Recent Comments

Prev  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  Next

Comments 77651 to 77700:

77651. Paul D at 05:11 AM on 11 August 2011
       Christy Crock #7: People Need Fossil Fuel Energy (Part 1)
       The problem is the reverse to what Christy states. In fact he displays the typical anglo saxon arrogance in assuming that the 'West' knows best. How would fossil fuels stop Elephants rampaging through farmers land?? His solution I assume would be to shoot them? The alternative is to use bees around the farm, the elephants don't like them and the farmer has an additional cash product to sell. Low tech ideas are also the best way to go generally in our lives. Why force nature to do something when it is more productive working with it?
77652. Andy Skuce at 05:01 AM on 11 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Relying on the consensus views of experts is a useful heuristic, a mental short cut, that we all use, most of the time, to make decisions when we don't have the ability or the time to research the problem for ourselves. To use consensus as an argument can be useful in swaying the opinions of the undecided (it also provides some confidence to the already convinced). The danger is that it's not a logically valid argument and there are famous incidents where it has failed in the past. Another shortcoming is that it can even act as a rallying cry to the dissident minority. Consider this bogus statistic that I have made up, just for the sake of argument. The effect that such an argument would have on me (I am convinced that carbon taxes are a realistic and even necessary public policy option) would be to say: To hell with them and their biased and smug opinions, that's what they used to say about civil rights! I'm going to call my representative right away! In other words, appealing to scientific consensus is probably counter-productive when arguing with convinced climate contrarians.
77653. Paul D at 04:34 AM on 11 August 2011
       Christy Crock #7: Expensive and inaccessible (Part 2)
       Energy efficiency can be revealed in part by a nations carbon footprint per capita, at least while fossil fuels still dominate. The US carbon per capita is much higher than other countries, with the exception of the middle east. This is also obvious visually as well in that American vehicles have always been bigger, homes less insulated, obesity on the rise, buildings spread out more etc. Some of this is due to cheap resources, make things cheaper and there is no incentive to be more efficient. Also, when considering fossil fuels, every bit of inefficient use means the energy wasted is literally lost for ever. If you drive a car that consumes 3 times more fuel than other cars, to travel from A to B, that energy is lost forever when it could have helped other people to travel from A to B, or used to do more journeys from A to B. Even if you don't like renewables, your making things even worse for future generations by driving gas guzzlers, by denying them (some of whom will be your offspring) what you had. It is quite bizarre to oppose renewables and use fossil fuels inefficiently. You can't really be more irresponsible by doing both.
77654. Bob Lacatena at 03:48 AM on 11 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       377, Eric the Red, You also avoided my salient questions from post 375:

       Either way, how does this in any way support your original contention that "scientists are placing too much emphasis on outgoing radiation effects in the atmosphere as opposed to convection"? Or are you openly withdrawing that comment?

77655. Bob Lacatena at 03:25 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       93, DB inline, That would be a generally useful tool for migrating any comment to where they belong, although a hardcoded "Climastrology" button (another good name choice for the thread) would also do the trick. It will be up to John, though, to figure out if this happens often enough and is important enough to warrant his time (and then to find the time). I'll make a post in the forum for the suggestion.
77656. actually thoughtful at 03:10 AM on 11 August 2011
       Christy Crock #7: Expensive and inaccessible (Part 2)
       Most analysis misses a few subtle points: 1) How is current society shaped by a monopoly provider of electricity and gas to each home (as opposed to each building providing its own energy)? 2. How are we shaped by using fossil fuels? Simple example: most people set the thermostat lower in winter to save money (energy). Renewable energy customers, to get the most efficiency out of their systems, spend most of the winter with a HIGHER thermostat setting. Buildings designed to not need heat/AC are even more comfortable yet. 3. How much of money does the average person spend, over their lifetimes, on fossil fuel? Renewables are always cheaper when you look at "lifecycle" costs (and I mean this in both ways here).
77657. pbjamm at 03:05 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Sphaerica@92 I like the idea of moving what are essentially crank comments to a Climastrology or Looking Glass thread of their own. It would help de-clutter the threads, archive the nonsense for future reference and allow the discussion/debunking of it to continue. It might be a bit tedious for the Moderators though.
       Response:

       [DB] It would be only onerous to John, as he'd have to do the PHP coding.  For Moderators, all they would have to do is to select the appropriate thread to move it to (from a drop-down menu, presumably).  However, once coded the process would be straightforward.

