Recent Comments

Prev  1568  1569  1570  1571  1572  1573  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  1582  1583  Next

Comments 78751 to 78800:

78751. David Lewis at 02:17 AM on 24 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       NOAA put that -0.1 W/m2 differently, by saying it amounts to 1/3 of the increased power of CO2 added since 2000, which has been offset by this stratospheric aerosol effect Solomon et al are suggesting. Last year NOAA said Solomon was looking at water vapor which she had also observed to be variable. She had calculated an effect that "caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise", since 2000. The paper. is the same one mentioned in previous comments. "Why Wasn't the Hottest Decade Hotter" is a good title for everything like this.
78752. JosHagelaars at 02:11 AM on 24 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       @Keith Hunter Thanks for the free CO2Calc application. @Jeff T When you increase CO2 concentration in the atmosphere the equilibriums 7, 8, and 9 start shifting and the result is a lower pH, more HCO3(-) and less CO3(2-). In my opinion figure 3 shows this perfectly. Even though you increase the amount of carbon in the oceans by increasing the CO2, you get less CO3(2-). Less CO3(2-) means that equilibrium CaCO3 = Ca(2+) + CO3(2-) shifts to the right and the calcifying organisms won't like that. Look at the table in The Encyclopedia of Earth where you can see some estimates about these concentrations for different dates. And I think they mean by CT and AT : total dissolved CO2 and total alkalinity.
78753. Bob Lacatena at 01:41 AM on 24 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1094, damorbel,

       ...so CO2 is always going to absorb heat from the warm atmosphere, both by absorbing radiation and molecular collision...

       This one statement is very, very, wrong, and a major source of confusion. First, the energy is being absorbed from the surface, not the surrounding atmosphere. Thus, the surface is warming the CO2, which is in turn warming the surrounding O2/N2 in the atmosphere (it's not the atmosphere warming the contained CO2). Basically, the CO2 absorbs the radiation from the surface (or from other layers of the atmosphere, but ignore that complexity for now). Before the CO2 is able to radiate that energy away again (usually) it collides with an O2 or N2 molecule and passes the energy on that way -- freeing it to absorb more radiation from other sources. Thus, the surface warms the CO2, and the CO2 warms the O2/N2. This behavior is more pronounced near the surface, where the air is denser and collisions are more frequent. As one rises in the atmosphere, and it becomes less dense, the chance of collision is reduced, and so, too, is the time between collisions as well as the chance of receiving energy through absorbing radiation (for the CO2 molecule). As a result, CO2 higher up is more likely to gain energy through a collision, and emit it through radiation. Thus, we have a gradually changing effect, where in the denser, lower atmosphere, CO2 acts to absorb radiation and transfer it to the (otherwise transparent to IR) O2 and N2 molecules. As one rises, the balance slowly changes, until one reaches the very upper troposphere and stratosphere, where the opposite is likely to occur, and CO2 actually acts to accentuate heat loss.
78754. Bob Lacatena at 01:34 AM on 24 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel, I'm not going to waste of lot of time here, because clearly many others have been down this road before, but here are a few salient points:

       In thermodynamics there is no such thing as "net heat flow".

       Yes, there is. Go study. To provide a simple example, thermodynamics does not apply on an individual molecular level. It applies in aggregate (i.e. at the macroscopic level). If a molecule emits energy in the form of a photon, the receiving molecule does not and cannot know if the emitting molecule was warmer or cooler. It does not and cannot discriminate based on the source of the photon. If that photon is of the correct frequency, then it is absorbed, no matter where it came from. To give another example, do you think that it is impossible to shine a flashlight into the sun? Of course not. The light from the flashlight (some of it) will reach the sun and be absorbed. Far more light/energy from the sun will of course reach and be absorbed by the flashlight. The net flow is from warmer (sun) to cooler (flashlight). but energy still has flowed from the flashlight to the sun.

       I can see nothing in your diagram that shows a warming effect on the surface, thare are no temperatures to be seen, it is not possible to argue for a warming effect without atleast two temperatures.

       Look again. I simplified the "temperatures" to 5 for the surface and 2 for the atmosphere, but they are clearly there. The surface temperature should be 4 (the amount coming from the sun) but it is 5. The extra "ray" is the red one, coming from the atmosphere. Take the time to actually study and understand the diagram before commenting further (although arguing without listening appears to be your modus operandi).

       As you decend through the atmosphere the pressure rises and the temperature rises.

