August 2011There is no consensus
Rickoxo, which "scientific community"? Petroleum geologists? Yes, it would probably be accurate to say that there is a "considerable presence" of IPCC doubters within that group... though the American Association of Petroleum Geologists finally tossed their 'climate change is a sham' position in July 2007 due to protests from many members. That made them the last national scientific organization in the world to announce that humans were indeed causing global warming - though they still question how much. Climate scientists on the other hand... there is no question. The number of 'doubters' is in the single digits, both in total numbers and percentage of the field. So, sure... you can find scientists who dispute global warming science. Generally, the less it has to do with their field of research and/or the more it could impact their finances, the more likely they are to disbelieve. BTW, the fact that 'scientist doubters' exist is covered in the article above (particularly the 'Intermediate' version). The graph from the Doran study shows that less than 10% (looks like about 8%) of scientists in fields other than climatology believe that humans are NOT causing significant warming. Is 8% of the non-climatologist scientific community a "considerable presence"? Sure... but obviously tiny compared to the 77% who believe that humans ARE causing significant warming. Not to mention the 97% of actively publishing climatologists who say the same. Put another way, doubters are outnumbered 10 to 1 amongst the general scientific population and 97 to 1 amongst the experts in the field. -
garethman at 21:35 PM on 18 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
While all these guys are dammed due to their opinions and science, it’s sad to see them all lumped together as if they all have the same level of achievement and understanding. For instance placing Salby and Monkton in the same group tends to suggest a lack of insight into the academic and achievement levels of each individual. A review of the publishing history of Salby and Monkton will clarify that. Salby may well be wrong in some issues but has an excellent history of useful work., Monkton however is a complete plonker with no redeeming features. While there are quite a few of these people, are there any sceptics who have published anything reasonable who also may also be included?Response: [JC] Its funny you should mention that. There is an effort to display the number of peer-reviewed papers by each skeptic in a single webpage. The work is still under progress but suffice to say the number zero features frequently.
I also plan to break up the skeptics into separate groups (including scientists) but the resource need to be bigger. This is just a first step. -
garethman at 21:26 PM on 18 August 2011Polar bear numbers are increasing
Four bears found in the sea, presumably drowned. Worldwide attention and focus on potential risk of climate change to polar bears. Thousands killed by hunting legally or illegally killed over the last 3 years. A painful silence ensues. Do I smell the scent of double standards and hypocrisy? I’m pleased to see this posting had the honesty to point out the hunting issue. While we may not be able to conclusively show a bear died from shrinking sea ice, a bullet in the head is pretty conclusive.Response:[DB] "double standards" "hypocrisy" "honesty"
Your ideology is showing; such talk has no place at SkS. If you cannot construct a comment based upon the science...then don't make the comment.
-
CBDunkerson at 20:57 PM on 18 August 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
RyanStarr, setting aside the fact that it IS a new study and thus there hasn't been time to analyze or test its accuracy yet; The study author also said that it should not be taken to mean that the Arctic ice is not retreating. Rather, when they incorporated what they believe to be the possible range of mechanical impacts on sea ice loss (a new form of analysis which they had to assign large uncertainty bands to) they found that the trend over the next 10 years could be either up or down... but that the trend over the next 20 or more years was sharply downward. The biggest problem I see with their argument that the upcoming ten years could see a significant upward trend is that there hasn't been a single previous upward trend of that duration in the satellite record. If you cherry pick very carefully you can find a couple of five year periods where the trend was slightly positive, but nothing close to statistical significance let alone a ten year duration. If they were right about mechanical effects producing a roughly 50% chance of significant 10 year upward trends then we should have seen one by now, or at least something close. Time will tell. However, it doesn't change the fact that we are currently at a record low ice volume, a record low ice area, and a near record low ice extent. The only reason the extent isn't a record low is that the average concentration of the ice pack is. Currently, only ~57% of the ice extent is actually covered in ice (e.g. ice area is 57% of ice extent). Basically, this means that the ice is more spread out than at any previous time in the satellite record. 