Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 Next
Comments 83501 to 83550:
-
KeenOn350 at 14:17 PM on 7 June 2011CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
Very nice post, Agnostic - hits all the high points in a good summary. Thanks. DaveW -
pbjamm at 14:11 PM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1@1054: "I admit I'm not here specifically to 'learn' per say..." And that about says it all wrt you. " If Tom does not want to continue this discussion - that's fine with me, but I can't help but to interpret his self removal as defeat." Yes, much like refusing to engage the raving derelict on the street corner is an admission of defeat and that his conspiracy is Truth. -
RW1 at 14:06 PM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Sphaerica (RE: 1059), I don't understand the assignment as you've laid it out. Thanks for the interest though. -
scaddenp at 13:59 PM on 7 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Tom - I'm surprised that you get enough air flow for modern steel but your comment sent me rushing to google to see if anyone was doing it. I couldnt spot any large scale operation (though I was interested to see how much pig iron Brazil was producing by this process) - do you know of one? -
Bob Lacatena at 13:57 PM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1,It is my view that the overwhelming majority of people at this site do not understand the information in tables and diagram from Trenberth's 2009 paper, nor do they understand the constraints COE puts on the boundary between the surface and the TOA, so I'm presenting evidence and logic in support of these things.
Here's a homework assignment for you to work out entirely on your own, without assistance. This is a fairly simple assignment. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in my town middle school (6th to 8th grade) could get it right. The Trenberth energy budget has three layers: space, atmosphere, ground. It has 6 distinct paths of energy flow; space/sun to atmosphere, space/sun to ground, atmosphere to space, atmosphere to ground, ground to atmosphere, and ground to space. Please identify the components and individual and sum values for each of these elements (meaning in/out for each layer [3 pairs of values, in and out], and in/out for each interface between layers [6 pairs of values, in and out] ), identify which balance, and where you would expect the system, based on these numbers, to get out of balance. This is not a post that requires any response other than the answers. Until you arrive at these answers on your own, no one has any reason to listen or respond to you. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:43 PM on 7 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
431, J. Bob, and DB... 431, J. Bob, and DB... Because it's a computer. A curly quote is an entirely different encoded character than an ASCII quote. The HTML standard is to recognize ASCI single ' or double " quotes as delimiters for HTML tag attribute values, but not curly “ ” quotes, which shouldn't be generated anyway in a browser text box, but would be if you, for instance, composed your message in Word and then tried to copy/paste (because Word very helpfully converts your quotes to pretty curlies for human consumption, but the computer puts into the same category as bullets and all sorts of other characters, meaning it ignores them).Response:[DB] Thanks for filling my daily quota of learning 1 thing. Time for bed.
-
Stevo at 13:37 PM on 7 June 2011Poleward motion of storm tracks
Given the innaccuracies due to satelite viewing angles and cloud thickness, how confident can we be storm track data? Yes, the trend would fit well with climate theory but I'm not sure how confident we be at this point in time. Would we not need a better method of measurement over a significant period of time to draw any real conclusions here? -
RW1 at 13:30 PM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 1048, 1050), ""The difference is 1.2 rather than 0.9, but Trenberth et al use 0.9 because: a) The difference between 1.2 and 0.9 is well within experimental error;" So what you're saying is Trenberth lists 0.9 as the "NET Down" in table 2b because it's arbitrarily within 'experimental error' of 1.2 W/m^2 and not because it means the same thing as "NET Down" in table 2a? OK, I'm perfectly willing to let this stand against what I've presented and everyone can make up their own mind. -
KR at 13:14 PM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 - "If Tom does not want to continue this discussion - that's fine with me, but I can't help but to interpret his self removal as defeat." Actually, if Tom decides he doesn't want to continue the discussion with you, I would congratulate him. You have consistently and repeatedly dismissed/ignored proven physics, cycled over and over on ideas that have been notably contradicted by actual measurements, and stated that: "...I'm not really interested in being helped per say. I'm a staunch skeptic of AGW, so my purpose here is to present contradictory evidence and logic that disputes the theory. That's what I'm doing." In my eyes, RW1, that makes you a troll, not someone actually interested in the science. Your arguments (and conclusions) are driven by your position, which is exactly backwards from how the scientific method works. And your comments on these posts illustrate that clearly to the unbiased reader - a self correcting issue. Folks, DNFTT. -