       Wow, really? Except that the pressure is greater near the surface, but not increasing at any particular altitude. Again, no work is being done. The pressure at any altitude is constant. As such, gravity doesn't increase the temperature or artificially maintain a higher temperature. Yes, it maintains the pressure gradient, and a rising parcel of air will do work and cool. But barring that motion, and that actual expenditure of work, the atmosphere should still cool to restore the temperature differential (warm to cool, remember?). Thermodynamics does not allow gravity to violate (or suspend) the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, any more than anything else might. [Did you even realize that when you argue that gravity maintains the temperature differential, it is in fact you who are violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?] The misapplication of the laws of thermodynamics where they do not apply (i.e. a system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium) is where people often go wrong here. That, and trying to over-simplistically apply basic theories and laws (PV=rRT, etc.) without considering all of the interactions and ramifications. In particular, the system is greatly complicated by quantum mechanics, and the fact that the substances involved may be transparent or opaque to various frequencies of radiation. The system is just far, far more complex than your simple model allows, and as such your simple model is incapable of adequately describing or bounding the system. I suggest you study the facts behind radiation (at the molecular level) in detail before proceeding further with your erroneous train of thought.
78755. damorbel at 01:08 AM on 24 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1093 Tom Curtis you write:- "I did not mention energy transfer from the upper troposphere to the surface." If a temperature rise is to take place, from any cause, GHE or whatever, there must be an energy source. If it is CO2 in the upper atmosphere producing 'back radiation' that warms the surface, don't you agree that the GHG-caused-back-radiation must be some sort of energy source? You also write:- "In fact you could develop a model of the greenhouse effect in which all energy transfers within the atmosphere are convective" This unlikely, gas flow surely dominates but there is plenty of gas flow that is not convective; surely surface winds play an even more important role? To restrict your analysis to convection is going rather too far I suggest; how else, apart from ocean currents, is thermal energy going to get from the tropics to the poles? You also write:- "But introducing more CO2 to the atmosphere temporarily slows the rate at which energy leaves the atmosphere". Sorry but I cannot see how this can be the case. CO2 is a powerful radiator of thermal energy and on Earth CO2 is always warmer than deep space, even Fourier when writing about heat transfer recognised that is transferred in the direction of hot to cold, so CO2 is always going to absorb heat from the warm atmosphere, both by absorbing radiation and molecular collision so that it, together with the other GHGs, cools the planet very effectively by radiating to deep space. You argue :- "if you double the CO2 content, atmospheric radiation from lower in the atmosphere that formerly made it to space will be absorbed by the additional CO2 higher in the atmosphere." Indeed the change in height does change the radiation temperature by perhaps a few degrees but this only makes a small difference because the radiation to 2.7K (deep space) is for a temperature difference of about 200K (raised to the 4th power don't forget!); the few degrees change arising from height difference will have only a tiny effect. Also the higher effective radiation level means the radiating gas has a lower density so it cannot absorb all the radiation coming from below, some radiation will pass straight through without being reabsorbed by the upper levels because the gas density is dropping.
78756. Tom Curtis at 00:11 AM on 24 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel @1085, I did not mention energy transfer from the upper troposphere to the surface. In fact you could develop a model of the greenhouse effect in which all energy transfers within the atmosphere are convective. In that purely convective model of heat transfer within the atmosphere, there is no energy transfer from the upper troposphere to the surface. Never-the-less there is a greenhouse effect, which differs minimally from the real greenhouse effect. In such a model, the Earth's surface is warmed entirely by the Sun. But introducing more CO2 to the atmosphere temporarily slows the rate at which energy leaves the atmosphere. That creates an imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy, which must be stored somewhere and is stored as additional heat. Once enough heat is stored, the energy balance is restored, and all energy lost (or gained) is matched by energy gained (or lost) meaning the stored heat remains constant. Consider a bath tub, with a tap which lets water in, and another tap on the drain which can control the rate at which water goes out. If you turn the inlet tap on full, and the outlet tap on full, the water level of the bath will be constant. If you then half close the outlet tap, the water level in the bath will rise, even though no water flows back up the outlet pipe into the bath. This is exactly analogous to how the greenhouse effect works, and your objection is equivalent to a know-it-all on the side lines saying you can't raise the water level by closing the outlet tap. Your further claim that increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere will increase the radiation to space assumes that energy radiated at a lower level in the atmosphere is never absorbed by CO2 at a higher level in the atmosphere. If you do not make that transparently false assumption, it becomes obvious that if you double the CO2 content, atmospheric radiation from lower in the atmosphere that formerly made it to space will be absorbed by the additional CO2 higher in the atmosphere. It will then be reradiated, but because it is reradiated by a higher and hence colder gass, it will emit less energy to space. I note that Sphaerica's and Dikran's post above more than adequately cover your other errors. As they note, you have been fully rebutted on these points many times and at length in this thread. Consequently I know there is no point in debate with you. I have responded twice now so that any late comers to this thread have a clear statement of the nature of your errors, but will not respond further. As you obviously have nothing new to add, nor any desire to learn, may I suggest you take to heart the moderator's prior direction to you.
