Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 Next
Comments 89651 to 89700:
-
Marcus at 14:22 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Again the cost of the fuel isn't the issue. The issue is that John Hunter needs to analyse his life and find ways to remove £20 in Dec from other outgoings." Well yes, if Mr Hunter got past his *ranting* for 5 seconds & scrounged around for his old gas bills (pre-insulation & pre-thermostat lowering) he'd probably be shocked to find that-even with the $20 tax-he's still probably paying less for his gas bill than he was 10 years ago (excluding inflation of course). I know that's the case with me (though we don't have a carbon tax-yet-in Australia). 12 years ago I was using close to 15kw-h of electricity per day (at an average cost of 12c per kw-h), for an average cost of $54 per month. Now I use between 5 to 6kw-h of electricity per day (at an cost of 20c per kw-h), for an average cost of $33 per month. That means I'm currently saving around $21 per month in *spite* of an 8c per kw-h rise in tariffs in the interim. Of course, as I now am on a 100% green energy scheme-at a whopping 1c per kw-h extra-any future carbon tax will have *no* impact whatsoever on my household energy bills. -
Marcus at 14:11 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either." Wow, you really *are* a broken record, aren't you Gilles? Nobody has suggested that a Carbon Tax-alone-will reduce the extraction or consumption of fossil fuels. The point is to make the *alternatives* more attractive by comparison. The BC approach sounds like a good one because, its hoped, the company & income tax cuts can be invested in energy efficiency & renewable energy measures for homes & businesses. Another approach which should be considered is for governments to start phasing out the various subsidies currently enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector, & start re-investing that money into energy efficiency & clean energy measures instead. -
Marcus at 13:55 PM on 9 April 2011Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
Also, RSVP, its worth noting that humanity has barely *begun* to tap the planet's clean energy potential. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Tidal & Biomass energy-not to mention emergent technologies like osmotic energy-are all in their relative infancy, with *huge* potential for growth. Unfortunately that growth continues to be stunted by politicians & business people who are *obsessed* with so-called "cheap" fossil fuels. Apparently they're blind to the fact that these fossil fuels would never have *been* cheap without the massive public & private sector support, over more than 50 years, to make them so-a level of support they're determined to deny the Clean Energy sector. -
Marcus at 13:51 PM on 9 April 2011Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
"If there isn't even enough clean energy for the people around today, how could there be "more and more" going forward? We seem to have a slight backlog issue." I'll tell you one thing RSVP, whatever challenges are faced by clean energy going forward is going to go *triple* for dirty, *non-renewable* resources like Coal, Oil & Uranium. Even with the current population & current global energy use we don't have enough non-renewable resources to sustain our population into the 22nd century. What do you think will happen in 50 years if we have 9 *billion* people-all trying to achieve the same energy density as is currently enjoyed in the First World? Of course, if we help the developing world to achieve 1st World standards of living in a *clean* & *efficient* manner, then history suggests that this will help to *plateau* the rate of population growth & avoid an epic energy crisis. -
Tom Curtis at 13:24 PM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
With regard to the slab model illustrated @993, and with (1-A)*S/4 = 240 w/m^2, then: The entropy of the incoming solar radiation per meter squared per second = 240 J/6000 K = 0.04 J/K. The entropy of the surface radiation = 480 J/303 K = 1.58 J/K The entropy of the back radiation (AtmD) = 240 J/255K = 0.94 J/K The entropy of the radiation to space (AtmU) = 240 J/255 K = 0.94 J/K. The challenge for the deniers is to find any partition of the system such that conservation of energy is maintained for that partition, and such that the Entropy decreases for that partition. That is, the partition must show an energy flow from E1 to E2 such that E1 = E2, but such that the Entropy of E1 is greater than that of E2. As an example, we have: 1) Insolation + Back radiation => surface radiation which in terms of energy (per meter squared per second) is 1') 240 J + 240 J = 480 J (so we have conservation of energy); but in terms of entropy we have: 1") 0.04 J/K + 0.94 J/K < 1.58 J/K so there is no violation of the 2nd law in this partition. There is in fact no partition satisfying these conditions in which the energy in has a higher entropy than the energy out. Therefore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated by this model. -