2007 set the record low extent because winds pushed the ice into a small highly concentrated mass. 2011 currently has an only slightly higher extent despite the ice being the most spread out it has ever been. This is consistent with an example I've been using for a few years; Consider a 10' x 10' x 10' cube: Volume = 1000 cu ft, Area = 100 sq ft, Extent = 100 sq ft Now break it into 1000 1' x 1' x 1' cubes scattered in a 15% concentration: Volume = 1000 cu ft, Area = 1000 sq ft, Extent = 6667 sq ft The same volume of ice, but broken up and spread out it has 10 times the area and 66.67 times the extent. To get extent back down to 100 sq ft, 985 of the 1' x 1' x 1' cubes (98.5%) would have to melt. Obviously that is the extreme case and that kind of perfect breakup and spreading doesn't occur naturally, but it illustrates how it is possible for extent to remain largely unchanged as the ice breaks up and melts away. According to PIOMAS ice volume has set a new record low for the day, each and every day, from 12/20/2009 through 07/31/2011 (the last date data is available for currently). That's 589 consecutive days of new record lows. If the rate of volume decline seen over that time period continued then volume would hit zero in three years. As DB notes, Maslowski's volume projection is the only 'model' which has matched the rate of ice loss over the past five years or so. If that doesn't change in the next few years we'll be seeing only tiny remnants of ice in summers within this decade. -
alan_marshall at 20:46 PM on 18 August 2011Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 2 of 2)
The Human Weathervane What I find most disappointing about Abbott's antics is knowing that he has not always been a denier. In early 2009 he was supporting former leader Malcolm Turnbull in advocating and emissions trading scheme. A self-described political "weathervane" [i], Abbott turned against pricing carbon in his pursuit of power. Perhaps this illustrates his recent remark to colleagues that faced with a choice between "policy purity and pragmatic political pragmatism, I'll take pragmatism every time" [ii]. [i] The Australian of 8 December 2009, Turnbull brands Abbot an ETS "weathervane" [ii] National Nine News of 27 May 2011, Abbott backs whips over MP email -
alan_marshall at 20:38 PM on 18 August 2011Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 2 of 2)
To read comments on the relative merits of various methods of carbon sequestration (forestry, soil carbon, biochar), refer to Part 1 -
suibhne at 20:13 PM on 18 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
Mighty Drunken ....."ever have a leverage ratio of more than 10 - if you do not want a banking collapse.".... Capitalism has proved itself incapable of escaping the boom then bust cycle. That's the system. However to isolate the real villains in this particular cycle is important. Goldman Sachs is at one extreme and Northern Rock at the other. Goldman Sachs executives and related hedge fund should be in jail and perhaps will. Northern Rock were naive and thought they could always go to the market for money against their portfolio. If Northern Rock was a private bank whose shares could not be shorted they could have survived the downturn. Mortgages it may surprise you to know have an average life of less than 3 years. Northern Rock could have stopped lending shut most branches paid off the bulk of the staff and use the expired mortgage returns of capital to redeem bonds. This is essentially what the "bad bank model" is. The "bad bank" makes a profit. The only long term solution is the world socialist revolution. -
Rickoxo at 19:39 PM on 18 August 2011There is no consensus
New reader here, more on the skeptic side but appreciative of the mostly content-centric discussions. I'm interested in a wide range of AGW related topics but don't always have the scientific background to get as far as I'd like. This thread seems as good a place as any to dive in. I was reading through this thread and an idea got brought up back a while ago about the American Physical Society starting up a published debate. In the discussion, paledriver gave some good info about the newsletter and the discussion pretty much seemed to die off. I get that the link Austerlitz posted gave an inaccurate representation of the story, but I'm still curious about the most simple piece of this issue--the quote saying, "there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion." What about this quote? Is Marque wrong? It's his opinion, but given his job and contacts, doesn't his opinion seem significant? Thanks for any thoughts - Rick -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:08 PM on 18 August 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Dr. Doom (i) the logarithm has no limit, ln(x) -> infinity as x -> infinity, and