RW1 at 13:07 PM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
pbjamm (RE: 1052), "Are you trying to learn about a subject you do not understand or do you think you understand it better than anyone else?" I admit I'm not here specifically to 'learn' per say, but I am fully capable of changing my mind on things when evidence dictates. I even changed my mind on something here due to evidence presented by Tom Curtis in regards to insolation in the Artic. I couldn't deny the evidence he presented to the contrary and acknowledged I was wrong. It is my view that the overwhelming majority of people at this site do not understand the information in tables and diagram from Trenberth's 2009 paper, nor do they understand the constraints COE puts on the boundary between the surface and the TOA, so I'm presenting evidence and logic in support of these things. Everyone here is free to make up their own mind, of course. If Tom does not want to continue this discussion - that's fine with me, but I can't help but to interpret his self removal as defeat. But again, everyone should make up their own mind. -
Tom Curtis at 13:01 PM on 7 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
scaddenp @48 charcoal made from plantation timber can substitute for coal in steel manufacture. At what carbond price that would become economically viable I do not know; and whether it would ever be ecologically a good idea is also on open question for me. -
J. Bob at 12:56 PM on 7 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red @ 421, Smoothing, or filtering of data can have an effect of how results are interpreted. The following shows how different smoothing intervals, of filter cut-off frequencies can lead to different interpretations. Three different smoothing, or filtering methods are used: Moving average (MOV) centered Recursive forward & reverse [“filtfilt” MATLAB] (Chev ff) Fourier Convolution (FF) In the top figure a 10 yr. or 0.1 cycle/yr. cut off was used. In the lower figure, a 30 yr., or 0.03 cycle/yr was used. As expected, the top figure is more responsive to the input data, then the lower. So while the top figure might indicate a flattening or dipping of the global temperature, the lower on would indicate the temperature is continuing to rise.
Filter effects on HadCRUT3 Data
Kind of like results can be in the eye of the beholder.
Response:[DB] Fixed image (you used ” instead of "...makes a difference[don't ask me why]). Please remember to keep image widths below 500 pixels.
-
scaddenp at 12:38 PM on 7 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Since solar cells produce more energy (by considerable margin) than is consumed in making them, you dont have to burn coal to make them at all. All renewables (including hydro and geothermal) and solar cells themselves can be used to create more. Coal is for foreseeable future needed to create steel. -
RW1 at 12:21 PM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 1051), "In response RW1 accuses me of saying the Net Down means something different for the TOA and Surface tables, and suggests the identity of the values is unexplained." I'm not accusing, just asking for clarification because I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If you agree that "NET Down" means the same thing in both tables, why not just acknowledge it? I specifically asked about the data in the table of 0.9 W/m^2, not the 0.3 W/m^2 discrepancy relative to the numbers in the diagram, which I am aware of. I'll ask one more time. What does "NET Down" mean in tables 2a and 2b? If they mean the same thing, there is only one possible answer. -
trunkmonkey at 12:18 PM on 7 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
There is no doubt that there is enough solar energy at the top of the atmosphere to provide for all of humanity's energy needs, including a margin for bringing the third world up to western living standards. Has anyone calculated the amount of coal that would need to be burned to produce the solar cells and windmills to access this? -
pbjamm at 12:07 PM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1@everywhere Are you trying to learn about a subject you do not understand or do you think you understand it better than anyone else? -
Tom Curtis at 11:59 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fairly clear evidence that RW1 is trolling rather than debating: Me @1048:"The difference is 1.2 rather than 0.9, but Trenberth et al use 0.9 because: a) The difference between 1.2 and 0.9 is well within experimental error; b) The TOA balance has smaller experimental errors (+/-3% for individual components), and hence is considered more accurate than the surface balance (+/-5% for individual components except for Surface Radiation and Back Radiation which are +/-10%); and because c) If the surface was absorbing 0.3 Watts/m^2 more than was the planet (TOA) over a five year period, the excess energy would need to come from the atmosphere, plummeting atmospheric temperatures by about 24 degrees C over that period, whereas atmospheric temperatures increased over that period."
RW1 @1050:"how is it that the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?)? Are you saying that 'Net Down' means something different in each table?"