ribwoods at 13:09 PM on 9 April 2011Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
Re: my report on 2 November 2010 I found that the trouble is with my Zone Alarm Toolbar extension. When I disable that, the two SkS icons appear. -
ribwoods at 13:06 PM on 9 April 2011Call for beta testers of the latest SkS Firefox Add-on
So far, no trouble on FF 4.0 On FF 3.6.16, the Zone Alarm Toolbar 1.5.152.10 extension (for those who use ZoneAlarm security software) somehow does not allow the two SkS icons to appear. When I disable the Zone Alarm Toolbar 1.5.152.10 extension and reload FF, the two SkS icons then appear just left of the URL field as they're supposed to. -
Dan Moutal at 12:35 PM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Thanks everyone for all the comments. My responses are bellow: @ SNRratio Re: inverse Robin Hood effect Absolutely. It all depends on how the tax reductions elsewhere are structured, and is why people with low incomes get tax rebates. But this is now the main contention with the carbon tax. The NDP (the current opposition party here in BC) is asking for of the money to go to lower income people, and less to the rich and corporations. Finding the right balance is not easy, and depends on many value judgement where reasonable people may differ. @chriscanaris I think you missed my point. What I was trying to get across was that it makes no sense to get too far ahead of the pack in regards to pricing emissions, because doing so will only shift those emissions to a jurisdiction that isn't pricing carbon. SO a $100/tonne tax would only serve to drive emissions across the boarder to Alberta and Washington state. But that is not an excuse for doing nothing. One can lead the pack, just not by too much. Plus I think Australia is more isolated than BC making it more difficult for emissions to be shifted out. As for Pielke Jr, the problem with his proposal IMO is that the carbon tax he proposes is modest, with no plans to ever increase. It also isn't revenue neutral which would limit how much the tax could increase without damaging the economy. And finally Pielke Jr plans to use the revenue generated by the funds to fund research into new energy technologies. This sounds good, but it means that it would be up to the government to pick the winners and losers. I have more confidence in the free market's ability to do that. @Alexandre Re: Tax rate Mark Jaccard (who anyone interested in carbon pricing should look up) estimates that in order to achieve the amount of emission cuts we need the tax would need to eventually rise to $200/tonne. Now before people freak out, remember the tax wont start out at that level. And as it rises it will send a clear signal to individuals and corporations that energy efficiency needs to increase (this is exactly the type of problem where the free market really shines). SO by the time the tax reaches the level of $200/tonne we will all be emitting MUCH less CO2. And of course other taxes should be reduced to preserve revenue neutrality. And yes, the NDP now admits it was a mistake to oppose the tax. Most of the criticisms at the provincial level are fizzling out. At the federal level (where a carbon tax was introduced by the Liberals in the last election and who also ran one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen) no mainstream party will touch the issue. @Philippe Chantreau Whenever I get depressed about Canadian politics, I just look south and always feel a little better, at least until I realize that what happens in the US had large implications for Canada. @CBDunkerson Re: Rebate cheques That is what Hansen proposes (he calls it tax and dividend), but one then runs the risk of making the tax regressive. It also adds to the admin costs (printing and mailing cheques isn't free). But I am not sure what the costs of that would be. @RipVan Yep. Increases in efficiency aren't enough. @Steve L I think what RipVan is getting at is that if we only improve efficiency then people might drive more, or perhaps fly to more exotic locations, thus their emissions don't really go down. Think if it this way. Efficiency has been improving almost constantly, yet emissions continue to rise. So clearly something else is needed A price on carbon works to prevent this paradox. -
Albatross at 12:31 PM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
DB and muoncounter, You guys are too funny. Now all they have to is arrange some cheap slave labour and the are set to go ;) Seriously though, thanks for posting the Chruch and White graphic Daniel. -
Tom Curtis at 12:26 PM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Where I said second assumption, I should have said third. Sorry for any confusion. -
Tom Curtis at 12:24 PM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJRyan @982, thank you for the greater clarity about the source of your calculations. From your comments, I understand you to be basing your calculations on the following model:
Science of Doom discusses just such a model in a recent post, and has this to say:
So in this first model, which is very common in introductory books on atmospheric physics, three things are assumed - and none of them are true: * the atmosphere is isothermal – a slab of atmosphere all at the same temperature * the atmosphere is completely transparent to solar radiation * the atmosphere is completely opaque to terrestrial radiation
The reason such simple but factually false models are used in introductory courses is the same reason frictionless surfaces are used in simple models of dynamics - it allows the introduction of important concepts without unnecessary complications. Because they do allow the introduction of important concepts, I am happy to work with such models so long as it is clearly understood that they do not represent any actual state in the universe. Attempts to calculate the surface temperature of the Earth are bound to be in error (and yours more in error than if the model was used correctly), and therefore are pointless except exposition of the relevant concepts. That is, they are not actual predictions of the real surface temperature. For a calculation of the Earth's average surface temperature using the simplest model of the GHE that is at the same time reasonably accurate to the actual physics, I refer you to equation six in my post 944 above. Having said that, if we wish to use the single slab model above for exposition, we need to carefully adhere to the assumptions of the model. Otherwise we just produce another example of "Garbage In - Garbage Out", and there are more than enough examples of that on the internet. Of course, the second assumption of the model is that it absorbs all outgoing radiation. Therefore any attempt to include a reflecting atmosphere with this model constitued GIGO, and in particular, this is true of your second and third tables. Your first table is better, but does not include a column for (1-A)*S/4, an important term without which the equilibrium state cannot be determined. Equilibrium is reached when (and only when) (1-A)*S/4 = σTa^4, ie, AtmU in your first table. The failure to include a term for insolation probably explains why your terms do not stabilize over a certain time period (unless I am misinterpreting your first column). -
bill4344 at 11:48 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
The blood-alcohol analogy is missing the bit where you've got yourself decked in a fist fight and then spend the remainder of the night 'driving the porcelain bus' at .08 'Which ones do you want to party with?' Yikes - I think this is exactly the wrong way to message this. 'Hey, only uptight, uncool types want to do anything about CO2' is about as counter-productive a messages as could be imagined. Something that there should never be the slightest risk of anyone taking away from a presentation. But the message along the lines of 'if you don't think such trace amounts make any difference, tell it to the cops at the breathalyser' is a sound one. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:27 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Heh. I hear they've been stockpiling stone blocks in piles for millennia for just such an occasion... -
muoncounter at 11:21 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Yooper, What's an easy way to build a seawall 300 km long? Sandbags. And one thing Egypt has, it's plenty of sand. I'm thinking this is an investment opportunity: Print up millions of bags with slogans like 'Don't worry, it only has to be a 110 cm high.' -
Daniel Bailey at 11:12 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
@ muoncounter They can always fund the building seawalls/citizen relocation program by taking just half of the funding climate science research gets every year. You know, those uncountedtrillions, uh...billions, er...millions, um...thousands...never mind. Half of not enough is indeed not enough by far. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 10:42 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
dm#52: "All they have to do is a build a 110 cm sea wall. " As it only would need to extend from Alexandria to Port Said, a mere 300 km, that should be no problem. Of course, one has to excavate some depth to build a sea wall of any height, especially in a delta. Ballpark it at $1 mill per km if they start right now. But they'll probably wait a decade or two to start, because so many people keep saying not to worry about it. -
daniel maris at 10:32 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Logicman - I really think you are underestimating humanity's ability to adapt. China created cities of millions out of nothing in the space of 10 years. The idea they would find it difficult to move their cities say 50 metres away from their current coastline, or build metre high sea walls is ridiculous. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:24 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Here's the latest from Church & White 2011 (h/t to Peter Hogarth for the linkey):
Needless to say, definitely not linear. We've seen the like before (that makes it a natural cycle, doth it not?), so nuttin' to worry 'bout (unless ye be a unicorn).