hence there is no limit to climate sensitifity. (ii) the sensitivity is generally expressed in terms of a doubling of CO2 exactly because the relation is logarithmic, which means it is exactly the same for any doubling of CO2, i.e. it is the same from 100ppm to 200pmm as it is from 200ppm to 400 ppmv etc. Again you are missing the point that you mentioned the equilibrium sensitivity, there hasn't been enough time for that equilibrium to have been met since the start of the 20th century; hence you can't use the temperature difference to directly estimate climate sensitivity. It is quite obvious from your comments that your grasp of what climate sensitivity actually is is fairly weak. I suggest before posting more messages you familiarise yourself with the basics by reading the relavant posts and follow up the links provided. I would start with How sensitive is our climate, read all three versions, basic, intermediate and advanced. -
Dr. Doom at 18:39 PM on 18 August 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Dikran, if CO2 forcing is logarithmic, then there is a limit to its climate sensitivity. What is that limit? Since CO2 increased 37% from pre-industrial level and temp. increased 0.7C last century, the CO2 doubling sensitivity must be less than 1.9C (0.7/0.37 = 1.9) It would be 1.9C if it were linear but since you said it was logarithmic, it must be <1.9. This is smaller than IPCC predicts. -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:05 PM on 18 August 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Dr. Doom The sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is only 2-4.5C after including the effects of feedback mechanisms, such as the water vapour feedback to which you refer. The direct sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 1C. This is also the equilibrium sensitivity, and is the temperature rise once the ocean temperatures have reached the new equilibrium, which takes a century or so. It isn't the instantaneous sensitivity. The Earth has warmed up by about the amount expected. However this is taking the discussion off-topic (extreme weather is the topic). -
Dr. Doom at 18:00 PM on 18 August 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Anne Marie, That 4% increase in water vapor in 40 yrs. can have a greater warming effect than doubling of CO2. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, 30 times more H2O molecules than CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. In absolute molecular count, a 4% increase in H2O is greater than a 100% increase in CO2. Since the sensitivity of doubling CO2 is 2C to 4.5C, we should have seen a 2C increase in temp. in the last 40 yrs due to 4% increase in H2O. Why is earth not warming fast enough?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.
Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.
Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.
-
scaddenp at 17:21 PM on 18 August 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Schmidt's other comment is also worth repeating. " This is mostly about a quantification of the size of internal variability. By looking at multiple runs with the same forcing and looking at the variability in short trends, you can make a statement about the range. The current trend is at the edge of what the NCAR runs show, and so it is conceivable that what we are seeing has been a weaker forced trend, combined with a (stochastic) increase to the trend because of internal variability. With that assumption, one can look at the other simulations and calculate the likelihood of the stochastic component going the opposite way and slowing down the observed trend. But these likelihoods rely on the NCAR model's estimates of both the forced trend and the internal variability being correct. The former is less likely than the latter" -
Dikran Marsupial at 16:59 PM on 18 August 2011How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
Dr. Doom It is worth bearing in mind that SkS is a site designed for communicating science to the general public. It is therefore reasonable to use the term "ice age" in its colloqial sense, rather than as its strict geological jargon meaning. There is a fine line between precision and pedantry, and it is important to consider the intended audience. Anne Maries' title is perfectly reasonable. -
Dikran Marsupial at 16:43 PM on 18 August 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Dr Doom The reason there isn't an upward spiral is because (i) the radiative forcing due to CO2 is only logarithmic in the concentration and (ii) the uptake of CO2 by the oceans depends on the difference in partial pressure between surface ocean and air as well as on the temperature of the surface ocean, the higher the partial pressure in the atmosphere, the more difficult it is for the oceans to de-gass and the easier it is for CO2 to go from the atmosphere into the surface oceans. This means that there comes a point where a new equilibrium is reached and the temperature stops changing (until the forcings change again). This is the negative feedback to which you refer (although it only becomes stronger as CO2 levels rise). -