So, in the post to which RW1 is responding I indicate that Trenberth et al use the Net Down calculated from the TOA at the surface rather than that calculated at the surface. I give sound reasons for that decision. In response RW1 accuses me of saying the Net Down means something different for the TOA and Surface tables, and suggests the identity of the values is unexplained. Either RW1 is deliberately misrepresenting the content of my (and e, and Sphaerica, and whoever else has been mad enough to try and clear up his "confusion" in this 1050 post thread) and of Trenberth et al; or he is terminally stupid; or he simply does not bother reading the responses in any event. All of RW1s confusions have been cleared up multiple times before, including by myself in the last 24 hours. If he really wants to understand, he can reread those posts and try to understand them.Response:[DB] When dealing with RW1, remember his own words:
"I appreciate that you seem to be interested in helping me, but I'm not really interested in being helped per say. I'm a staunch skeptic of AGW, so my purpose here is to present contradictory evidence and logic that disputes the theory. That's what I'm doing."
We deal with a closed-minded individual who is here for the sole purpose of wasting as much of as many people's time as possible.
Solution
Ignore him. DNFTT.
-
trunkmonkey at 11:28 AM on 7 June 2011Poleward motion of storm tracks
"Despite numerous studies, it is not clear exactly why the storm tracks move polewards in models." Mid latitude cyclones are inherent it the earth's climatic zones. It has been a first principle of climatology for a very long time that these zones migrate poleward in the summer and equatorward in the winter. It follows, and has been a first principle of paleoclimatoly and paleoecology since at least the early 20th century that climatic and ecological zones migrate poleward (and higher in altitude on mountains)during warm periods in earth history. The attribution may be disputable, but very few reasonable people dispute that we have been in a warming trend, and the models certainly predict this warming trend, so it should be no surprise that the models predict a poleward movement of the storm tracks, nor that such movement has been observed. -
RW1 at 11:26 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 1048), ""Solar Absorbed" which is solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere, and hence not part of the surface balance (78.2)" Not directly, no. It gets there indirectly, as I explained in #1038. Why even include it in the table? If the 78.2 W/m^2 does not get to the surface as you claim, how is it that the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?)? Are you saying that 'Net Down' means something different in each table? Is it a coincidence that 161.2 + 78.2 = 239.4 W/m^2 and this is exactly the same as the ASR in table 2a? All I'm saying is that 239.4 W/m^2 from the Sun has to get to the surface one way or another if energy is to be conserved. Maybe you agree with this and we are just talking past each other, but it doesn't sound like it to me. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Also, here again is the Trenberth paper we keep referring to. -
Tom Curtis at 10:59 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 @1043, for casual readers who may be confused by RW1's trolling: The columns of the table (and values in brackets) are: "Solar Absorbed" which is solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere, and hence not part of the surface balance (78.2); "Net Solar" which is the solar energy absorbed by the surface (161.2); "Solar Reflected" which is the solar energy reflected at the surface (23.1); "LH evaporation" which is the latent heat carried into the atmoshere by by evaporation or transpiration (80); "SH" or sensible heat, which is given as Thermals in the diagram (17); "Radiation Up" which is the Long Wave radiation from the surface, or Surface Radiation (396); "Back Radiation" which is, unsurprisingly, the Back Radiation (333); "Net LW Radiation" which is the Radiation Up - Back Radiation (63); "Net down" which is the total increase in energy at the surface per second per square meter (0.9) The casual reader should now be able to match these values to the surface components of the diagram in post 1019. They will therefore recognise that I have already met RW1's challenge in section (3b) of post 1025. But seeing as how RW1 presents himself as struggling with simple arithmetic and reading comprehension, the balance on the table is: Net Solar = 161.2 =~= 17 + 80 + 63 = SH + LH evaporation + Net LW. The difference is 1.2 rather than 0.9, but Trenberth et al use 0.9 because: a) The difference between 1.2 and 0.9 is well within experimental error; b) The TOA balance has smaller experimental errors (+/-3% for individual components), and hence is considered more accurate than the surface balance (+/-5% for individual components except for Surface Radiation and Back Radiation which are +/-10%); and because c) If the surface was absorbing 0.3 Watts/m^2 more than was the planet (TOA) over a five year period, the excess energy would need to come from the atmosphere, plummeting atmospheric temperatures by about 24 degrees C over that period, whereas atmospheric temperatures increased over that period. -
Riduna at 10:53 AM on 7 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