The Yooper
-
daniel maris at 10:23 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
JMurphy - They don't have to move anything. All they have to do is a build a 110 cm sea wall. We have much bigger sea walls than that in the UK. It's all modelling. Modelling is not reality. I'll believe it when the port of New York reports some serious problems down at the docks (long shore??). -
JMurphy at 09:16 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
New York set to be big loser as sea levels rise I haven't been able to find the original report, from the European Geosciences Union (EGU) meeting in Vienna, so this BBC item should do for now. I suppose some would argue that there is nothing to worry about because America can afford to move everything important from New York to some other area nearby...probably. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ >it's rather a simple ratio of energy accumulation based on ε= 0 energy calculations. I'm sorry but your ε= 0 energy calculations also do not make any sense. If you meant emissivity as in total emissivity across all wavelengths, then ε= 0 would mean that no energy is absorbed or emitted. Your temperature and flux would be 0 across the board into infinite time. If you meant spectral emissivity as in the emissivity in the LW is 0, while other wavelengths have ε>0, then that just means the surface will get hot enough until the power is emitted in wavelengths other than LW. It would certainly not accumulate infinitely as you have depicted. Again, without even posting your derivations it is obvious something is very very wrong with your math. -
Steve L at 08:55 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
RipVan, maybe I should look up Jevon's paradox, because I'm not clear on what you mean. Energy use isn't really the problem; production of CO2 is. The carbon tax is meant to increasingly decouple energy use from CO2 production. -
Gilles at 08:50 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
it's rather difficult to have an open discussion with a gun laid at your face. Many of my posts have already been suppressed, and now you ask me questions that I am not allowed to answer. If this is your conception of scientific discussions, I understand that we can disagree....Moderator Response: (DB) Only comments that are off-topic or in violation of the Comments Policy or are complaining about having to comply with said Policy force the moderators to intervene. Participating in this forum is a privilege, not a right. A privilege that the vast majority here respect and enjoy. -
logicman at 08:38 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
#47 - Daniel "You aren't saying the Nile Delta has always been where it is now are you?" Of course I'm not! 'Always' is the age of the universe! "Deltas move and grow over time." Ah! A variant of the 'natural cycles' gambit. "is it really beyond the ability of Egypt to use its waste to build up those islands" They have been doing that for millennia. Since the Aswan dam was built they have had to do it more. The Aswan dam blocks about 12 million tonnes of silt that used to replace delta losses from sea erosion. The silt used to fertilize the region: agriculture now depends on artificial fertilizers. Sea level rise will compound Egypt's existing agricultural production problems. Most of the world's population lives in coastal regions. Sea level rise means that most of the world's population will see dramatic evidence of a predicted outcome of global warming before the year 2100. -
caerbannog at 08:14 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Claiming that bans on the agricultural use of DDT have caused millions of people to die of malaria is like claiming that restrictions on the use of antibiotics in factory farms will cause millions of people to die of bacterial infections. The whole "DDT ban has caused millions of malaria deaths" is really that stupid and dishonest -- full stop. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, BTW please do not post every single equation for every single value in that spreadsheet. Just show us the general equations you are using to derive it. >you said: "temperature does not increase past equilibrium time." Yes I agree. Your table clearly shows temperature increasing past equilibrium time. Since temperature / flux does not increase past equilibrium time, the fact that you are including Teq in your calculations suggests that you are doing something very very wrong. -
L.J. Ryan at 07:30 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e 988 I will post the equations this evening...I'm pressed for time at the moment. But quickly, it's rather a simple ratio of energy accumulation based on ε= 0 energy calculations. you said: "temperature does not increase past equilibrium time." Yes I agree. My rather simple spread sheet did not include comparative functions. -
L.J. Ryan at 07:30 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR 964 you said: If you feel that integrated spectra are not measurements, well, then, I'll pass that on to the spectroscope manufacturers I work with. Don't forget, when chortling with your work chums, "Effective emissivity" is a useful summary of surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, band blocking, emission altitudes, and the lapse rate. Ah...what knee slapping fun. As I said, ee is calculated...calculated explicitly to obfuscate GHG physics. Also, if effective ε= .618 and 1- ε= reflectivity, then .382 of incident power is effectively reflected. Or maybe, working beyond the gray slab model, the atmosphere is partially transparent...like a crystal. A crystal that DOUBLES the light flux which transverses it's body. Now tell me KR, if an enterprising fellow was to manufacture crystal with REAL (not effective) ε= .618, will it also double light input? Or is energy doubling process contained to GHG physics alone? -
