Recent Comments

Prev  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  Next

Comments 77551 to 77600:

77551. apiratelooksat50 at 13:02 PM on 12 August 2011
       Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
       scaddenp at 6 Your syntax is a little off (it happens - I do it often enough), so I am not sure about your first sentence. When one studies an issue and forms an opinion, then you are choosing what to believe. They aren't tasked to believe an opinion from another site such as SKS, the are tasked to develop their own opinion from the original data source. That was plainly stated in my earlier post. SKS and WUWT are both sources of links to original data.
77552. Tom Curtis at 12:57 PM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougCotton @122, we are making progress. You have retreated from confident assertions of falsehoods in despite of the data to pure obscurantism. It follows, of course, from nobody knowing, that you do not know, so your claims on your website have now been admitted by you to be without basis. However, you are wrong in your assertion that nobody knows, and that there is not enough data. As I have previously indicated (see 110 above), there are large data bases of measurements around the world of both the IR back radiation and the IR surface radiation. These have been made under a large variety of surface, weather and climactic conditions. They have been compared with model predictions, and the models have performed well. There are also large databases of the radiative properties of various gases (Hitran) and surface materials (see 119). These can be combined with known surface conditions to predict both the surface radiation and back radiation, and indeed have been in the models I just mentioned. Consequently these values can be known, and are known within a range of plus or minus 5% (according to Trenberth et al 2009). They are certainly known in sufficient detail to show that your claims about the IPCC are simply false. And as you have just tacitly admitted, you made those claims not based on evidence but simply on prejudice. Nor is your obscurantism justified with respect to O2 and N2 emissions. The full range of the spectrum has been scanned by various instruments and the emission peaks you claim to exist do not. Here is a shorter wavelength range of the spectrum, including the range needed for photons to have 100 times the energy from the peak CO2 band at atmospheric temperatures (0.15 micrometers): You'll notice the complete absence of an O2 or N2 spike. In fact, the only contribution by O2 is an absorption band in the incoming sunlight. As can be seen from the following black body radiation curves, in order to radiate at that wave length, Oxygen would have to be at a temperature of several thousand degrees Kelvin: At typical atmospheric temperatures, radiation at that wavelength is effectively non-existent: So, not only is their direct data refuting your claim that radiation by O2 and N2 eclipses that from CO2, but your claim is in direct conflict with the laws of black body radiation. The last diagram was generated a now obsolete, but publicly available version of Modtran, which will calculate the radiation flux upwards or downwards at a variety of altitudes for a variety of conditions. It is obsolete (circa 1990 version) and so is only accurate to about plus or minus 10%, but it will give you a far better idea of what actually occurs than you are so far managing. It does not, for example, restrict itself to a single layer atmosphere model as you do in your absurd calculations.
77553. apiratelooksat50 at 12:54 PM on 12 August 2011
       Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
       DB at 5 First, it is not a student's homework assignment page, it is a link to a pragmatic representation to combat the one-sided media coverage they are exposed to via the local newspaper and internet sites. Second, most students never visit a teacher's website (at my school at least). The website is a district requirement. Most of my students do not have internet access at home. We are a district with a high poverty level and the host of issues that go along with that and broken families.
       Response:

       [DB] "it is a link to a pragmatic representation to combat the one-sided media coverage"

       Pragmatic? One-sided? The words are English but from your usage it is obvious you have little understanding of their meaning.

       This is truly a momentous day.  First, EtR abandons all pretense of honest broker and reveals himself for the dissembler he is.  Now you.  You try to defend your relabeling of Inhofe's "A Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Glabal Warming Alarmism" as "A Skeptics Guide to Global Warming" under the weak pretense that "most students never visit a teacher's website"?

       You are entrusted with your students' minds, can you not see how utterly bereft of moral certitude and integrity your position and excuse is?