An interesting article which reveals the conservatism of the Climate Commission, particularly in relation to predicted SLR of 0.4m by 2050 and 1m by 2100 shown at Fig 15. The Commission rightly points out that these estimates are likely to result in significant damage to buildings and infrastructure in coastal regions. As others have pointed out, one does not “adapt” to repeated flooding other than by abandoning the flooded area – but abandoning it for what, to go where? What I question – as does the Commission - is the reliability of its SLR estimates. Fig 15 suggests an almost linear rise in sea level, a view held by some climate scientists, eg. Archer but disputed by others, Hansen. SLR is related to melting of ice, particularly polar ice which in turn influenced by a number of factors such as rise in temperature of ocean water and the atmosphere. In the Arctic slow (but accelerating) methane feedback will prove important. Hansen et al 2011 expresses the view that, taking these factors into account, it can be expected that the rate of melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) can be expected to double each decade, increasing from its present level (250 Gt/year) to ~130,000 Gt/year by 2100. He argues that since the main cause of SLR is non-linear, SLR itself can not be linear and concludes that a SLR of 0.5m by 2080 will be followed by a very rapid rise of 4.5m before 2100, resulting in a 5m. rise this century, consistent with polar ice loss. Although Hansen qualifies his conclusions by stating that more data is needed to verify decadal doubling of GIS ice loss, he has been proven right on too many occasions to ignore. While one might cautiously accept the Commissions’ 2050 SLR estimate, it would seem unwise to rely on its forecast of a 1m rise by 2100. It will certainly be much higher. -
RW1 at 10:46 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e (RE: 1039) "You are tying yourself in knots making this more difficult than it needs to be. Before we move on, please answer the question posed by this simple analogy: Suppose I have two bank accounts. Now suppose you pay me $240, and I in turn spend $239 dollars, leaving $1 in bank account #2. From this information alone, can you tell me what the deposit amounts will be for each bank account? (Assumptions: I cannot create or destroy money, and nobody is paying me except you.)." I know the diagram is depicting an energy imbalance of about 1 W/m^2. This is not related to the issues of COE in the diagram that I am addressing. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1> is it just a coincidence the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?). No it is not, but consider my question @1039 to see why this does not support the claim you are making. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1>show me how numbers from the row of "this paper" yield a 'NET Down' of 0.9 W/m^2? Seriously, think of energy absorbed at the surface as "gross income", and energy emitted or transferred via latent heat as "gross expenditures", and the answer to this will be obvious. The first column applies to the atmosphere not to the surface and is simply shown for reference, so we won't add that in. We will also ignore "Solar reflected" as that is neither absorbed nor emitted. Our "gross income" comes from "Net solar", and "Back radiation". Our "gross expenditures" come from "LH evaporation", "SH", and "Radiation up". From here the math is easy: "net income" = "gross income" - "gross expenditures" = ("Net solar" + "Back radiation) - ("LH evaporation" + "SH" + "Radiation up") = (161.2 + 333) - (80.0 + 17 + 396) = 1.2. The .3 difference comes from measurement uncertainty. Also note that the "Net LW" field is just "Back radiation" - "Radiation up" which we already accounted for in the equation. -
RW1 at 10:35 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 1040) Also, is it just a coincidence the 'NET Down" in the surface components table 2b and the TOA components table 2a is exactly the same (0.9 W/m^2?). -
RW1 at 10:16 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 1040), "RW1, as e has pointed out, the correct values are listed in the paper on tables 2a and 2b under "this paper" for the TOA and surface respectively, with the solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere listed with the surface values for convenience. Your apparent inability to read the paper or distinguish between TOA and surface values is not a problem with the paper." From table 2b "Surface components of the annual mean energy budget for the globe", show me how numbers from the row of "this paper" yield a 'NET Down' of 0.9 W/m^2? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1, Your post @1041 illustrates continued misunderstanding about how these numbers should add up. It is really much much simpler than you are making it. Since physical explanations are failing to make this clear to you, I think it might help if you thought of the diagram as illustrating the gross flow of money between three accounts: sun, atmosphere, and surface. You can start by answering my question @1039. -
RW1 at 10:08 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Sphaerica (RE: 1037), "I've explained this to you before. You are ignoring the 80 W/m2 from evapotranspiration and 17 W/m2 from thermals, or 97 W/m2 more. 396 W/m2 + 97 W/m2 = 493 out. 161 W/m2 + 333 W/m2 = (surprise) 494 in." I have not ignored the 97 W/m^2 from latent heat and thermals. It's a net zero flux at the surface. The diagram has 97 W/m^2 leaving the surface and 97 W/m^2 coming back as part of the 333 W/m^2 designated as 'back radiation' as explain in my post # 1038. Subtract 97 from 493 and you get a net flux of 396 W/m^2 - the amount emitted at the surface. -