78757. damorbel at 00:02 AM on 24 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1088 Sphaerica you write:- "While it is true that the measured pressure is higher closer to the ground... it stays that way. The pressure is not changing. To increase the temperature, you must compress the gas further. This clearly is not happening." As you decend through the atmosphere the pressure rises and the temperature rises. This is quite different from the bicycle pump, diesel engine etc. With the bicycle pump the ambient pressure remains the same so its temperature does not change, so the heat in the pump is tranferred into the ambient (thus the unchanging) temperature. The case of the atmosphere is quite different in that all the air at a given altitude heats up as you change that altitude, this means that the ambient temperature is changing at the same time, thus quite different from the bicycle pump example. It is a fact that, apart from wind blowing the air about a bit, the temperature gradient in the troposphere (not the absolute temperature!) is uniform over the entire globe because the force of gravity is, more or less, uniform also.
78758. Dikran Marsupial at 23:55 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel wrote: "I suggest that, from this argument, you would also accept that the 'net' transfer is from the warmer to the colder part of the atmosphere and thus it is the colder part that tends to be heated by the warmer surface." Yes, of course it is, and that is completely compatible with the commonly accepted physics of the GHE. BTW, your putting 'net' in quote strongly suggests you don't understand the reason it is there. It is a perfectly standard term, and it's meaning is key to your misunderstanding. "The logic of this is clear, CO2 in the atmosphere indeed radiates heat to deep space, cooling the planet down from the heating effect of the Sun" No, that does not follow logically. The CO2 in the amtosphere prevents heat from being radiated directly into space from the surface. Instead heat is only radiated to space from the upper trophosphere. The upper trophosphere is cooler than the surface, so there is less heat to radiate. Hence the more CO2, the higher in the trophosphere the radiating layer becomes, the colder this radiating layer is and the less heat that is radiated, not more. As for pressure gradients, I suggest we deal with the major flaw in your reasoning before getting on to more subtle points.
78759. damorbel at 23:42 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1087 Sphaerica you write:- "In answer to all of your questions about net heat flow." I did not mention 'Net' heat flow on #1086. In thermodynamics there is no such thing as "net heat flow". Heat flow, Net or otherwise is a concept belonging to the caloric theory of heat, a theory not accepted since about 1845 following the work of James Joule on the conservation of energy. I suggest that, from this argument, you would also accept that the 'net' transfer is from the warmer to the colder part of the atmosphere and thus it is the colder part that tends to be heated by the warmer surface. The logic of this is clear, CO2 in the atmosphere indeed radiates heat to deep space, cooling the planet down from the heating effect of the Sun - more CO2 makes for a greater cooling effect by re-radiating the ('net) heat transferring from the surface by convection, evaporation (and condensation) of water, surface radiation, hurricanes etc., etc. PS I can see nothing in your diagram that shows a warming effect on the surface, thare are no temperatures to be seen, it is not possible to argue for a warming effect without atleast two temperatures.
78760. DSL at 23:30 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       In other news, "During the first three weeks of July, 12 weather stations have recorded all-time daytime highs. But 93 weather stations have seen their all-time warmest nighttime temperatures." Meanwhile, the ongoing saga of Damorbel's refusal to accept the existence of the GHE continues . . .
78761. damorbel at 23:27 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1086 Dikran Marsupial you write:- "The law of heat transfer says that the NET flow of energy is from hot to cold. It does not say that no energy is transfered from the colder object to the warmer, just that the flow of energy in the other direction will be larger." I suggest that, from this argument, you would also accept that the 'net' transfer is from the warmer to the colder part of the atmosphere and thus it is the colder part that tends to be heated by the warmer surface. The logic of this is clear, CO2 in the atmosphere indeed radiates heat to deep space, cooling the planet down from the heating effect of the Sun - more CO2 makes for a greater cooling effect by re-radiating the ('net) heat transferring from the surface by convection, evaporation (and condensation) of water, surface radiation, hurricanes etc., etc. PS I would like to know what you think of the theory that the pressure gradient in the atmosphere results in a temperature gradient.
78762. Dikran Marsupial at 23:15 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       Ken wrote "Well - how can we??" (i) why not wait for the next article in the series (ii) the mass balance argument shows beyond doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, and has been discussed many times on SkS this article also written by Doug Your comment on the style of Doug et al.'s contribution is rather churlish. A lot of effort has gone into these posts, and just becuase they are not tailored specifically to your requirements does not mean they are not suitable for the interested layman. Sadly it is a shame when eminent scientists like Dyson make such criticisms of science beyond their area of genuine expertise. It is generally an indication of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Do you agree with Dyson that GCMs do a good job of modelling the fluid motion of the atmosphere and oceans?
78763. Ken Lambert at 22:58 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       Doug Mackie Original Post #9 "How can we be sure that ocean acidification is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere? That is, how do we know that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not coming from a natural warming of the ocean?" Well - how can we?? Forgive my ignorance of higher chemistry - but do we really need 9+ posts to get a result on the subject of ocean acidification? I have tried to follow through some of your earlier posts -and they seem to be a set of draft lecture notes for a graduate course. Now that is fine in itself - but some editing and a set of conclusions would be in order for the interested layman. As a separate point - oceanic biological processes are mentioned above. It has been a criticism of others - Freeman Dyson for example - that biological and plant processes are not part of any of Hansen's AGW modelling (and most if not all other GCM) and are probably very significant players.
78764. Bob Lacatena at 22:43 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1085, damorbel, Concerning gravity, work is only done when the pressure is changed. While it is true that the measured pressure is higher closer to the ground... it stays that way. The pressure is not changing. To increase the temperature, you must compress the gas further. This clearly is not happening. You say:

       According to thermodynamic laws this temperature gradient is sustained by the pressure gradient.

       What does this statement mean? That a gas under pressure cannot cool? Think about it. [Hint #1: There is no such statement or law in Thermodynamics, that a temperature gradient is sustained by a pressure gradient. This is an inference arrived at by misapplying the Laws of Thermodynamics.] [Hint #2: The Laws of Thermodynamics apply specifically to bodies that are in Thermodynamic Equilibrium. A non-homogeneous atmosphere with a temperature and pressure gradient is clearly not a single body in Thermodynamic Equilibrium, so the Laws simply cannot be applied in a simple, single-minded fashion.]
78765. Eric the Red at 22:33 PM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Tom, You seem to be arguing for a step-like shift, whereas I was claiming a more gradual change. Instead of a jump around 1977, the change would slowly increase to a maximum around the trasition year, and slowly subside. If you plot the 5-year moving average for ENSO, the value rises steeply from 1975-1983, crossing zero in 1979. Hence, I would expect the greatest change over that interval. Currently, the moving average is falling, and crossed zero in 2009. We have yet to see if a repeat of the 1940s will occur. Once again, long term, the effects will cancel. As I stated previously, the 130-year near-linear trend is 0.6C / century, with early 2011 CRU data falling slightly below the trend line. I see no reason to deviate from this trend. Remember, an exponential rise in CO2 leads to a linear increase in temperature. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not kept pace with the expponential rise recently, so I see no reason for an increase in the temperature trend. Using a shorter time frame to determine a long-term trend may not be the best. Therefore, I think you estimate of 1.56 C by the century is high.
78766. Jeff T at 22:30 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Doug, please read comment 8 (14:44 PM) carefully. I'm a different Jeff. I studied what you wrote; I'd like to understand it; but I don't. Generally, one needs four equations to solve for four coupled parameters. Sarah and I are the only non-authors to make substantive comments. Do you really conclude from such a small sample that everyone else understood the post? I don't know what CT and AT are. Sarah, if the species ratios are more important than concentrations (for the health of corals or clams, say), it would help a lot for the post to explain that. The equation for water at the end of comment 9 (15:02 PM) isn't sufficient; water plus CO2 doesn't produce pH=8.
78767. Bob Lacatena at 22:27 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1085, damorbel, In answer to all of your questions about net heat flow, please refer to the following simplified diagram of radiation exchange between the surface of the earth, the atmosphere, and the sun. The atmosphere (blue) is transparent to visible light (yellow) from the sun. This warms the surface (+4). The surface emits (according to its temperature of 5) in wavelengths which pass through the atmosphere into space (-3), losing that heat, and in wavelengths which are absorbed by the atmosphere (2). The atmosphere emits (according to its temperature of 2) equally in all directions, which means some heads into space and some back down. Thus, the temperature of the surface is 5 (4 from the sun, plus 1 from the atmosphere). The temperature of the atmosphere is 2 (from the surface). The planet gains and loses 5 at all times. The atmosphere gains and loses 2 at all times. Space gains and loses 4 at all times. Everything nets to zero. There is no energy created or lost. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is never violated. Every net transfer (which is the only actual restriction) is warm to cold. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is never violated.
78768. Bob Lacatena at 22:05 PM on 23 July 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Looks like we just lost North Pole Cam 2 to a melt pond as well:
78769. Dikran Marsupial at 22:03 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel I am astonished that this point is still being debated here, given that the questions you raise have already been answered repeatedly. The law of heat transfer says that the NET flow of energy is from hot to cold. It does not say that no energy is transfered from the colder object to the warmer, just that the flow of energy in the other direction will be larger. Thus the questions are not valid as they are based on at least one fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics. BTW the GHE is accepted already. The fact that you are at odds with the vast majority of scientists on this one ought to suggest to you that perhaps the problem is with your understanding of the physics rather than with the physics itself.
78770. damorbel at 21:42 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1084 Tom Curtis you write:- "The surface temperature at the normal CO2 level is set by the intersect of the lapse rate with the effective altitude of radiation at the equilibrium temperature for that altitude." You argue here that the surface temperature is governed by the TOA temperature, the '2nd Law' argument says that the thin, cold upper atmosphere that is losing lots of radiation to deep space is quite incapable of transferring any significant quantity of thermal energy to the warm, dense surface. The simple questions are 1/ 'Where does this energy come from'? 2/ How can a cold layer with a density about a tenth of the surface value possibly raise the surface temperature by even a small amount. The laws of heat transfer say that heat energy goes only from the hot surface to the tropopause where it is further radiated into deep space. These are valid questions; if the GHE is to be accepted valid answers to theses questions are needed also. Further you write:- "In exactly the same manner, gravity currently holds the pressure of the atmosphere, but does not increase it. Therefore it does no work and cannot replace the energy that escapes to space by radiation." This isn't the whole story because the pressure increases with depth, contrary to your claim that it doesn't change. It is gravity that causes the pressure gradient. According to thermodynamic laws this temperature gradient is sustained by the pressure gradient. Your example of a bicycle tire is not valid because there is no pressure gradient in a tire. The temperature change in the tire you note dies away because the pressure gradient is supported by the tire walls and not the gas in the tire.
78771. Tom Curtis at 20:45 PM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric the Red @130, you will note that I said, and that you have now agreed that:

       " if you have a period of predominantly La Ninas and follow with a period of predominantly El Ninos, in a period of no underlying trend, in the immediate period of the transition that will introduce a spurious trend to global mean temperatures. But outside of any interval that ranges across the point of transition, that change will introduce no trend to the series."