77554. Ger at 12:52 PM on 12 August 2011
       Christy Crock #7: People Need Fossil Fuel Energy (Part 1)
       I would replace "coal-belching power plants" by smoke belching power plants. Building a "char-coal belching" power plant would actually have a negative carbon emission per kWhr generated energy. at #1 Paul I would say appropriated technology, not low tech. Low tech is associated with poor efficiency. Most of the simple technology (cookstoves, fine bladed thin saws to name a 2) is available in a a form with much higher efficiency thanks to better understanding of the physics involved. Devices are just a very little bit more complicated or in some cases even simpler. at #3. Catprog. Access to energy means also access to (western like) health services. I think that has more to do with longer life than anything else. Statistics are nice if the model is obeying a certain distributions, otherwise linking up parameters the statistical way is more like educated guesswork.
77555. scaddenp at 12:51 PM on 12 August 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       Steve, note the publication date of V&L. Note that it covers 0-2000m and note that covers period with Argo fully deployed.
77556. muoncounter at 12:48 PM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougCotton#123: "Why do you keep talking about means?" Your diffusion model was based on a geothermal gradient, was it not? Surely that is fairly constant over more than a few days; after all, that was the rationale you gave for Singapore's year-round constant temperature. Now you look at just 7 days of data from another location and conclude that a difference there is significant? Unacceptable by any standard. What I have done is present evidence that it is the near constancy of insolation that dominates: Locations near the equator have the same annual temperature range (empirically demonstrated) because they receive nearly the same amount of solar energy year round (accepted fact; a moderately sophisticated calculation that you can do on your own). If your diffusion model made any sense whatsoever, high latitude locations would have the same annual range because they must cool by diffusion from the same subsurface temperature -- and most certainly you must agree they do not (again empirically demonstrated). "Perhaps now when you understand the small scale of this" Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to 'experimental scale.' Of course, molecular collisions take place in very small spaces; that does not at all mean that the ocean responds in the same manner as a bucket of water. Mass does not scale in the same manner as linear distances, that is why thermal conductivity may dominate for 1 kg of water in a metal bucket while it does not for an ocean. Here is an example from the field of thermal engineering demonstrating the importance of both radiation and conductivity in scaled experiments: The effect of radiative heat transfer between walls was studie[d] and shown to be similar to the effect of heat loss from the burner to its ambient. It is important that the models must include radiative heat transfer when calibrating a macroscale models which will be down-scaled to small scale devices. You will notice that when I present data or information that are not in common knowledge, I cite the sources. I do not appeal to wikipedia if I can find a more authoritative source. I challenge you to show data and research from similarly credible sources - peer reviewed whenever possible - that support your 'diffusion will prevail' model. Enough with these bucket and balloon analogies; they prove nothing. You cannot overturn solid scientific research with the photo of a lamp. Until you can meet that challenge, you have very little to add to this discussion.
77557. scaddenp at 12:46 PM on 12 August 2011
       Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
       Getting serious action anywhere is mostly inhibited by an electorate on the US which is prepared to believe almost anything rather than the implications of the published science.
77558. Composer99 at 12:42 PM on 12 August 2011
       The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
       As the collapse of the bank shows, the assets that were growing could scarcely be said to be high quality.
77559. scaddenp at 12:42 PM on 12 August 2011
       Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
       I would be horrified if you were directing science classes to get make their minds "on what to believe" (awful choice of word) in a science question on the basis of opinion expressed anywhere. This is not the same as forming an opinion on a political matter. Instead, I would hope that science students make up their minds on the basis of reading published science papers. Skepsci is a good index of these, WUWT is not. That is the difference between the sites.
77560. Albatross at 12:20 PM on 12 August 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       Steve Case, It is really not clear what you are trying to say or how it pertains to the post in question. Are you trying to argue that the global temperatures has not warmed as much as expected since 1900 or so? But if you are claiming that, you would have to use a period of time which means that the trend over that cherry-picked time window would not be statistically significant. So a no win for you. Let us deal with your claims about global temperatures first, and then we can address your attempts to argue your case by misinterpreting and cherry-picking the the OHC data.