Tom Curtis at 10:03 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1, as e has pointed out, the correct values are listed in the paper on tables 2a and 2b under "this paper" for the TOA and surface respectively, with the solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere listed with the surface values for convenience. Your apparent inability to read the paper or distinguish between TOA and surface values is not a problem with the paper. If you read my 1025 (sections (3b) and (4) I clearly do include atmospheric absorbed solar radiation, thermals and evapo/transpiration as sources of energy which is later reradiated to the surface as back radiation. Further, I included them as specific terms in the slab atmosphere model I mention in my section (4). Your insistence on attributing to me a view that would involve non-conservation of energy despite the evidence to the contrary is again your problem, not mine. Frankly your claim that, "the surface cannot be receiving a net energy flux above 396 W/m^2 in the steady-state" makes no sense. In the steady state (no change in the energy stored in the climate system), the net surface energy flux must be zero (ie, energy in - energy out = zero). Trenberth et al are claiming the climate system is not in a steady state. If your claim is about total energy flux, the downward energy flux at the surface by best estimate (excluding reflected solar, which self cancels) is 494 Watts/m^2 which almost exactly matches the net upward flux (excluding reflected solar) of 493 Watts/m^2. Your 1031 is an even more bizzare misunderstanding. Frankly your style of analysis seems to consist of taking a figure at random from what somebody writes and simply asserting a random falsehood about it, then attributing that falsehood to your opponent. I do not have the time to continuously rebut such inane ramblings. Nor should I need to as it is an obvious trolling strategy. I will not feed the troll, but request that the moderators also no longer permit you to troll this site. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1, You are tying yourself in knots making this more difficult than it needs to be. Before we move on, please answer the question posed by this simple analogy: Suppose I have two bank accounts. Now suppose you pay me $240, and I in turn spend $239 dollars, leaving $1 in bank account #2. From this information alone, can you tell me what the deposit amounts will be for each bank account? (Assumptions: I cannot create or destroy money, and nobody is paying me except you.). -
RW1 at 09:58 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e, Table 2b in the paper does not define 'back radiation' as the downward emitted LW from the atmosphere that last originated from surface emitted. It just defines it as "LW downward radiation to the surface". The problem is as I said in post #1027, not all of this is 'back radiation' as defined as that which last originated from surface emitted radiation. Some of it is LW 'forward radiation' from the Sun that has yet to reach the surface. What Trenberth does in the diagram is lump the 78 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere from the Sun and the 97 W/m^2 of latent heat and thermals all in the same return path of 333 W/m^2 designated as 'back radiation'. This is highly misleading and why everyone is so confused. 157 W/m^2 from surface emitted (396 - 239 = 157) + 78 W/m^2 from the Sun designated as "absorbed by the atmosphere" + 97 from latent heat and thermals = 332 W/m^2 all lumped in the return path as 'back radiation'. Trenberth has an extra watt in there for at total of 333 W/m^2 to account for the NET Down of 0.9 W/m^2. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:51 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1, I've explained this to you before. You are ignoring the 80 W/m2 from evapotranspiration and 17 W/m2 from thermals, or 97 W/m2 more. 396 W/m2 + 97 W/m2 = 493 out. 161 W/m2 + 333 W/m2 = (surprise) 494 in. They balance. Minus, of course, the net 0.9 which is being absorbed by the planet and thus increasing its temperature. You can't just ignore the thermals and evapotranspiration/latent heat because they are not in the form of radiation. They still represent energy transfer. -
RW1 at 09:42 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e, How can the surface be receiving 161 W/m^2 from the Sun and 333 W/m^2 of 'back radiation' from the atmosphere when it's only emitting 396 W/m^2? The surface cannot be receiving more than a net flux of 396 W/m^2 unless it is warming, but we are referring to the system in the steady-state (or at least an imbalance less than 1 W/m^2). -
RW1 at 09:36 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e, You do know that the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own, right? If, of the 396 W/m^2 emitted at the surface, 70 goes straight to space, then 326 W/m^2 is the amount absorbed by the atmosphere (396 - 70 = 326). Are you saying that this energy never leaves because there is 333 W/m^2 of 'back radiation' from the atmosphere? Where does the difference of 7 W/m^2 go? Where is the 169 W/m^2 emitted to space from the atmosphere coming from then? -
Bob Lacatena at 09:34 AM on 7 June 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
RW1,Even if the claim is warming causes decreasing clouds for positive feedback, how is this consistent with increasing water vapor from warming? Does increasing water vapor from warming cause decreasing clouds? That doesn’t make any sense since water vapor concentration drives cloud formation.