brian5149 at 16:42 PM on 18 August 2011Another two reviews of Climate Change Denial
The guys name is brian and he is at brians-satchel.com -
Dr. Doom at 16:40 PM on 18 August 2011How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
Anne Marie, An ice age isn't just around the corner because we are still in an ice age. I'm sure you know that we are in the Quaternary Glaciation that started 2.58 million yrs ago. That's why we still have ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. Despite recent global warming, temp. today is one of the coldest in 600 million yrs. For most of geologic history, earth's temp. was above 17C. -
Dr. Doom at 16:22 PM on 18 August 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Anne Marie, If temp. drives CO2 and then CO2 also drives temp., then they reinforce each other and should result to upward spiral and runaway greenhouse effect. Why didn't that happen? If past climate change was dominated by reinforcing positive feedbacks, why did the warmings stopped and reversed into coolings so many times? What was the cause of the reversals? There must have been a stronger negative feedback or stronger negative forcing at work. -
mullumhillbilly at 15:33 PM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
Muon@ 76. Yes I am new to posting on this site, and I assure you I'm not a reincarnation of any previous posters. I am wading through the long "waste heat" thread you referred to earlier; I didnt know it existed when I first posted here... bit confusing I think having two threads on the same topic. As to sticking to the science, that's what I am attempting. This site is, after all, called "Skeptical Science", so I think its appropriate to ask questions, no? Sorry about the caps, I haven't discovered how to use bold or italics here, and didnt think it was even possible except I see that Tom in 77 has just done so. I'm happy to take the glasshouse questions elsewhere if you can suggest the appropriate place. Tom@77. I did say "in equilibrium with their surroundings", but didnt mean that to include the entire galaxy :-). Both glasshouses start cooling when the sun's forcing stops. I accepted that the CO2 enriched glasshouse (Gh.8x) cools more slowly than the control (Gh.1x). But sometime before dawn the temperature and heat content of both glasshouses is the same, ie they both get to equilibrium with their (local) surroundings. Put an open-top thermos flask with warm water and a cup of same volume of warm water into a fridge and wait. The thermos will stay warm for longer but it won't be long before they are both the same temperature. So, the Gh.8x can only slow down the cooling briefly, but eventually comes into equilibrium with the ambient fridge air. Would you agree? I'm not questioning the existence of a greenhouse effect per se, but I am questioning whether a short period of less-than-normal overnight cooling is in fact "climate change", notwithstanding that "average" temps appear to be higher. I'm not sure why the experiment is invalid due to size alone, but let's assume that the Gh's are at least tall enough to intercept >99% of the intial LWR emitted from the surface (100m ?). The delayed outward radiation is real, but eventually the retained energy makes its way to the Gh walls/ceiling, and is transferred to outside the system. In the real world, the energy makes its way to TOA whether via convection or radiation) and ditto..is transferred to outside the system. "Climate change" (as opposed to simply increase in average temperature readings over time) requires that some of that energy stays in the system. Can you point me to anywhere that empirically demonstrates or explains why it takes more than a few hours on average, for the retained energy to make its way to TOA and get lost from the system? -
RyanStarr at 14:28 PM on 18 August 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Here's a new model study, http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5124/arctic-ice-melt-could-pause-near-future-then-resume-again Up and/or down for the next few decades, multiple factors at play. This doesn't quite gel with previous reporting does it?Response:[DB] "This doesn't quite gel with previous reporting does it?"
I doubt that you care to elaborate on your implication here, as I'm pretty sure where you're coming from (and it won't pass the Comments Policy prohibitions).
Needless to say, that's old news, I'm afraid. Discussed extensively already at Neven's and RC. Per Gavin:
This is not particularly relevant for current behaviour though. More important is how good the aerosol forcing is, or the indirect impacts of black carbon etc. - but we don't know the real answer. - gavin
Note the bit about "not being relevant for current behavior"...because the ice is currently disappearing in the Arctic 4 times faster than predicted by all models except Maslowski's (which is still tracking for his 2016±3 years).