77561. DougCotton at 12:01 PM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Mouncounter #121: Having lived 20 years of my life close to Sydney Harbour (though well back from the coast) I can assure you that even the Lane Cove River had a moderating effect on shore temperatures. And flat ground such as an airstrip with water on both sides would get plenty of cross wind. We are obviously talking about light breezes blowing air from not too far away over the water. Why do you keep talking about means? In Singapore the maximum is practically never outside the one degree range 31 to 32 deg.C. So I only have to show a variation of, say, 7 degrees the maximums in one week somewhere else to demonstrate my point. Obviously inland cities get affected by winds blowing from different directions such as from a desert area. And yes I do refer to even just 1 mm from the interface of ocean and atmosphere because that is exactly where diffusion happens - look up "Heat Transfer" on Wiki - 2nd paragraph where it refers to 1mm. Diffusion (or "conduction" if you prefer) is a mollecular interchange as energy from electrons in one molecule transfers to the other (cooler) molecule due to a physical collision, albeit it usually a "grazing" brush past when gases are involved, rather than direct impact with the nucleus. It has to happen, simply because molecules will collide. Perhaps now when you understand the small scale of this you will see why it happens the same way in a balloon, a bucket of water or with my hot lamp cover in the photo on my site.
77562. jonicol at 11:57 AM on 12 August 2011
       Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
       Mandas is right. The possibility of persuading China, India, Russia and the US to actually cut carbon dioxide emissions is zilch. The economic problems in Europe and the well known difficulties they have had in carbon dioxide trading would indicate that they will be going nowhere fast, particularly if Germany continues with the threst to close down nuclear power - which I don't actually believe will happen once the flurry over Fukushima has faded out of memories. Obviosly what is really beeded is to maintain strong world economies which will be capapble of taking whatever appropriate action is necessary to prepare for any variations in the future, be they warming or as now apears more likely, a period of cooling. Adaptatation is the only sensible way to consider the future wihout needing to reduce the standard of living in these poorer countries. Australia's contibution from 5%, a mere 0.001 C as a worst case scenario is not going to help.
77563. apiratelooksat50 at 11:55 AM on 12 August 2011
       Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
       AT at 3 I find your comment highly insulting. Critical thinking can be defined as: Reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. I push the envelope in my school district because I often diverge from the curriculum because I want my students to leave my class at the end of the year know how to "think" and express their thoughts. And, my students routinely score well on end of course testing even though I "don't teach to the test". When my students are researching any subject, I direct them to the source. Depending on the subject, that could be NOAA, USDA, USGS, USACE, HADCRUT, USEPA, University of Colorado, etc... I don't direct my students to WUWT or SKS. And, we prefer they don't use Wikipedia either. AGW is a polarizing issue and I would rather them study the real data and come to conclusions on their own. One site is pro AGW and one site is anti AGW. If they find either site on their own - it's okay. When I present the subject of AGW (or any other), I am very careful not to tip my hand to my opinion. They are shown resources, videos, and powerpoints both pro and con. Then they read, research and write. You may, or may not, know it, but I am in a personal e-mail dialogue with Sphaerica and he has actually changed my position on the anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the rising atmospheric concentrations. You can look at the list below and I can tell you that 1-6 came into play on that. A critical thinker: 1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives 2. Desires to be, and is, well-informed 3. Judges well the credibility of sources 4. Identifies reasons, assumptions, and conclusions 5. Asks appropriate clarifying questions 6. Judges well the quality of an argument, including its reasons, assumptions, evidence, and their degree of support for the conclusion 7. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position regarding a belief or an action, doing justice to challenges 8. Formulates plausible hypotheses 9. Plans and conducts experiments well 10. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context 11. Draws conclusions when warranted – but with caution 12. Integrates all of the above aspects of critical thinking So, before you toss off a flippant comment like that, please think twice about what you are saying. If I told my classes to research global warming on AGW only from WUWT, you would scream that it was biased. Just as the opposite is true if the only source is SKS.
       Response:

       [DB] "I am very careful not to tip my hand to my opinion."

       So you wouldn't dream of posting Inhofe's "A Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Glabal Warming Alarmism" but calling it "A Skeptics Guide to Global Warming" on your student's homework assignment page?

       Many such as you propound false equivalency.  "Blind guides" is a term for them.

77564. muoncounter at 11:41 AM on 12 August 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       Steve Case#17, Old news. You are referring to a report dated 2007. That would mean 4 years (at most) of data to substantiate this 'cooling.' Hardly what we call 'statistically significant'. Perhaps they meant 'instantaneous cooling.' Look at the graph; it's not cooling.
77565. DougCotton at 11:38 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Tom. There is nowhere near enough empirical data on a world-wide, round the clock, year-round basis to confirm the magnitude of mean world-wide downward radiation which, by the way, should include O2 and N2 high frequency (high energy) downward radiation. (This is off the graph in your Figure 1, but if you look up the ratio of the frequencies at which photons can be emitted for O2, N2 and CO2 etc, then that will be the ratio of the energy in each photon.) So no one really can say for certain what the proportions are for radiation, conduction, latent heat etc for the heat leaving the crust. I prefer the 1998 NASA diagram with the additional calculations I have done for theoretical feedback. In that regard, I consider that there is no greater probability that those emitted photons that "get through the maze" will reach the surface than that they will go to space. The maze is thinner above, so maybe even more than 50% get to space. I know there can be a chain reaction, but it is the last emission in the chain that still has at least 50% chance of heading for space. My "two thirds" of the heat in O2 and N2 came from the NASA figures where I have assumed that the latent heat will nearly always end up in N2 and O2 simply because of the dominance of such molecules. And, yes, this energy will be released in the form of photons - how else can we get a balance at the top of the atmosphere? Your calculations on emissivity are irrelevant when there is an equilibrium state between the surface and the immediate few millimetres of the atmosphere, simply because if the ground is at the same temperature as the air it is not going to emit photons and make itself cooler than the air. (Strictly speaking, there can be an equal interchange of photons, but the net outflow will be zero.) You cannot apply blackbody physics when you are not relating it to the boundary of the blackbody but to an internal interface. It can only be applied when "looking" at the whole Earth system, including the atmosphere, from outer space. Finally, you will note in my calculations of feedback (linked above) that, if the assumption that 50% of photons go up and 50% go down is about right, then, when we consider a few iterations of "up and down trips" then 50% of all the energy transferred from the surface to the atmosphere will come back down again and start the second iteration. Then 50% of that comes down etc, so we end up in the limit with just double the amount going up. This applies no matter what the proportion of radiation, because half of whatever heat transfers to air molecules by other means will also be emitted back after each upward trip. You can see the simple geometric progression in my calculations. And the most important thing in all this is that the emissions from O2 and N2 (and about 50 other gases in the atmosphere I understand) need also to be considered.
       Response:

       [DB] Your comments would at least take on the semblance of an argument if you were to use paragraphs.  Just sayin'.

77566. muoncounter at 11:26 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougCotton#120 "pretty much like Singapore." Yes, Lake Victoria's thermal inertia is an apt analogy for that of the Pacific Ocean. "Boende 13' 0" South - where maximum temperatures range from 22 to 29 deg.C over the next 7 days" FYI Boende, Zaire is at 2N latitude, but why quibble over a few degrees? However, 7 days of data do not represent the average, which varies from 73 to 75F over the course of a year. The website I cite uses 14 years of data (what we expect to see when we are talking about climate). Taking 7 days out of a year, let alone 14 years, is known as cherrypicking - with a capital C. (Of course, you've already done that by basing your entire conduction/diffusion/thermal gradient idea entirely on Singapore - 1 data point. Even Steve G would be ashamed of that!) Yet again, at the equator the consistency of insolation dominates all other factors discussed so far. "The laws of Physics apply just as much in a room as in the small zone I was talking about a few millimetres above and below the surface of an ocean." Indeed: in this case, delta Q = m C delta T might be relevant. Experiments must be scaled: Small objects (balloons, buckets of water) have large surface area compared to the mass they represent and thus do not scale appropriately. Observations based on a bucket or a pot or a lamp do not represent what happens in the ocean or the atmosphere. I still do not understand this fascination with a few mm +/- sea level. But that is not relevant. Thus far, all data presented here (including some you've presented) contradict your views. And last I looked, it was still "a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." -- S. Holmes
77567. Steve Case at 11:20 AM on 12 August 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       Looks like my link doesn't want to work, but you can Google the AR4 Chapter 5 Executive summary easy enough It says: The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. Consistent with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0–3,000 m) has increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface. Two-thirds of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m. Global ocean heat content observations show considerable interannual and inter-decadal variability superimposed on the longer-term trend. Relative to 1961 to 2003, the period 1993 to 2003 has high rates of warming but since 2003 there has been some cooling.
77568. Steve Case at 11:17 AM on 12 August 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       
       
       scaddenp at 09:52 AM on 12 August, 2011 "but since 2003 there has been some cooling." There has? Please see here especially Von Schuckmann and La Treon. muoncounter at 10:57 AM on 12 August, 2011 scaddenp#15, This particular meme needs to be aggressively rejected. Trends are 0.14 C/decade (UAH) and 0.17 C/decade (GIStemp); there is no such cooling. Tamino is far better at this; it would be nice if he updated his graph.
       