       (Emphasis added) The interval from 1977 (chosen because it was a high value for the period) to 2001 (chosen because Trenberth claims 25 years is the minimal period for a significant effect) follows after the end of the period of frequent La Ninas that occurred during the 60's and early 70's. It includes no transition from frequent La Ninas to frequent El Ninos, and included no transition from negative to positive PDO phase. Therefore on the principle quoted above, neither ENSO nor PDO have introduced a trend to that period. Never-the-less the trend over that interval (HadCRUT3) is 0.156 degrees C per decade. Further, the period 1951-1975 does not include a transition from frequent El Ninos to frequent La Ninas, and has a Negative PDO phase throughout. Therefore on the quoted principle, these ocean fluctuations have introduced no trends to that period, and hence the negative trend over that interval (see graph in 131) is not explained by ENSO states or the PDO. Finally, even if we are undergoing a transition between frequent El Ninos to frequent La Ninas, and/or from positive to negative phase PDO, on the quoted principle that would at most introduce a spurious reduction of the trend in the immediate decade of the transition. Over the following decades, and until the next transition (which would introduce a temporary spurious increase to the trend), they cannot be expected to effect the trend at all. Consequently we would predict a resumption of the preceding trend, and hence have no reason to expect ENSO or the PDO to result in a reduce trend for a sustained period into the future. I think these three points follow straight forwardly from the quoted principle, which as I have said follows straight forwardly from the discussion in 109, and to which you have agreed. Given that, why would we not be predicting an increase in temperature by at least 1.56 degrees by the end of this century, and far probably more because of the increasing GHG forcing?
78772. Tom Curtis at 20:13 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel @1083, the diagram in 1080 shows three horizontal lines, H, H + delta H, and the Tropopause. It shows two diagonal lines, CO2 and 2*CO2. The line H represents the effective altitude of radiation with the initial CO2 concentration. The equilibrium temperature at that altitude is set by the energy balance such that the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) equals the Incoming solar radiation times the planetary albedo. The surface temperature at the normal CO2 level is set by the intersect of the lapse rate with the effective altitude of radiation at the equilibrium temperature for that altitude. If you double CO2, the effective altitude of radiation is increased. In the diagram the new effective altitude of radiation is represented by H + delta H. The equilibrium temperature at this new altitude is approximately the same as the original equilibrium temperature because incoming solar radiation and albedo have not changed (but see below). Therefore the surface temperature is still set by the intersect of the lapse rate with the new altitude of effective radiation at the equilibrium temperature. As the diagram shows, this requires that the intersect of the lapse rate with the surface shift to the right, ie, that the surface temperature increase. Of course, in real life there will be feed back effects that may change albedo, and may change the lapse rate, as well as introducing increased GHG concentrations (water vapour) to the atmosphere. These complexities do effect the final result. Indeed, in the most likely case given the evidence, they increase the change in surface temperature by a factor of 2.5. But they do not change the fundamental principles involved. Regarding the compression effect, it was once fundamental to the Earth's climate, but is no longer. To illustrate this, consider the example of pumping up a bicycle tire. As we well know, doing so raised the temperature of the air in the tire. But once we stop pumping, the extra heat dissipates even though the air remains compressed. Indeed, if we leave the bike for a few hours, the air temperature inside the tire will be the same as the ambient air temperature. The reason for this is that so long as the wall of the tire is merely holding the pressure instead of increasing it, it does no work. And because it does no work, it introduces no new energy into the air to replace any that escapes to the environment by conduction or radiation. In exactly the same manner, gravity currently holds the pressure of the atmosphere, but does not increase it. Therefore it does no work and cannot replace the energy that escapes to space by radiation. In the very distant past the Earth's gravitational field created the compression in the first place in a process astronomers call "accretion". The amount of energy released by this compression left the Earth completely molten, but as William Thompson, Lord Kelvin showed over a hundred years ago, it only takes from a hundred thousand to ten million years for all that energy to dissipate. Consequently, from long before any life evolved on Earth, almost all energy on Earth has come from the sun, and the Earth has remained molten only because of the radioactive elements in its core.
78773. Dikran Marsupial at 19:35 PM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric the Red So after all this, it seems your position is that ENSO causes short terms fluctuations in surface temperatures and we need to consider this in attributing climate changes to the various forcings? That has been known for a very long time and news to nobody. It is the "skeptics" you need to be telling that to, as it is them that use the fluctuations of ENSO to cherry pick arguments such as "did global warming stop in 1998". The effects of ENSO are fairly straightforward to remove via regression, giving results like this It seems to me you have just been backing away from your original point about PDO as people have refuted your argument and ended up arguing for a completely bland position that we all argee with anyway, and which has virtually nothing to do with PDO!
78774. damorbel at 19:15 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1080 Tom Curtis you write:- "2) Transfer of energy by convection is essential to understanding the modern theory of the green house effect. In this case it is not essential to the effect itself, in that in principle you could have a green house effect without it." Which is what I interpret as 'the adiabatic compression effect of gravity on the atmosphere' This is modest (55K) on Earth but severe (400K) on Venus with its x90 atmospheric mass. Are you able to distinguish between this compressive heating of the surface and the GH effect?. For me this is critical to the understanding of atmospheric physics and not often discussed. For example, in your post #1080 you have a diagram of atmospheric temperature profile with two T vs H gradients, one for 'CO2' and another for '2xCo2'. From your diagram both gradients appear to be the same i.e. the amount of CO2 does not change the gradient, only the surface temperature. From this diagram I cannot derive a clear understanding of how changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 influence the surface temperature.
78775. Rob Painting at 18:25 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       David, note this bit from the Solomon (2011) paper "Near-global satellite aerosol data imply a negative radiative forcing due to stratospheric aerosol changes over this period of about –0.1 W/m2, reducing the recent global warming that would otherwise have occurred." Ties in with the title of my post very well methinks. Of course, they're referring to volcanic stratospheric aerosols, a separate issue. Certainly interesting stuff.
78776. Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       scaddenp @23, Crowded House was an Australian band, formed in Melbourne, no less. Granted the genius behind it was a Kiwi.
78777. Doug Mackie at 16:27 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       Are you referring to this "Australian" band? What kind of dirty creature would stoop to that sort of cultural appropriation? It makes me see red 8-)