-
pbjamm at 14:16 PM on 18 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
The thing about siding with Science is that it will sometimes lead you to conclusions that you find non-intuitive and difficult to accept. Siding with Fantasy will lead you anywhere you wish it to, except to reality. -
Tom Curtis at 14:07 PM on 18 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
apirate @39, Neither I nor anybody else here at SkS has been trying to discount the opinions of the other scientists. I think it is very significant that while only 58% of the public think there is any anthro in the global warming, 76% of non-climatologists who are not actively engaged in research think there is; and that while 82% of scientists do, 88% of climatologists think there is anthro in the global warming, 89% of active publishing scientists and 91% of active publishers in climatology (regardless of discipline) agree. Clearly there is a gradation in this, with increasing expertise correlating with increasing agreement with the claim that "... human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures". But that does not in anyway excuse a pretense that the opinion of the least expert scientists (with regard to climatology) is as important as the opinion of the most expert. Nor does it have any relevance to the question of whether there is a consensus of the experts on climate change. Nor do I an anyway discount the Oregon Petition or its significance. But what I refuse to do is to inflate its significance (as you are attempting to do) by ignoring the denominator. So 0.3% of technically qualified Americans will sign a petition against action on global warming if presented with a deceitful article deceptively packaged. Well, certainly that is significant, not because it suggests significant informed disagreement with the IPCC conclusions. It does not because the signatories are neither particularly well informed on the topic as a group, nor a significant number of technically educated people in the US. It does, however, show a significant failure by many technically trained people to use critical thinking when it comes to climate change. -
Tom Curtis at 13:37 PM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
mullumhillbilly @74, your experimental design would not work because: (a) you have not controlled for back radiation; and (b) the CO2 atmosphere in your experiment would have approximately the same temperature as the surface, thus precluding any greenhouse effect. In contrast, in nature there is no back radiation from space, and the CO2 in the upper troposphere (from which most IR radiation absorbed by CO2 is reradiated to space is much colder than the surface of the Earth because of the adiabatic lapse rate. These two factors make it difficult (though not impossible) to model the greenhouse effect in a simple small scale experiment; a fact that has lead many people (including the Myth Busters) to develop essentially flawed experiments. Despite that your thought experiment is an interesting approach. However, you cannot apply it to the macroscale as you do. The systems you describe "equilibriate" when average energy in matches average energy out. However, the energy in at night consists of the cosmic microwave background radiation (<< 1 W/m^2), the geothermal heat (0.1 W/m^2), and industrial waste heat (0.03 W/m^2) plus a few very minor terms from meteor impacts, cosmic rays and the like. That means to reach equilibrium the temperature would need to drop to less than 65 degrees K (less than - 208 degrees C). The lowest temperatures on Earth are found in the Antarctic in winter, when it sometimes drops to -100 degrees C, but even there, equilibrium night time temperature is never reached. Six months of darkness is not enough to reach an equilibrium night time temperature on the surface of the Earth. Only a minority of the thermal inertia that means equilibrium night time (or day time) temperatures are never reached on Earth are a consequence of the greenhouse effect. But it certainly means heat from the greenhouse effect can accumulate from day to day, and year to year. -
muoncounter at 13:18 PM on 18 August 2011It's waste heat
mullum#74: Try this thought experiment. The topic of this thread is waste heat. Your glass greenhouses are of no relevance. But you're already in full-fledged GHE/AGW denial mode, consistent with some posts under the same name on other blogs. SkS runs a bit differently than those blogs: I suggest a thorough review of the various policies here, including the Newcomer's Guide and especially the Comments Policy, where you will note some language advising against using all caps. Use the Search function to find a thread of interest and pose questions relevant to the thread. There are nearly 170 skeptic 'arguments' addressed in considerable detail. Most important of all, you won't get away with denying the evidence, as in: "With no accumulating energy gain, there is nothing to drive the hurricanes, floods, droughts, heatwaves, snow dumps, melting ice etc etc". A general principle of science is this -- if you have a premise (in your case, there's no climate change) that conflicts with multiple lines of evidence, your premise is probably incorrect. Stick to the science; avoid forming opinions based on speculation about pots of water, balloons, sheets of plywood in the sun and glass greenhouses. -
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.
Prev 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 Next