77658. Bob Lacatena at 02:54 AM on 11 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       377, Eric the Red, Yes, we know. That's where we looked. That site is not only in complete agreement with Trenberth, but it got its data from Trenberth. Follow the citations at the end of the article. You have greatly misinterpreted what you found there. You need to read it much, much more carefully. And where exactly in that did you get your numbers from? I don't find your particular numbers anywhere there.
77659. Chris G at 02:47 AM on 11 August 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
       Tom Curtis had an interesting comment under the "Where have all the people gone" post. Tom's assessment of the overall situation is very close to mine (that there will be bigger problems than coastal flooding), for whatever that's worth. However, Tom proposes that rates of rise in the past provide our best estimate of what can be expected out of the future, and my thought is that we don't know if the paleoclimate rates were constrained more by the physics of ice, or by the rate of warming of the planet at large. Since we are on a path of warming faster than before, if the former, then Tom is right, if the latter, we just don't know. If memory serves, a couple of years ago there was a study of the Greenland sheet that constrained how quickly ice can be lost based on how fast it can melt and how quickly ice can flow over the topography. This constrained sea level rise to 'only' 1-2 meters by 2100. On the Antarctic side, there is also this paper Stability of ice-sheet grounding lines and this news story based on it Major Antarctic glacier is 'past its tipping point' This is interesting to me because it factored in the model how an increase in sea level will accelerate the loss of ice from Antarctic, which will increase sea level. Without specifying a rate, it remains that the rise will accelerate. RealClimate has several posts which might be useful if you search for Greenland and WAIS, not at the same time necessarily. In agreement with the conclusion above, the evidence is building that Greenland is more stable than may have been thought 10 years ago, and the WAIS less stable. Agnostic, You will find varying estimates. A good start would be to Google Scholar "Stefan Rahmstorf", "Mauri Pelto", and others referenced in the links above. I don't think it matters that we know what the rate will be at any particular point in the future because, under BAU, it will accelerate until the supply of sheet ice to melt is reduced. That almost guarantees the rate will be more than we can easily cope with at some point, and it will be one problem of many.
77660. jeff_from_ky at 02:20 AM on 11 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       DB Comment on #24 Earth Abides (a great novel) was written by George R. Stewart, not George R. R. Martin.
       Response:

       [DB] You are very much correct (facepalms).  My bad.  My copy is missing from the shelf (I can't blame the kids because the oldest doesn't read despite a perfect GPA & top entrance marks to college & the other is but 8...), else I'd have caught that.

77661. Bob Lacatena at 02:02 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       91, Tom, Wow. I haven't bothered to actually read much of his nonsense, but that's quite a looking-glass-in-a-nutshell you've got there. Honestly... Deleted comments should be used for Comments Policy violations, but RealClimate now has 'The Bore Hole' where certain comments can be simply moved but not deleted, and I think that SkS should have 'The Looking Glass' (or perhaps "The Aether and Other Phlogiston" or "Galileo's Descendants", except that's a huge insult to Galileo)... a place to send comments like these where they can still be seen, but unlike The Bore Hole, a place where further comments/replies can still be made. Basically, it becomes a stand alone thread for this sort of utterly made-up nonsense that may or may not receive refutation, and usually doesn't belong anywhere in particular (I'm not sure this is the right thread for arguments about basic physics, but neither is the 2nd Law thread, or anyplace else). The only thing the moderators would need is an easy tool (button) for migrating such comments to that thread (preferably leaving a placeholder comment behind, with something to the effect of "Moved to The Looking Glass" with a link to the migrated comment). I can think of scores of examples in the past months alone where such a silly place is exactly where such comments belong.
77662. Tom Curtis at 01:40 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       I believe Doug Cotton's post number 77 deserves very careful consideration by anybody who thinks he may have anything worthwhile to say on any scientific matter. With the moderators indulgence, I shall quote it in full:

       "Thanks Jonicol. Yes I do realise O2 and N2 don't emit many photons, but as they rise and cool (perhaps eventually near the top of the atmosphere) they must release the energy in the form of photons at least when they get close to absolute zero. And the energy they carry represents about two thirds of the heat that came out of the surface as it cooled in the evening. The other third gets radiated back, about 70% of that being captured and half of that returning to the surface, then a third of that radiated up again etc. But each "return trip" is very fast and the radiated "feedback" is being reduced by nearly 90% each time. 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. This is why the heat of the day extends into early evening, but it usually cools by morning to (in calm conditions) the temperature supported by the temperature gradient from the core."

       (My emphasis) So, according to Doug Cotton, O2 and N2 release no photons, but do release photons, and in fact release photons with sufficient energy to represent two thirds of the upwelling surface radiation. Indeed, they release that energy when they are near absolute zero in temperature. In other words, Doug Cotton directly contradicts himself in the space of one sentence, and contradicts at least four scientific laws in the whole passage, including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzman law, Kirchoff's Law. Sphaerica and DSL, there is no need to worry about Cotton's thread pollution until he fully retracts this nonsense. In what ever thread he wishes to spew his garbage, we need only link back to his post 97 and request he resolve the contradiction. Anyone reading the thread with an open mind will recognize the reasoning of anyone who does not balk at contradicting himself is neither worth listening to, nor worth discussing.
77663. muoncounter at 01:39 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Sphaerica#89: "such people will still litter as many threads as they can" That's exactly their intent (call it 'the dam--bel effect' or 'the Gil-- phenomenon'); sometimes it seems they come in waves, as if sent here by some unseen tidal surge. Unfortunately, without rebuttal, it appears to the casual observer that our argument is weak. I find it interesting to search key phrases in these posts. It is revealing that the same folks had the same arguments debunked two or three times - in some cases, years ago. Example begins here, but also look here.
77664. Bob Lacatena at 01:17 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       88, DSL, The only flaw that I see with that approach is that such people will still litter as many threads as they can with their "insights," which will then go unchallenged, and be taken as "very good points" by less informed and cognizant readers. But, to follow your approach, in #82 CBDunkerson made a fairly simple and indisputable case that Doug's syllogism wasn't valid... Doug put together two facts from which to draw a conclusion that does not in fact follow from those facts. Until he acknowledges that, the very foundation of Doug's entire position crumbles, and so nothing of any value can be taken from it.
       Response:

       [DB] Bags of hammers are like that.

77665. DSL at 01:12 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       I suggest a new approach. Focus on one error in their presentation. Just one. Provide ample evidence for the existence of the error. Ask for recognition of the error. If no recognition is forthcoming, refuse to respond. Don't address any other posts. Don't delete posts. Respond to further posts by saying, "Recognize X, or you're simply not worth taking the time to engage." That having been said, DC seems very invested in his material. Admitting a mistake might be psychologically impossible. What price omniscience?
       Response:

       [DB] You and Sphaerica both make good points:

       Sphaerica "The burden falls on them to prove to us that it's worth taking two minutes of our day to discuss this with them."

       DSL  "Focus on one error in their presentation.  Just one."

       I suggest a combination of both will be ultimately the most effective.  Anything else will be unfruitful and ultimately a collossal waste of time, effort and precious electrons (and we know how finite those are).
       