Your overly simplistic model of the system completely fails. It doesn't properly consider how clouds form, it doesn't understand that clouds do not need to decrease to provide a positive feedback, it doesn't account for the many varieties, locations (in space, meaning 3 dimensions, and time) of clouds, it fails on many, many other levels. At the same time, your interpretation of Dessler 2010 is flawed. You should probably read the paper several more times before commenting on it again. My advice would be to read more on the subject, and post less. Kitchen table science may make perfect sense to a lot of people, but it's still wrong, and your analysis is kitchen table science. -
RW1 at 09:26 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e (RE: 1028), What do you think a NET Down of 0.9 W/m^2 means? It's showing a positive energy imbalance at the surface of 0.9 W/m^2 - meaning more energy is entering the surface from the Sun than is leaving at the TOA as OLR (239.4 - 238.5 = 0.9 W/m^2). It's quite apparent to me that few people here actually understand the data in that paper and the constraints Conservation of Energy puts on the boundary between the surface and the TOA. Part of the problem is the diagram itself, which is only loosely connected to the text and details presented in the paper. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1@1031 You are not understanding, please read carefully: TOA measurements do not distinguish between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere. They treat the entire surface/atmosphere system as a black box emitting and absorbing energy. The 239.4 W/m^2 could be absorbed by the surface or it could be absorbed by the atmosphere. The table you are looking at does not tell you how much is absorbed by each. For that you need to take a look at table 1b or 2b which treat the surface separately from the atmosphere. It shows that only about 160 W/m^2 of solar energy is absorbed by the surface. The 0.9 W/m^2 is just the difference between the energy entering the surface/atmosphere system and the amount of energy leaving. Again, it says nothing about where within the earth the energy goes. -
Muzz at 09:09 AM on 7 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
It's great that we're living in a global CO2 experiment so will be able to see for ourselves the results of significant increases in CO2Response:[dana1981] Lucky us?
-
RW1 at 09:09 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e (RE: 1028), Furthermore, if you look at the surface components in table 2b, you see 161.2 W/m^2 of "Net Solar" and 78.2 W/m^2 of "Solar absorbed". Is it just a coincidence that 161.2 + 78.2 equals 239.4 W/m^ and this is exactly the same as the ASR at the TOA? -
RW1 at 08:57 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e (RE: 1028), Look at the Global data in table 2a. for the row entitled "this paper". ASR is 239.4 W/m^2, OLR is 238.5 W/m^2, NET Down is 0.9 W/m^2. Are you seriously claiming that this means that of the 239.4 W/m^2 absorbed, only 0.9 W/m^2 gets to the surface and the remainder is radiated out to space without ever reaching the surface? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 "Actually, the ASR and NET Down data is on the 8th page of the paper (not the 6th). " Both pages show these values, they are for different time periods. Same thing I pointed out earlier goes for tables 2a and 2b, 2a shows TOA measurements, it does not distinguish between surface and atmosphere so it is irrelevant to your claim. -
RW1 at 08:44 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 1025), Actually, the ASR and NET Down data is on the 8th page of the paper (not the 6th). -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1> "Not according to the text of the paper (look on the 6th page where they give absorbed solar radiation ASR and NET down data)." If you are referring to Table 1a, those are TOA measurements, they not distinguish between energy absorbed in the atmosphere and energy absorbed at the surface. It in now way implies that energy absorbed in the atmosphere must make its way to the surface. If you are looking for measurements at the surface specifically, then you should be looking at Table 1b. "Solar down" to the surface is shown to be about 160, exactly as depicted in the diagram. In the steady-state, conservation of energy dictates that 100% of the post albedo - in this case 239 W/m^2, gets to the surface one way or another. No, it dictates that it gets either to the atmosphere or the surface. -