78778. David Lewis at 16:20 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       The Solomon paper is suggesting that stratospheric aerosols are persistently variable, and assessments such as UNEP, something Solomon was one of ten lead authors of, affirm that: "there is no long term systematic global monitoring system to document long term future changes in stratospheric aerosols that could affect ozone and climate" so they are basically saying this is a factor models will have to take into account if they want to increase the possibility they might get accurate one day, based on impressions of the data they could get their hands on. But with data assessed to be like this, what would they suggest a modeller do? Toss a coin? Maybe that's why Hansen just asked his grandchildren.... I thought if the volcano people didn't think there was an increase in global volcanism it might mean they don't think there has been an increase in tropical volcanism. The Vernier paper abstract suggests an increase in volcanism but doesn't say increased compared to anything in particular. They mention the Brewer-Dobson circulation which might mean they feel they've observed something new there - The UNEP assessment discusses this circulation: "the Brewer Dobson circulation is not a measureable quantity and hence trends... are inferred...." "climate model simulations consistently predict an acceleration of the Brewer-Dobson circulation in response to increasing greenhouse gases..." although not predicted to be detectable yet "Certainly any change in the strength of the Brewer-Dobson circulation would alter the thermal structure of the stratosphere." It might be that volcanoes of a size that weren't thought to be powerful enough to be injecting material directly into the stratosphere, because of a misunderstanding of how Brewer-Dobson circulation works, or because it has changed, are suggested to be injecting material by Vernier. The Brewer-Dobson circulation is the way air circulates from the troposphere to the stratosphere and back....
78779. scaddenp at 15:41 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       Would anyone who not a NZer spot the referencing in the title of this part? (I assume its a take on "always take the weather"?)
78780. Rob Painting at 15:38 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       David Lewis - your link doesn't enlighten us as to the degree of tropical volcanism. This is important because nearer to the equator and the plumes can reach high up into the stratosphere. That's not the case for volcanoes at high latitudes. Furthermore the studies mentioned actually go into a lot more detail, such as satellite observations.
78781. David Lewis at 15:16 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       The Global Volcanism Program has a page "Has volcanic activity been increasing?" They say "we don't think so". A dramatic increase in volcanoes per year has been reported for centuries apparently, but they say this is due to more reporters rather than more volcanoes.
78782. Sarah at 15:02 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Jeff, Figure 3 could be made with the Y-axis in terms of concentration instead of fraction and it would look the same. For example, instead of 1.0 it the value could be 2100 x10^-6 mol kg^-6. Adding more carbon to the system would make all three lines increase together. So, if the new concentration is 10% higher (it isn't in the real world!) all three lines would be 10% higher on that scale but their proportions would stay the same. Another way to think about this is to consider the CO₃^-2 line at around pH 8.1. If you add a significant amount of CO₂ then all three lines go up when the Y-axis is in concentration units. But, by eqn 12, adding CO₂ causes some of the CO₃^-2 to convert to HCO₃^- and the new distribution defines a new more acidic pH. Actually, the 2% increase in ocean carbon would only shift the concentration lines up (together) by a tiny amount (2%). But because the system at pH 8.1-8.2 is far down on the slippery slope of low carbonate, it makes a big change in percent CO₃^-2. Your suggestion that the ratio is more important than the concentration for defining the pH is correct. The complication is that in this system carbon is both the main thing controlling the pH (by the ratio of bicarbonate/carbonate) and the thing making the pH shift (because CO₂) in water make carbonic acid, which reacts with carbonate to change the ratio, eqn 12). Neither the figure nor the post are "using only three equations to define four parameters". They are using the equations to understand the behavior of the system as a function of pH (H₃O⁺). If you want to calculate the pH for a system containing these carbon species, then the equation you need is: 2H₂O --> H₃O⁺ + OH^-. pKa=14.
78783. Doug Mackie at 14:44 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Jeff, Are you the Jeff T who supports Piers Corbyn? If so, it would explain a lot. If not then consider what you have said again about the number of components and equations. What happens if you have 4 doors to open with 4 keys but the keys are mixed up? Once you have correctly identified 3 of the keys do you need to test the 4th key to identify its door? The figure shows that the components are not independent. The equations link them. All aspects of the CO₂ system can be described by any two of the composition parameters. e.g. CT and pH are sufficient to determine AT, pH and CO₂. Your inability to understand the figure does not appear to be widely shared. By all means prepare a figure yourself and post it here.
78784. Eric the Red at 14:11 PM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Tom, In essence we agree. There are no long term consequences from an ENSO fluctuation, but the effects are evident in the short term. The fluctuations do not produce a "step change," but rather a relatively smooth transition.
78785. Doug Mackie at 13:44 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       Lazy teenager @2: Degree of disequilibrium depends on the set of K values - see previous post. Ocean as a source: see next post.
78786. Keith Hunter at 13:35 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       LT @1: they amount to the same thing. Henry's Law describes the equilibrium solubility of a gas for a given atmospheric concentration. A fizzy drink is made by pressurizing the bottle with a high pressure of pure CO2. hence it has a high solubility. When the bottle is opened to the air, Henry's Law dictates that the concentration of CO2 is now too high too be in equilibrium with the new air space, so CO2 must escape from solution, hence bubbles. A related factor is that fizzy drinks are pressurized when cold to give a higher solubility. This is because the Henry's Law constant changes with temperature (as do all equilibrium constants).
78787. Jeff T at 13:32 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Christina, I guess my difficulty with the post arises from the fact that it includes only three equations (8, 9 and total carbon content = sum of carbon species) to determine four parameters (concentrations of H3O+, CO2, HCO3- and CO3--). Since Eq. 12 is the difference between Eq. 8 and 9, it doesn't provide a fourth independent relation. I suppose that you don't give a fourth equation because there are really many relations and species concentrations required. As I said, I appreciate the effort, but I don't think you've solved the problem of presenting the issue clearly. Sarah, the example computation following Figure 3 assumes that total carbon content is constant. That's why it shows a decrease in concentration of CO3--. Wouldn't an example that decreases pH by adding total carbon show an increase in CO3-- concentration, even though the ratio of CO3-- concentration to other carbon species would decrease. It may be that the ratio is more important than the concentration, but the post doesn't say so. It would be informative to remake Figure 3 to show the fractions (or concentrations, whichever is more important) of the three carbon species as a function of the total CO2 added to pre-industrial seawater.