77666. Bob Lacatena at 00:50 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       muoncounter, I have gone through this routine with co2isnotevil, RW1, and Joe Postma. The reality is that arguing with people like this is like trying to have an argument after stepping through Lewis Carroll's looking glass. There is no way to win, because they can argue that black is loud and white smells of fish, so of course the sun is square and filled with turtle poop, as it moves through a sea of x² = pV / red + ∂Q. There's just no way to get anywhere with these people, because they are smart enough to create a collage of truths and equations that in no way belong together, but are so complexly interwoven that any effort at disentangling them simply gives them more opportunity to bind you up in some other variation of their nonsense. When you make a valid point, they simply ignore it and change the subject, or go back to arguing something that you've already proven to be false, as if the past conversation had never happened. Again... I think an MSM Hall of Shame is in order for these people, and a different approach is needed. One can't argue facts and details, because those are the culprits' weapons of choice (or, rather, are the source of their own confusion). Your last comment is, I think, the only approach: "...your arguments might have some credibility if you produced actual scientific research to support your positions. " Their own personal brand of logic and science shouldn't even be open to discussion, because it begins with their own self-deluding premise that they are magical geniuses and the rest of the human race (billions of people) and hundreds of years of prior science are all wrong (or, rather, are being woefully misinterpreted by all of those foolish, badly educated working scientists). Bottom line: The burden falls on them to prove to us that it's worth taking two minutes of our day to discuss this with them. Creating one's own personal website outlining a bizarrely fabricated world of math and "science" is evidence only of someone with too much time on their hands, and a proclivity to waste it instead of doing something productive (like learning the real science, and actually understanding what's going on).
77667. DSL at 00:32 AM on 11 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       jonicol @ 75: "So without any carbon dioxide, the earth would be expected to be a warmer place." So, if we quadrupled CO2, we'd cause an ice age?
77668. muoncounter at 23:41 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DC#83: "merely the climate following long term and short term cyclic trends" Here we go again about the harmonices mundi: distant planets influence earth's climate, but what happens on earth does not. All based, of course, on correlation being causation. With that, we drift off topic yet again. "it just wasn't caused by CO2" That appears to be your basic premise; you take that as a given and then attempt to explain what is happening. A scientific process would work forward from the evidence prior to forming a conclusion. Please stop referring to your site in every comment; not only is it tedious, but your arguments might have some credibility if you produced actual scientific research to support your positions.
77669. DougCotton at 23:21 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       CBDunkerson (#82) Read #75 and #77 - and some Quantum Physics textbook. And my notes in the purple box on http://earth-climate.com/IPCCdiag.jpg Good night.
77670. DougCotton at 23:12 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Oh here we go again about past warming prior to 2000 which was merely the climate following long term and short term cyclic trends, all of which I have covered in great detail on my site, with the possibility of perhaps 0.1 degrees at the most of unexplained warming which might have been due to 2,000 nuclear tests at the time causing greater conduction rates where damage was done to the crust underground. I totally and utterly acknowledge that such warming and melting did happen: it just wasn't caused by CO2 - not even the natural stuff. The temperatures will now start to rise very slightly until June 2013, then decline (with a few ups and downs) till 2027, then rise for 30 years and, after that, start a long-term decline for 450 years or so.
77671. CBDunkerson at 23:09 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       muoncounter #76: "That would suggest that the figures are different because they represent different things." Which was precisely my point. Doug had suggested that the NASA and IPCC graphics/data conflicted. They do not. DougCotton #74: "If you read up on Quantum Physics you'll realise photons from individual molecules have very specific frequencies, whereas those from solids have full spectrum IR. So only those from the surface can be captured by CO2 which captures its own unique selection of frequencies, related to spectral lines." I seriously can't understand how you can even write something so clearly illogical. Let's break it down; 1: CO2 only 'captures' certain wavelengths of IR photons - True 2: The Earth's surface emits a larger range of IR wavelengths than atmospheric gases do - True 3: Therefor IR photons emitted from atmospheric gases cannot be 'captured' by CO2 - Not established by the facts stated and clearly false for any photons at the wavelengths CO2 interacts with. The source of the photons does not matter. Whether that source ALSO emitted photons at other wavelengths does not matter. CO2 will 'capture' photons at the wavelengths it interacts with regardless of where they came from. Many of those photons come from atmospheric gases. Ergo, CO2 does indeed 'capture' photons from the atmosphere and not just the Earth's surface.