vpski at 07:02 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Yes, the US military understands the risks. To add to the list, current JCS chief, Admiral Mike Mullen said, "we are in fact seeing evidence of climate change’s potential impacts on our security." http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1472 Next, in response to "The question is, why isn't the US government doing the same?", I'm not so sure that's entirely true. Most branches of the US government are indeed taking strong, if not unsteady, action on climate change. The Supreme Court's endangerment finding, the executive order to buy only electric/hybrid/or alternative fueled vehicles by the end of 2012, and a host of other examples show that positive action is being taken. Maybe its not enough, or fast enough, but the giant ship of state is turning around. It takes a while. Except the House, of course, which clearly has been bought by the fossil fueled denial campaign. Please join 350.org in our campaign to get your local businesses to say loudly that the "U.S. Chamber of Commerce Doesn't Speak For Me!" Once the sources of the dirty money are exposed, things will change. -
muoncounter at 06:26 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
dm#47: "is it really beyond the ability of Egypt to use its waste to build up those islands" For a country without a fully functional government and an economy in tatters, it may well be. Consider that things may get worse economically; such large reclamations may well be beyond all of our means. Look, for example, at how the lack of sustainable work done at the federal level to fix problems in New Orleans and points further south along the Mississippi. "Climate seems a pretty complex system, perhaps too complex for computer modelling ... " Ah, the old dodge: it's too complex to model. Suggest you look at the 'modeling is reliable' thread, the 'chaotic systems' thread, etc. Use the Search function. " ... especially when you go back into the past, times when animal and vegetable life might have affected outcomes. " What is this supposed to mean? And what relevance does it have to the measurable changes in sea level rise that are the topic of this post? Is your basic interpretation of this and related problem merely 'let's wait and see?' -
Albatross at 06:03 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Daniel, With respect, if you are going to try and obfuscate here, you are going to have to do better and back up your assertions with science, otherwise you will only sound like a D-K and your personal opinions will not be taken seriously nor will they be compelling. "Bangladesh has ALWAYS been afflicted by tremendous storms that destroy islands and redistribute silt etc." A blatant strawman. I have never denied that. The issue, which you seem intent on missing, is the impact of a storm surge of say 5 ft being superimposed on a sea level increase from AGW. The underlying increase in sea-levels will only go to aggravate the impacts from the storms, just as the underlying warming trend has exacerbated recent heat waves in Europe and elsewhere. With AGW, it is the shift in the tail of the distribution that are going to make the greatest impacts, and that is what people intend designing and planning for in advance. I asked you earlier about your thoughts on Tamino's analysis? Care to please speak to that? -
dana1981 at 05:48 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
The congresswoman asking the question, by the way, happened to be on another committe regarding African health, or something similar. After the witnesses answered, she informed them that malaria has largely been eradicated from Africa at this point, mainly using measures other than DDT. She made Christy, Armstrong, and Montgomery (who also answered despite having no expertise on the subject) look rather foolish. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, Your response described what you are trying to show qualitatively but does not tell me how you derived your results mathematically. For example for emissivity of 1 and time of 3Teq, you get a flux of 470 Wm-1. Can you please show us the mathematical equation you used to output the number 470? It should somehow have time as an input and energy flux or temperature as an output. None of the equations you cited so far do this. Also you didn't comment on my note that, by definition, temperature does not increase past equilibrium time. The fact that it does so in your results shows you are making a serious error. -
dana1981 at 05:44 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Albatross - DDT use for vector control is still allowed in Africa. Unfortunately the question wasn't phrased very well, since it was rather off-topic. It came up because Armstrong in his written testimony incorrectly stated that Africa had banned DDT, which he claimed had led to a lot of deaths (as an example of "an analogy to the global warming alarm"). So the congresswoman wanted to know how the rest of the witnesses felt on the issue, but phrased the question something like "would you re-introduce DDT?" (I'm paraphrasing from memory here). So bottom line, both Armstrong and Christy were speaking on issues that they haven't adequately researched, and thus made some ignorant and incorrect statements as a result. Christy said that a lof of people have died in Africa from malaria (true), and that because of this, he would re-introduce DDT (even though it was never banned), implying, but not specfically stating that the fictional DDT ban lead to millions of deaths. -