78788. Tom Curtis at 13:04 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Norman @373, now that I understand that your analysis is explicitly related to the formation of supercells in the United States, I will modify my criticism from 262 and 268 above. Specifically, for that question, your sample points are sparse but can make a reasonable claim to be representative. However bundling data without regard to season and ENSO index still means your analysis is ineffective. If you really want to do citizen science on this, I have to commend you but don't imagine for a second that it is easy. In science you don't get to skip corners, and a proper study will involve multiple thousands of pieces of data, and very careful analysis. If you are not prepared to put that sort of work in, your analysis will inevitably be both shallow and flawed. What is more, it will be irrelevant because genuine climatologists and meteorologists have put in the real work, collecting tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of pieces of data, and analyzing it carefully in peer reviewed literature where any obvious and, most likely, any subtle flaw has been pounced upon by somebody with a passion for truth or to make a name for themselves. So in order to accept your conclusions from your analysis, we would have to turn our back on a great deal more data, subject to a far more rigorous analysis. Not that I am trying to discourage you from your three city analysis. I am a great fan of such analyses so long as their role is understood. That role is to learn, not to discover. By undertaking such an analysis you can more quickly gain an appreciation of the issues involved than by any other method (other than a good lecture). But you will only do so if you understand the true nature of expertise, which is knowledge of the obvious errors in a field, and how to avoid them. Think about it. You and I are not expert in meteorology. Ergo we are likely to make obvious blunders and not realize it. In contrast, genuine experts (like Albatross) will probably also make errors, but they will be subtle and interesting errors. That is, errors that are hard to avoid, and which you learn a great deal by uncovering. So the obvious attitude you and I should take is that when we disagree with the experts, we should first check rigorously why we are wrong. Not the experts, but we ourselves. Only after checking rigorously enough to become competent in the field ourselves, and after floating the idea with a few experts, a significant proportion of whom then agree with us, should we even begin to suspect that we are right. Even at that stage history shows that we are probably still making an error, but at least it will be an interesting and subtle error. Frankly, that has not been your attitude on this or any other thread on Skeptical Science. That is why Albatross is so frustrated. It is not that you keep on asking questions, a behavior which delights most experts. Its that you don't accept answers.
78789. Norman at 13:00 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       KR @ 365 Can't leave without this one. From your link to the peer-reviewed material on climate change. "There are no indications in this study of more intense storms in the future climate, either in the Tropics or extratropics, but rather a minor reduction in the number of weaker storms." There is significant changes to storm tracks. The thesis of this thread is "2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?" The peer reviewed article does not see an increase in the intenstity of storms, only a change in location of storms. No change in intensity of storms.
78790. Norman at 12:53 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis @ 368 Side note: To Albatross, you stated this thread has run its course. So unless someone else wishes to discuss more I will end here and go to read the Ocean acidification series (more in my field). Just wanted to respond to you Tom. You say: "Norman @363, I am not interested in debating the issue with you. Anyone who has followed this thread knows you are only interested in coming to the conclusion you started with. This is made perfectly plain in your 359 (among many other places). When looking for signs of recent increases in extreme weather you come across an extraordinary example, and immediately interpret it as proof that extraordinary examples of recent extreme weather are not evidence of increasing extreme weather. It certainly, to your mind, had nothing to do with the 2-4 degree anomaly in the US at that time. It turns out that through out the course of this debate, for you , nothing can be." I would think if would have nothing to do with the 2-4 degree anomaly in the US in January 1999. Here is why. January 1999 anomaly map. (Sorry I am not posting the graphs directly, I attempted it once but found my skill at this lacking.) February 1999 greater heat anomaly than January. January 1999: 212 tornadoes February 1999: 22 tornadoes More: January 1998 had 47 documented tornadoes. January 2000 had 21 documented tornadoes. If you do check out each of the linked maps to tornado number you can see all these years had strong temperature anomalies in January. But January 1999 soars far above the others. You would really have to stretch something to prove a causal link between January temps and tornado count in the US. Final link Does this sound sort of simialr to the topic of this thread, just switch 2010 to 1999 and there could be a match. History repeats.
78791. Rob Painting at 12:52 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       Papy - ta, already have that Solomon (2011) paper. Seems that a clutch of papers on aerosols have been published very recently. Myself and a couple of other authors are discussing them at the moment. Should have some posts on them shortly. What specifically interests me is what effect (if any) the Asian (& volcanic) aerosols may have had on ENSO, and the uptake of heat into the oceans.
78792. Norman at 12:28 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       KR @ 365 "On the other hand, I have to seriously criticize you for continuing to choose single or several site data sets to discuss global averages." In the series of posts above, I was not attempting to discuss global averages. Tom Curtis made the statement: "As Norman correctly points out, humidity alone is not enough for a thunderstorm; but heat and humidity are both definite factors in the strength of thunderstorms. If you increase both, ceterus paribus you will increase the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms. As it happens, increased warming is also expected to increase Convective Available Potential Energy, another key factor (see maps in my 246." I was attempting to demonstrate his point "If you increase both, ceterus paribus you will increase the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms." was not the case. In my series of posts the point was to show Tom that only a threshold humidity and heat are needed to initiate severe thunderstorms. The rest of the equation is unstable air (cold heavy air mass on top of less dense warm air). The more unstable the air, higher temp gradient between surface warm air and cold air aloft, the greater is the chance for severe weather. If you get a strong wind shear you also increase the chance for tornadoes. I did agree with Tom that if, in the United States, you would be able to send the higher energy July or August air into the unstable air of May, you would indeed create more severe storms than what are currently taking place. Your claim: "You've accounted for a significant percentage of the posts on this thread, and you have been consistently wrong. Worse, you don't seem to understand the criticisms raised. I would strongly suggest you step back and review what you know, and what you don't know, before posting here again." It is easy to say I am consistently wrong. Can you show how any of my links are not correct? Can you demonstrate that the month of May does not produces the most severe storms in the US? From your link: "How does one counter the Dunning-Kruger effect, in others or in themselves? Dunning and Kruger propose that improving a person's skills helps them recognise the limitations of their abilities. If