77672. DougCotton at 23:03 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Muoncounter #76: One further thing, a CO2 molecule only delays a photon briefly before emitting another which may or may not have the same energy. While it still has the captured photon it can collide with other air molecules, though the collisions are usually "glancing" ones rather than direct hits (as in solids.) Anyway, if you wish to say there is some warming then that means less energy goes back to Earth. Let's say, half as much. Then that "nearly 90%" becomes "nearly 95%" and the whole process diminishes even faster. You can't create energy so you can't have it both ways. If you have more questions they are probably answered on my website.
77673. muoncounter at 23:00 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DC#79: "it won't melt the ice caps" Ignoring all the stuff about photons and timing and 'evening out' for a moment, perhaps you would like to read Perovich et al 2008 or one of many other papers on the subject of melting Arctic ice. Calculations indicate that solar heating of the upper ocean was the primary source of heat for this observed enhanced Beaufort Sea bottom melting. Please find one of many threads on the subject for further comments.
77674. DougCotton at 22:46 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Muoncounter #76: My post #77 (written before I read yours) and earth-climate.com makes it clear that I understand "feedback" and I also point out the rapid diminishing of such (by nearly 90%) for each up and down "trip" as well as the rapid timing involved for radiated heat, so that CO2 might, for example, extend the heat of the day by perhaps a few minutes at most, whereas the photons returning from other air molecules (as they physically rise much more slowly) have much more total energy and can extend the heat of the day for a few hours. Yes heat will transfer between molecules, not as much in gases as in solids, but it will "even out" the temperature in the nearby vicinity. So what? That warm air will then rise, cool off and emit more photons, half to space. It will never drift down to the surface against both the temperature gradient and the pressure gradient, so I don't care how long it stays up there: it won't melt the ice caps.
77675. tholtz at 22:41 PM on 10 August 2011
       Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
       Greetings, I also started using SkepticalScience for a similar activity in my Science & Global Change course: http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/docs/ClimateMythsTakeHome.pdf
77676. muoncounter at 22:25 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DC#77: "why the heat of the day extends into early evening, but it usually cools by morning to (in calm conditions) the temperature supported by the temperature gradient from the core. " Please support this notion with something more than the Singapore example you've given on a prior thread. Where I live, the air temperature often remains warmer than the ground temperature. This varies by humidity (and GHG gas content), due to something called radiative cooling.
77677. DougCotton at 22:17 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Thanks Jonicol. Yes I do realise O2 and N2 don't emit many photons, but as they rise and cool (perhaps eventually near the top of the atmosphere) they must release the energy in the form of photons at least when they get close to absolute zero. And the energy they carry represents about two thirds of the heat that came out of the surface as it cooled in the evening. The other third gets radiated back, about 70% of that being captured and half of that returning to the surface, then a third of that radiated up again etc. But each "return trip" is very fast and the radiated "feedback" is being reduced by nearly 90% each time. 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. This is why the heat of the day extends into early evening, but it usually cools by morning to (in calm conditions) the temperature supported by the temperature gradient from the core.
77678. muoncounter at 22:03 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       CBD#73: "Note on accompanying images: " Do you mean that 'there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect' simply because this particular wikipedia graphic omits it by design? Implying that 'net energy transfer' (wikipedia graphic) is not the same as 'global energy flow' (figure 1 here)? As if the word net means something important in this context? That would suggest that the figures are different because they represent different things. DC#74: "photons from individual molecules" Doesn't the energy of IR photons absorbed by greenhouse gases provide kinetic energy, which may either re-radiate or dissipate in collisions with other molecules? Isn't that molecular kinetic energy the basis (according to wikipedia) for 'temperature'?