       Tell it to the IPCC:

       IPCC AR4 Chapter 5 Executive Summary

77569. muoncounter at 10:57 AM on 12 August 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       scaddenp#15, This particular meme needs to be aggressively rejected. Trends are 0.14 C/decade (UAH) and 0.17 C/decade (GIStemp); there is no such cooling. Tamino is far better at this; it would be nice if he updated his graph.
77570. Tom Curtis at 10:56 AM on 12 August 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       scaddenp @1117, the purpose is obvious. His claims are being refuted on the other threads very convincingly. He needs to thread hop so that he can hopefully gull some naive reader who does not see the counter arguments. No matter how much he thread hops, however, he still needs to answer some questions. Why, for example, does he assert that atmospheric radiation from O2 and N2 eclipses that from CO2 even though he has seen no data to that effect, and there is data to the contrary: And why does he insist surface radiation is so low that, given the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the surface emissivity for IR radiation must be 0.18, even though the surface is known to have an emissivity greater than 0.9 in those wavelengths? Indeed, the crucial question he needs to answer is why we are required at every turn in his theory to take his mere assertion in preference to well established scientific laws, and copious empirical observations that contradict it?
77571. Catprog at 10:39 AM on 12 August 2011
       Christy Crock #7: People Need Fossil Fuel Energy (Part 1)
       I would actually say at the bottom more energy = longer life. look at < 2 : 46 - 82 but 2-4: 1 country of 52 and then 64-82 I think this difference is things like small wind generators and basic sanitation.
77572. DougCotton at 10:33 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Muoncounter #117: Not only do you link a site with mean monthly data, rather than individual daily ranges, but you pick Entebbe Airport about 3km from the large Lake Victoria and itself on a peninsula with water on each side - pretty much like Singapore. Try some in the middle of South America or the first one I picked today in Africa - Boende 13' 0" South - where maximum temperatures range from 22 to 29 deg.C over the next 7 days - fairly different from the 31 and 32 deg.C in Singapore every day of the year, even when cloudy or wet. http://www.foreca.com/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo/Boende?add=100218680 Regarding Galveston, you have not quoted air temperatures within a few millimetres of the top of the ocean as I referred to, and nor is it in the middle of a large ocean. The laws of Physics apply just as much in a room as in the small zone I was talking about a few millimetres above and below the surface of an ocean. Take a bucket of sea water into a room if you wish, heat it and measure the temperatures just above and below the surface if you want a closer simulation. The energy is transferred by conduction (which is basically the same as diffusion - see Wiki) as your experiment will prove. Obviously that leaves far less energy then to be radiated. Though you might like to say 80% plus or minus 20% by diffusion if you wish. (I am conscious of the fact that some readers may not have a scientific background and so some lay terms may make my website and these posts more understandable.)
77573. Tom Curtis at 10:29 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougCotton, as I pointed out in 110, for the Earth's surface to emit as little thermal radiation as you claim it does, it would need an emissivity of 0.18 in the 4 to 16 micrometer wavelength range. Perhaps you could point to the suitably low emissivities from the following common surface materials: Pleas note that with an emissivity of 0.9, at 273 degrees K, the surface would emit approximately 280 W/m^2 of radiation, of which at most 40 W/M^2 escapes to space. Would you care to explain what happens to the other 240 Watts? Or do you believe that is an unfair question in that your mere assertion is expected to trump all scientific data mounted against your theories? (Which seems to be the principle you operate on.)
77574. Tom Curtis at 10:18 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougCotton @113, you not only said that O2 and N2 do not emit many photons, you also claimed that they carried two thirds of the energy released from the surface, and that they emit that energy. Indeed, you where very specific:

       "Also, since two thirds of the heat energy in the surface/oceans went into other air molecules (outnumbering CO2 by 2,500 : 1) there is still about half of that coming back, eclipsing that from CO2."