there's a question about an aspect of climate science, the first step should be to investigate and improve understanding of the science. Odds are climate scientists have investigated the same question in the peer-reviewed scientific literature." KR, I do believe I have been doing this. Thanks to the intelligent and knowledgable Tom Curtis, Albatross, Daniel Bailey, Dikran Marsupial and many others I have recognized many flaws in my understanding and holes in my knowledge base. I have been attempting to investigate and improve my understanding of the science. I try to find peer-reviewed material for my posts, avoid blogs. One of my main reasons for posting on a scientific web site like this one. I am seeking more than one person's opinion on the issue. I want good science. From your link: "If there's no direct answer, find the closest topic and post a comment asking for answers. There are many well informed regulars who would be happy to point you towards any relevant peer-reviewed papers." My question is this: Why would weather events get more extreme when Global warming is pushing the Earth towards and equilibrium state (poles warming about twice as fast as tropics). I have been linked to articles where a computer model predicts more severe weather much later in this century. There is no way for me to validate the model. All I can determine for sure is maybe it will happen. But it does not answer my question above. I have found many sources that explain severe weather is caused by unstable air mass. You need cold air to develop this condition. If the poles are warming twice as fast as the source of the warm, moist fuel, then why wouldn't the instability of the atmosphere decrease as the Globe warms? It would have less cold air available to create the unstable air that generates severe weather. You also said: "But, please, stop selecting one to three spots in the USA only, and claiming that they mean anything compared to the global data. It's incorrect, statistically meaningless, and rather sad to watch" I think you are not understanding what I am attempting. In order to demonstrate a physical mechanism you do not have to go to every spot on earth to prove the condition is global. I am demonstrating that a reserve of cold air is necessary for the formation of most severe thunderstorms (there are always exceptions). If the reserve of cold air is reduced then the number and intensity of thunderstorms will be reduced. I choose points in Oklahoma and Texas because these are the areas that produce the most severe thunderstorms not just locally but globally. I demonstrate that May has the most severe storms in those states (tornadoes, rain, hail). I demonstrate that without the cold air aloft the highly energetic and moist air of July and August do not produce near the number of severe storms or rain events. If you drop a ball in your house and have supporting documentation of gravity, do you need to come to my house and drop a ball to test the idea? If I can demonstrate that warming of air in Texas and Oklahoma will not lead to more severe storms (over a 100 year period for precipitation and at least 50 years for tornadoes), why would I need to extend the area? I am demonstrating a mechanism that is supported by the literature (I have linked to multiple sources which confirm the mechanisms needed to produce severe storms). If the mechanism is a valid one, it will work anywhere on the globe.
78793. Norman at 11:43 AM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis # 370 "Norman @367, I do not believe that I have ever said that warm moist air is the major ingredient in the formation of severe weather." What you had said "From an earlier post by Tom Curtis at 258 "As Norman correctly points out, humidity alone is not enough for a thunderstorm; but heat and humidity are both definite factors in the strength of thunderstorms. If you increase both, ceterus paribus you will increase the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms. As it happens, increased warming is also expected to increase Convective Available Potential Energy, another key factor (see maps in my 246" That is where I misquoted you, sorry. You used the words "definate factors" and I switched that to "major ingredients" also you said "thunderstorms" and I changed that to "severe weather". My flaw. I stand corrected.
78794. Doug Mackie at 11:05 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Thank you Sarah. We did think about a more complex figure with multiple axes that included changing total carbon but we felt it would not have been easily understood.
78795. Papy at 10:49 AM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       If so and to complete, there seems to be a complementary study in my french source of the "Institut Pierre Simon Laplace" : "The persistently variable « background » stratospheric aerosol layer and global climate change" (Solomon et al, 2011).
78796. Sarah at 10:25 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Jeff T: Figure three shows the distribution of carbon in the three forms when the pH is at different levels no matter what makes the pH change. If you put carbonate and/or bicarbonate in a beaker and then add nitric acid the proportions of each form of carbonate will change. The proportions will also change if you add any other acid, hydrochloric acid, acetic acid (vinegar), or carbonic acid. If you use CO₂ to lower the pH then the fractions behave just like the figure shows, even as the total amount of carbon increases. You can also increase the pH by adding any kind of base, for example sodium hydroxide. And you can increase the pH by adding carbonate (CO3₃^2-). In that case the total amount of carbon also increases while the fractional distribution shifts to the right on the graph. Removing CO₂ decreases the pH (by eq 8 it removes H₃O⁺) and so the fractional distribution again shift right, even though this time the total amount of carbon decreases.. Figure 3 is very powerful precisely because it separates the total amount of carbon from the fraction in each form.
78797. LazyTeenager at 10:01 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       So the next thing to find out is whether seawater is above or below the equilibrium amount in CO2. A nice global map would be nice. Seems to me that some in climate sceptic land have seized on the idea that the ocean is emitting CO2, but I suspect this idea is a matter of faith for them and not based on evidence.
78798. LazyTeenager at 09:49 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       Correct me if I am wrong but I would have thought that the fizzing of carbonated water relates to the solubility (maximum dissolvable amount) of CO2 in water and not to the Henry's law equilibrium. The temperature dependence would be in the same direction but the actual relationship would be different.
78799. Tom Curtis at 09:39 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric the Red @114, again to just make sure we are on the same page, unless the climate system is very close to a tipping point (within 0.2 degrees c), ENSO fluctuations cannot result in a "step change" in global mean temperatures. Another way to look at it is this, if you have a period of predominantly La Ninas and follow with a period of predominantly El Ninos, in a period of no underlying trend, in the immediate period of the transition that will introduce a spurious trend to global mean temperatures. But outside of any interval that ranges across the point of transition, that change will introduce no trend to the series. Do you agree? I believe that this is a straightforward conclusion from the fact that there are no long term consequences from an ENSO fluctuation. I am seeking this clarification because you qualify your response by mentioning La Ninas, whereas the lack of long term effect of an El Nino is independent of any follow on La Ninas.
78800. Rob Painting at 08:46 AM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       Papy - thanks for the Vernier (2011) abstract link. I'll see if I can track down a copy of the paper - it might be worth a post.

Prev  1568  1569  1570  1571  1572  1573  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  1582  1583  Next