77679. jonicol at 22:00 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       CBD No. 73 The absorption by and radiation from gases other than the Green House Gases is very small indeed at any atmospheric temperature (200 K to 360K) (and this needs to be recognised Doug - O2 and N2 play almost part in absorption or emission of radiation {photons}) The reason is that the first excitable quantum state of these molecules is very much higher than the energy (kT) involved in collisional excitation. But those small numbers which they do radiate are not absorbed by the green house gases as Doug has stated. However, Doug's other point is very imortant and often overlooked. It is that most of the energy entering the atmosphere from the earth (~80% in fact) is from the wind blowing over the land surface (conduction land to air) - about 20% and evaporation over the vast oceans, ~60%, while about 20% is actually radiated and captured in the main by GHGs betwewen the ground and the tropopause. Most of it absorbed within a few hundred metres in the main, strong bands. Heat which is then reradiated (see 333 W m^-2 on K & T 2009 diagram) comes from all sources - direct absorption of radiation and collisional excitation in warm air followed by radiation. So once in the air, there is no distinction - heat is heat, excitation is excitation. This fact though is important when it is claimed that without the high levels of green house gases, the earth would be a whole 33 C cooler is certianly not correct. The air itself acts as a blanket and just as the GHGs absorb the ground radiation, they are almost solely responsible for cooling radiation in the upper troposphere and beyond. At heights where water vapour is negligible, well above the tops of clouds, carbon dioxide is the main radiator which is why its brightness measured by the satellites is roughly equivalent to 220 K. (This is probably not quite correct either, since at higher levels, the spectral lines are very narrow and the resolution of the satellite spectrometers were quite obviously not high enough, as would be expected, to resolve the structure in which the peaks of the lines may well have shown that the radiation is from a higher temperature than is apparent. So without any carbon dioxide, the earth would be expected to be a warmer place. A second important matter is that of the back radiation, shown in diagrams such as K&T above and reported as increasing with increased carbon dioxide or other GHG. This is not correct either since a fairly straight forward calculation, both analytically and numerically, involving the re-radiation from the layers of air, shows that irrespective of the radiation frequency, the increase in absorbed radiation closer to ground arising from increased GHG, provides a lower energy source to be sure, but this is exactly compensated for by increased absorption in the atmosphere before it reaches the ground. The intensity coming back to ground level is always I(0)/4, no matter what the absorption coefficient K might be where I(0) is the initial upwards radiation from the ground. Similar analysis of the transfer of excitation energy follows a similar pattern, even without taking convection into account. This of course is why when upwards measurements of radiation spectra, looking particularly at CO2, the intensity or brightness is consistent with the local ground level air temperature, as is also found by radiosonde measurements all the way up to the tropopause. Similarly you don't walk out in the afternoon from under the eaves and find yourself suddenly hit with 333 Watts/m2. What you experience iss radiation from molecules not very far away, many from only a micron or so in fact, very nearly in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding air, even though all of the radiative interactions are only via GHGs while the O2 and N2 molecules in much larger numbners, maintain collisional thermal equilibrium satisfying the Stefan-Boltzman Law. John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com
77680. DougCotton at 21:35 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Yes, as explained on my site, about 7% (out of the 15%) come back to Earth, and within seconds about a third of those (2.3%) get radiated up, and 70% of those (1.6%) get captured and 0.8% go to Earth, then a third (0.27%) get radiated back up etc - doesn't explain "5.46 times". And it's all over in a few seconds and off to space or warm air rising. If you read up on Quantum Physics you'll realise photons from individual molecules have very specific frequencies, whereas those from solids have full spectrum IR. So only those from the surface can be captured by CO2 which captures its own unique selection of frequencies, related to spectral lines.
77681. apiratelooksat50 at 21:25 PM on 10 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
       If even just 0.1% are qualified climate scientists, then 0.001 x 31,487 = 31.487 climate scientists who have signed the petition. 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.
       Response:

       [DB] You should seriously rethink your maths here. 

       The phrase not even wrong comes to mind.

77682. Dikran Marsupial at 21:16 PM on 10 August 2011
       It's the sun
       Soons paper sounds to me like the results of a search for statistically significant trends and association with solar forcing region by region - which of course invalidates the test of statistical significance (unless multiple hypothesis testing issues are properly dealt with).
77683. Eclipse at 21:12 PM on 10 August 2011
       It's the sun
       And besides,the paper was about *China* and about the 20's and 40's for some reason. It's not as if he's discovered something controversial about the *globe now* is it? Cheers.
77684. CBDunkerson at 21:03 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       DougCotton wrote: "This 30% simply warms the air molecules which then, as they rise and cool, emit photons which cannot be captured by carbon dioxide." Why can't they be 'captured'? Are they magic photons? :] As to the 'alternative energy budget' you present. You might want to include the disclaimer from the page in question; "Note on accompanying images: These graphics depict only net energy transfer. There is no attempt to depict the role of greenhouse gases and the exchange that occurs between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere or any other exchanges."
77685. Rob Painting at 21:02 PM on 10 August 2011
       It's the sun
       I've read the abstract of the Soon paper you linked to Eclipse. The temperature trends observed in China seem consistent with what is known about the 20th Century temperature trends in general IIRC - as a result of global brightening and dimming. So he may have that part right at least.
77686. actually thoughtful at 17:32 PM on 10 August 2011
       Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
       Maybe "A pirate" should take a hint from Professor Mandia and teach critical thinking.
77687. Eclipse at 17:15 PM on 10 August 2011
       It's the sun
       This next argument seems to be another version of "It's the sun" that good old Willie Soon (and his $million from Exxon) have written. New Willie Soon paper Does anyone know any peer-review work on this yet? Is the journal it is in actually an authentic climate journal? Is it legitimate science about a LOCAL Chinese phenomenon or a hyped up local phenomenon that fraudster Denialists are using to try and confuse people about GLOBAL climate change?
77688. DougCotton at 17:04 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       Here's a graphic based on NASA information .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg VERY different from the IPCC graphic!
77689. Riduna at 16:58 PM on 10 August 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
       An interesting post, though the question is perhaps how fast can sea level rise given the vulnerability of WAIS and the prospect of surging Arctic amplification?
77690. DougCotton at 16:43 PM on 10 August 2011
       Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget This Wikipedia page explains how, in the real world, about 15% + 6% = 21% of the total incoming solar radiation (that is, 21% of 340 = 71.4 watts per square metre) is actually radiated from the surface but double that (23% from the oceans and 7% from land = 30% in total) is in effect diffused by what is called "latent heat flux" from the oceans and "sensible heat flux" from land. This 30% simply warms the air molecules which then, as they rise and cool, emit photons which cannot be captured by carbon dioxide. The IPCC model shows 390 watts per square metre which is over 5.46 times the above 71.4 watts per square metre! Please explain the huge difference!
77691. scaddenp at 15:19 PM on 10 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
       "if radiation is the only source of heat for the atmosphere" Why would anyone think that? Note the other sources shown on the trenberth diagram, important especially very close to the surface. (good reasons for not trying to treat the atmosphere as a single slab).
77692. muoncounter at 15:19 PM on 10 August 2011
       Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
       Phila, Many classical myths have at least some basis in fact. This one seems to come from another time and place altogether. `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
77693. Phila at 14:48 PM on 10 August 2011
       Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
       Here's a brand-new myth for them to debunk: AGW is impossible because "energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source." I believe I'll go and have a drink now.
77694. barry1487 at 14:17 PM on 10 August 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
       Thanks, Stevo. I'll have a fossick too when I have a few hours to rub together.
77695. Stevo at 14:06 PM on 10 August 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
       Barry, The extinction of megafauna at the end of the last ice age is thought (by those I read many years ago when I was an anthropology student) to be the main driver of the neolithic revolution. No longer being able to rely on following the herds of huge beasts, man was forced to exploit other food souces. Smaller tools were developed to hunt smaller prey including birds and fish. I cannot recall anything signifigant from the previous interglacial. You raise a good question. I'll look around and see if I can find anything for you.
77696. barry1487 at 13:41 PM on 10 August 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
       Not really on-topic, but a bit related... I was musing on the notion that civilization has flourished in the current, steady interglacial, and wondered about human evolution during the last few ice ages cycles. Modern man evolved during a warm period (a degree or so cooler than present) about 200 000 years ago. Our species has survived two glacial maximums since. Is there any work in the literature linking temperate climate to evolutionary fecundity and/or increased biodiversity? Kind of opposite to the evidence of extinctions associated with 'rapid' climate change.
77697. Stevo at 13:23 PM on 10 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       I take your point, Bern, but am still searching for possible improvments in terminology. These days the net has given blogs the opportunity to mask science from the greater public. (All power to John for starting and running this site, BTW) The scientific side of the argument, rightly, adheres to constraints such as citing peer reviewed work and rules laid out in the comments policy used here. The other side does not. One feels like one is using the Marquis de Queenbury rules while the opposition is free to go open slather. Yes, the term "consensus of evidence" is good but the word "consensus" is too often used against us.
77698. DougCotton at 12:37 PM on 10 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
       In regard to the above doubts some seem to have about diffusion, consider what is the probability that, if radiation is the only source of heat for the atmosphere, that (in calm conditions at night) it just happens to raise that part of the atmosphere which is very close to the ground all the way from 0 deg.K (-273.15 deg.C) up to almost exactly the same temperature that it happens to be under the ground. (I hope this comment is short enough not to be snipped like the last few - I'm keeping screen captures as evidence.)
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please note that threads are organized by topic. A more appropriate thread for your unique views on this subject is Tracking earth's energy. You might find Dr. Trenberth's article on radiation an interesting read.