       Further, you specify that O2 and N2 "... must release the energy in the form of photons at least when they get close to absolute zero". These beliefs form a mutually contradictory set with the laws of physics. In fact so does the belief that photons emitted by O2 or N2 at near absolute zero should have "... 100 times the energy of a low energy photon from CO2". And while your first sentence is not technically contradictory (I did misread "many"), for each of the two beliefs asserted in it, the probability of that belief being true given the other one is very low. Equally importantly, this is another of your evidence free assertions. Put simply, you just made it up. To demonstrate, consider this graph of the observed backradiation: The area under each peak gives the power radiated at that wavelength. I can clearly see the CO2 peak (and a secondary CO2 peak not labelled at a wave number of 800). Could you kindly point out the O2 or N2 peaks, or provide a similar spectrum which shows them. It should be easy to find as, according to you, there radiation eclipses that of CO2.
77575. scaddenp at 09:52 AM on 12 August 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       "but since 2003 there has been some cooling." There has? Please see here especially Von Schuckmann and La Treon.
77576. Daniel J. Andrews at 09:52 AM on 12 August 2011
       The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
       I also recommend readers click on the link to George Monbiot's article, which provides a rather devastating take-down of some of Dr. Ridley's other baseless claims.
77577. sidd at 09:50 AM on 12 August 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
       Mr. Chris G. pointed to a paper by Katz and Worster at http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2118/1597.full.pdf+html which I found fascinating. They do a 3-D calculation of the effect of a narrow retrograde valley embedded in a prograde slope under an ice sheet debouching to the ocean, and they find that such valleys can destabilize the entire ice sheet ! Also they find that PIG is melting faster than their model indicates... sidd
77578. scaddenp at 09:46 AM on 12 August 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Doug, what are you trying to achieve here, by jumping to another thread and repeating the same assertions (that "NASA" and "IPCC" are in contradiction), when this has already been explained and referenced for you on other threads? We have measurements of DLR. Greenhouse theory predicts its magnitude and spectrum. What does your theory predict this measurement to be?
77579. Stevo at 09:37 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Albatross @29, thankyou! "Consilience" is the word I've been looking for. Multiple strands of evidence from varied sources all leading to the same conclusion, as opposed to 'our club members all agree with other".
77580. Stevo at 09:21 AM on 12 August 2011
       The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
       Andy, Iloved your use of "hockey stick", "alarmist" and "hide the decline". So very, very apt.
77581. muoncounter at 08:56 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougC#116 "Inland areas at the equator in Africa do not have steady temperatures " I suggest you look at some data before making any more unsubstantiated claims; at Entebbe Airport (0 latitude) in Uganda the minimum temp varies between 16-18C, with an annual average of 17C. The nearly constant insolation at the equator dominates. "Why is the temperature millimetres above the surface of the ocean just about the same as that of the first few millimetres of water just below?" Once again, we look to the data. Galveston, TX water temperature remains in the 80s F through September; air temperature begins declining a month earlier. If memory serves, I recall something about water having a higher specific heat than air. But the relevance of this particular observation is? "If I fill a balloon in a room with 80% pure nitrogen and 20% pure oxygen" You must stop conflating these room scale examples with atmospheric dynamics. Same mistake as RW Wood made with his salt greenhouse. Scale is everything here. "the outdated 1998 NASA chart." If it is outdated, why are you continuing to cite it? How can you base your 'skepticism' of the current (Trenberth) diagram on this outdated chart? "just like in fact does happen at the surface, using up probably at least two thirds" 'Probably at least'? Is this a scientific statement? And in what manner is energy 'used up'? No one claims that convection and conduction are not involved in heat transfer. But your 'diffusion prevails' argument is invalid; that takes anything based on that argument down as well. Integrity demands that you admit your mistakes here and retract these positions on your own website.
77582. DougCotton at 08:04 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Muoncounter #115: Inland areas at the equator in Africa do not have steady temperatures like those seen on equatorial islands. It is, in fact, exactly as you say: "a large body of water at these locations moderates their temperature range." Why is it so? Why is the temperature millimetres above the surface of the ocean just about the same as that of the first few millimetres of water just below? According to the Tremberth diagram, the heat exiting the water does so 16.2% as latent heat which drifts up into the clouds before it has any effect, and 80.3% by radiation which can in no way convey the exact temperature of the water to the adjacent air molecules. Only conduction (diffusion) can do that. Is that the 3.4% in those thermals doing all that? It does leave me questioning the assumptions. If I fill a balloon in a room with 80% pure nitrogen and 20% pure oxygen the "air mix" inside will soon have a temperature matching the outside air, won't it, no matter how much I alter the air conditioner. Yet no GH gas inside, no radiation to speak of - just good old convection and diffusion - just like in fact does happen at the surface, using up probably at least two thirds of the outward heat flow as in the outdated 1998 NASA chart. What a difference a few years makes in consensus opinion.
77583. Bob Lacatena at 06:08 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       EtR talking about "deniers" and "alarmists" as if he's in the middle. That's rich.
77584. Rob Honeycutt at 05:46 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Eric... I'm with Daniel. Please present us with the compelling evidence because I've not seen it. Each time "skeptics" put forth some new paper that claims to contradict AGW it comes up extremely short of the mark.
77585. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 05:32 AM on 12 August 2011
       The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
       Thanks for another enjoyable read. It is interesting to see so plainly that in quite a lot of cases, ideology is the main reason for dismissing climate science. Debunking such people is a thankless task, but one which will hopefully help in the long run.
77586. CBDunkerson at 04:36 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       EtR #35 wrote: "Well evidence has been presented, but it is claimed to be bogus based an any number of criteria." And you really can't see that to many of us this sentence describes YOU more than any other respondent above? You've been presented with evidence. You have ignored or dismissed it. I guess it all comes down to what one considers 'evidence'. Your objections about 'causing' vs 'significant contributing factor' and 'climate scientists' vs 'climate experts' as the very pinnacle of ridiculous semantic shenanigans over trivia having nothing to do with the scientific realities. You seem to think they are vitally important and revealing and dismiss all objections to the contrary.
77587. Eric the Red at 04:25 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Stephen, My complaint is that those who call "deniers" and those whom the deniers call "alarmists" refuse to budge from their established positions. I have heard some claim that they will shift positions, if evidence is presented to verify that change. Well evidence has been presented, but it is claimed to be bogus based an any number of criteria. To top it off, there are those who call anyone who is not in their own camp (denier or alarmist), as being a member of the opposite extreme, when their views in no way mirror that faction. I did not believe this until recently.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] I am more than willing to consider any evidence that can be a silver bullet that overcomes AGW.  Indeed, that's one of the main reasons I continue in my involvement here.