RW1 at 08:31 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 1025), "Most importantly, the average 333 Watts/m^2 is not only that which has been calculated using Line by Line and Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulation Models, it is the back radiation that has actually been observed. Any theory that does not predict it, in other words, is falsified by observation. Of course only greenhouse theories predict that back radiation, or at least they are the only ones that do so without violating the laws of thermodynamics. So and denier of green house theories is left to explain how there can be an average 333 Watts/m^2 back radiation given a 240 Watts/m^2 input energy from the sun, and without the absorption and reradiation of energy by green house gasses." I do not dispute there is downward emitted LW from the atmosphere significantly above the 157 W/m^2 required for the net flux of 396 W/m^2 at the surface (396-239 = 157), though obtaining an accurate global average is impossible without measuring equipment looking up all over the globe. That aside, what you don't seem to understand is that the downward emitted LW from the atmosphere has 3 potential sources. Some if it last originated from surface emitted radiation, some of it last originated from the Sun (yet to reach the surface) and some of it last originated from the kinetic energy (latent heat and thermals) moved from the surface into the atmosphere. The bottom line is that the surface cannot be receiving a net energy flux above 396 W/m^2 in the steady-state. All the energy entering and leaving at the TOA is radiative. Any net energy loss from the surface to the atmosphere from thermals (convection), for example, just offsets the amount of energy that would otherwise be need to be radiated from the surface. -
RW1 at 08:01 AM on 7 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 1025), "For RW1 convenience (and for the umpteenth time) there is no guarantee that energy absorbed by the atmosphere will make its way to the surface, and as most of it is absorbed in the stratosphere, most of it doesn't. In fact, most of it is radiated to space." Not according to the text of the paper (look on the 6th page where they give absorbed solar radiation ASR and NET down data). What you don't realize is the amount absorbed by the atmosphere that is radiated back out to space is included in the albedo of 102 W/m^2. This is why when you look at the amount of outgoing LW from satellites it tends to be about 250 W/m^2 instead of 240 W/m^2. 341 W/m^2 - 250 W/m^2 = 91 W/m^2 not the 102 W/m^2 albedo referenced. The difference of about 10 W/m^2 is the LW emitted back up out to space as part of the albedo. All the energy at and below the surface came from the Sun (excluding an infinitesimal amount from geothermal). In the steady-state, conservation of energy dictates that 100% of the post albedo - in this case 239 W/m^2, gets to the surface one way or another. -
scaddenp at 07:58 AM on 7 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(sk) - but what if nuclear power wasn't cheaper? To me this pushes close to the hub of the issue. It seems to me that libertarian ideals require an ideal market. But our hypothetical question (that at some point you became convinced that cost of adaption is going to exceed cost of mitigation) has the scenario where individuals choosing coal-power on price are not paying the full cost of it; the cost instead is falling to another generation. It is also exceedingly difficult to actually cost that properly. So what is acceptable way to proceed (other than sweep the problem under the carpet)? I see a similar issue for clean air. While emission controls irrelevant for country, people die without pollution control in large cities. Consider again the hypothetical, that failure to control pollution from cars kills x people a day in large cities and these deaths are unequivocally linked to the pollution. As I understand libertarian principles, the protection of individual rights (to non-lethal air for an asthmatic say) should be through courts. But how do you sue the individuals who chose engine efficiency over clean air? If there is a valid libertarian way, then it has to answer these kinds issue for credibility. The most common response I've had from our local variety on similar issues is, worryingly, denial - just like you get over climate. If the problem doesnt fit the model, then the problem cant exist. -
Doug Mackie at 07:34 AM on 7 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Eric, do you mean this:virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.
from introduction to AR4 synthesis -
pbjamm at 07:18 AM on 7 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red@427 Curiosity is different from casting doubt. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:07 AM on 7 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
427, Eric the Red, They're called La Nina's. They are a well known phenomenon. Go study it. It's interesting. It also says nothing about the warming trend, because they've been happening for as long as records have been kept, and probably for thousands and thousands, if not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, of years.
Prev 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 Next