       Make all the screen captures you like. Comments are not snipped for length, although few really long posts are worth wading through. Comments are snipped for violations of the Comment Policy, which you have already been advised to read and abide by.
77699. DougCotton at 12:34 PM on 10 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
       Scaddenp. Regarding predictions, the 900 to 1000 year cycles (correlating with eccentricity of Jupiter) and the superimposed 59.6 year cycles (correlating with the Jupiter/Saturn resonance cycle) and the further superimposed 11 to 13 year sunspot cycles all had maxima around 1998-2002 and thus predicted very well the warming period at the end of last century. They now predict the current trend since 2003, with a slight increase by the next sunspot maximum (June 2013) which will be the lowest since 1907 according to NASA. Then, as archived on my site, there are predictions of cooling from 2014 to 2027 then 30 years of warming and, eventually, significant cooling for another 450 years. etc. - read it there if you wish.
       Response:

       [DB] Off-topic portion struck-out.  This thread is about when climate "skeptics" can't win the scientific argument, they change tactics, smearing climate scientists and inventing conspiracy theories.  Please make a note that comments need to be focused on the topic of the thread on which they are placed.

       If the thread topic you are reading is not that of your comment, thousands of more relevant posts (some of which are likely to be about the topic of your prospective comment) can be located via the Search function in the Upper Left corner of every SkS page.

77700. Riduna at 12:26 PM on 10 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       Eric @ 14 Two things suggest a speeding-up of SLR this century 1. Hansen et al 2011 note that we are already within “a few tenths of a degree” of the Eemian maximum when sea level was ~5m above current levels. Should we aim to limit atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm, this would take average global temperature to well above Eemian by 2100 and so expose us to SLR similar to that pertaining at the Eemian maximum. 2. SLR is primarily caused by melting of land based ice. At current rates of loss, it is unlikely that SLR would exceed 1m by 2100. But why should we assume that current polar land based ice loss will remain constant for the next 90 years. If warming continues (few dispute it will) the rate of land based ice mass loss will increase causing accelerated SLR. Hansen asserts that the effects of slow feedbacks initiated by anthropogenic CO2 emissions are such as to produce decadal doubling of ice mass loss from the GIS. This would result in ice mass loss rising from ~120 gigatonnes in 2000 to ~130,000 gigatonnes per annum by 2100. Were this to occur and be accompanied by similar rate of WAIS ice loss, the result could be SLR of 5m by 2100. It is useful to remember that neither ice mass loss or its effect on SLR are linear and because of this non-linearity very rapid acceleration in SLR over the next 40-50 years would not be expected. During this period it is possible that SLR per annum will increase from mm/annum to cm/annum. However, during the latter part of this century a much larger SLR should be expected from on-going decadal doubling of ice mass loss from the GIS. I accept that most climate scientists at present regard a 1m. rise in sea level by 2100 as a maximum expectation and I remain quite ambivalent about a 5m SLR occurring by 2100. On the other hand, I see no reason to challenge the views expressed by Dr Hansen. Even taking into account uncertainties associated with slow feedbacks on Arctic amplification, it is not unreasonable to believe that SLR of no more than 1m. by 2100 is a very conservative estimate.

Prev  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  Next