       Could you please enlighten this one as to which evidence you have presented? 

       Please note, said evidence should be able to be reproducible, survive peer-review and be internally & externally consistent with the physics of our world.

       Look forward to it.

77588. Albatross at 03:34 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Stephen #33, "We should be talking about what we do in light of it's existence, not whether it exists." Exactly Stephen. However, "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW refuse to accept the evidence so that they do not have to take action, changing their ways frightens them. They also appear to be scared that by accepting the evidence they will be on a slippery slope, so best to dig their heels in early. That is probably one of the reasons why you rarely see "skeptics" and those in denial concede making errors or bothering to correct them. Rob @32, Yes, the psychology of denial and fake skepticism is fascinating and something I was naive about until two years ago. DB @27, "you [EtR] have ceded all semblence being an "honest broker" and have formally donned the mantle of denial" Is it not interesting that for the longest time s/he was trying to come across as a "skeptic", not a real one mind you, but at least not someone in denial. Well, don't I feel deceived/cheated.
77589. John Hartz at 03:31 AM on 12 August 2011
       How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
       Given that the graphic has now been posted on both Climate Progress and Grist with links to this article, will we see a swarm of climate deniers posting on this comment thread?
77590. Stephen Baines at 03:24 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       I can't even figure out what EtR's exact complaint is. It can't be the "catastrophic" thing, because that wasn't even referenced in the question, AFAIK. To see that word there is to read into the question based on preexisting expectations. It can't be the cherry-picking of expert opinion over uninformed opinion. That would make no sense, unless he subscribed to the "consensus as conspiracy" thesis. This much I will say. The image is compelling - and therefore threatening to those who are committed to denying the existence of the overwhelming agreement among active climate scientists. That agreement is real. We should be talking about what we do in light of it's existence, not whether it exists.
77591. Rob Honeycutt at 03:19 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       I honestly find the psychology of EtR fascinating. It's as if I've drawn a circle on a piece of paper and he's trying to say it's a square... because it's not exactly a perfect circle.
77592. Composer99 at 03:18 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Has something gone wrong with the formatting of comments? I see unusual things going on following barry's comment.
       Moderator Response: [RH] See if that fixes it. There was a missing "/" in one of his blockquotes.
77593. Albatross at 02:56 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       EtR @27, This is not a high school debate. You need to raise the bar. You are the one being presented with volumes of evidence and facts and choosing to cherry pick which ones you believe or ignore to support your beliefs. True skeptics consider the body of evidence.
77594. Albatross at 02:46 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Hang on folks, I think we have this back to front (or maybe I do). As far as I can recall it was "skeptics" and those in denial who initially claimed that "there is no consensus". They made the argument-- something along the lines of "we do not know everything , therefore we know nothing". This essay by Oreskes in Science supports that, she notes: "Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Confusion, uncertainty and delay are the tactics used by those in denial about AGW and "skeptics". And one way they do that is to make the strawman argument about "consensus", and then try pull the "science is not done by consensus" card when their strawman is addressed. So that misguided belief (i.e., that there is no consensus, or that there is a raging debate that we are even increasing CO2, or that the "greenhouse effect" is even real) had to be addressed, and it has been, a few times now. The fact is that when you speak to experts in the field, and by "experts" I mean people who are active in climate research and disciplines related to the climate system, then, apart from a few mavericks/outliers (who are found in every scientific discipline-- some medical researchers still believe that HIV and AIDS are not related!) almost all of them agree that 1) CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans are increasing almost entirely b/c of human CO2 emissions and activities, 2) The "greenhouse effect" is real (a misnomer, but the experts know that) and that 3) We humans have thus very likely caused most of the warming. Moreover, scientific societies and academies across the world agree with these statements. In fact, because of that we have not consensus but consilience. The 'skeptics" trolling this thread are doing themselves no favours by doing the very things that John has pointed out in the series of videos.
77595. CBDunkerson at 02:41 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       EtR #27: Yes, you have indeed proved that.
77596. Eric the Red at 02:35 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       It just goes to prove my earlier statement about those who are firmly entrenched refusing to be swayed when the inaccuracies of their arguments are presented. Thank you all for the confirmations.
       Response:

       [DB] And thank you very much for the most excellent Alice in Wonderland impression on this thread.  Most illuminating, the way you have ceded all semblence being an "honest broker" and have formally donned the mantle of denial.

77597. muoncounter at 02:05 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DC#112: "In Singapore the minimum temperature above ground is also either 298 deg.K or 299 deg.K every night of the year" Using only one data point to represent the entire globe (the ultimate cherrypick!) proves nothing. Singapore is at 1 N latitude. Locations that close to the equator have nearly the same solar radiation input all year long; their temperatures don't vary much. source Try again at higher latitudes (all values from weather.com): Wellington NZ (41S), nighttime annual range 7 - 14C Amsterdam (51N), nighttime annual range -1 - 12C Note: I chose cities near sea level for comparison to Singapore. One could also infer that the presence of a large body of water at these locations moderates their temperature range. Try the high desert, noting that elevation difference is insignificant (since you are starting your thermal gradient at great depth): Phoenix (33N) nighttime range 7 - 27C (the largest range, validating the ocean-as-moderating influence suggestion). Your 'diffusion will prevail' argument fails.
77598. Rob Honeycutt at 01:27 AM on 12 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Eric @ 16... Come on, bub. Think about the statement. Put it together. "Of Climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change 97.4% of them said they think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." That is perfectly consistent with the statement that "97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming." The 82% you refer to is the measure of "all respondents." It's a measure that is fairly meaningless because of the breakdowns of the various respondents. And not only that, Anderegg 2010 came to essentially the exact same numbers using different methods. That suggests the results are robust.
77599. DSL at 00:33 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Doug, there are direct measurements of DLR all over the place. Use scholar.google.com. Here's one: http://www.meteo.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~emde/publications/wacker2008.pdf
77600. DougCotton at 00:13 AM on 12 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Tom, re #91: I did not say O2 and N2 don't emit any photons. Re-read what I said: .."don't emit many photons." I said this because the number of photons emitted by, say, an O2 molecule is a lot less in number than the number emitted by a CO2 molecule which is capturing and emitting all the time. So it was "not many" in relative terms. Note also that the photons emitted by O2 are high energy and so (very roughly) 1 such photon may have, say, 100 times the energy of a low energy photon from CO2. All molecules will emit photons when their energy drops suddenly to a lower quantum state. I don't see any contradiction in what I said.

Prev  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  Next