daniel maris at 05:43 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Albatross - Bangladesh has ALWAYS been afflicted by tremendous storms that destroy islands and redistribute silt etc. Logicman - You aren't saying the Nile Delta has always been where it is now are you? Deltas move and grow over time. Let's suppose there was a one metre rise in sea level - is it really beyond the ability of Egypt to use its waste to build up those islands - as the Dutch have done? Les - I wouldn't deny that at least one prediction might be broadly correct. The question is how to identify the correct prediction. Climate seems a pretty complex system, perhaps too complex for computer modelling - especially when you go back into the past, times when animal and vegetable life might have affected outcomes. -
RipVan at 05:38 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
If greater efficiency leads to greater use of energy (Jevon's paradox) I would guess a carbon tax would be necessary to neutralize that effect. And over time the tax rate should rise with (or faster than) increasing average efficiency, no? -
KR at 05:25 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan - The effective emissivity is from the surface to space, as has been repeatedly stated. The actual radiation point (depending on the wavelength) may be from upper tropospheric CO2, lower tropospheric H2O, or directly from the surface; determining that on a per-wavelength basis is the realm of atmospheric modelling. The effective emissivity, however, is the sum effect on power as radiated from the surface, through a GHG atmosphere, to space, relative to a black body at surface temperature. Please cease to misinterpret clearly defined terms. Particularly if you are using those misinterpretations to claim I'm contradicting myself - which I am not. Can you describe on what basis you disagree with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation? There could be a Nobel prize involved if you can. Your computations, again, reflect your incorrect assumptions and calculations. You've shown no interest in correcting said mistakes - I don't consider it a good use of my time to beat that dead horse. -
L.J. Ryan at 05:21 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e 984 Teq is defined as the time it will take the earth to accumulate 235 W/m^2 and therefore radiate 235 W/m^2. The white atmosphere will reach Teg first...thus defining the interval. -
L.J. Ryan at 05:12 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR 984 You are calculating the temperature of the atmosphere not the earths surface. Do you agree with my table showing blackbody atmosphere? Do you agree with the equation via Jin-Yi Yu's lecture...the exact equation, you suggested I consider? You also contradict your own words;"As stated before, given a known amount of outgoing radiation, the black body temperature is an absolute minimum on the temperature of an equivalently radiating graybody, due to the relationship of emissivity and temperature." -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, You have again neglected to explain the derivation of your tables, none of the equations you cited list Teq as a parameter. At equilibrium, by definition, there is no longer any net accumulation of energy or temperature change, so your results are nonsensical as given. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:51 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles, 206, Instead of wandering all over the place, please state clearly and concisely your position on the topic of this thread. Please do not immediately go on to support it with a tsunami of erudite arguments. All I'm interested in right now is figuring out what none of us can, which is what you actually believe. What is your position? In four sentences or less, with no distracting gamesmanship... what is it that you think? Consider it a challenge. Can you actually be concise, straightforward and clear for one, single post?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I believe Gilles has already done so here. His position appears to be essentially that there may be stuff we don't know about that is causing the ice to melt so we can't be sure that it is the warming that is doing it. The flaws in this line of reasoning have been pointed out (repeatedly), and further discussion is "off-topic" (as it would only be feeding the troll). -
Bob Lacatena at 04:47 AM on 9 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
48, Ken,...he claimed that the incident angle of the sun at the north pole was 66 degrees...
I wish you would stop propagating this distortion of what I posted, which is there for anyone to go back and read. The disingenuous way that you present other people's positions, as well as your own, should be an alarm bell for anyone reading this thread, and trying to decide whether or not they can trust a denier's arguments. First, I did not say "at the north pole", and it's rather silly for you to say so. Really, is the only relevant point in this the exact 1 inch square point at the tippity top of the Earth? I said "in the Arctic" meaning in the relevant area we are discussing. That would extend as far south as the winter ice extends, which is the southern tip of Greenland (about 60˚N) and the Sea of Okhotsk (as far as 50˚N). That's 30˚ to 40˚ south of the pole. With the 23.4˚ tilt of the Earth, that would put the greatest (most insolation) angle of incidence between 53.4˚ and 63.4˚. Second, I will readily admit that this is at peak (noon), and so not a continuous angle of incidence, but the area does receive 20 to 24 hours of continuous light, and the vast majority of it is absorbed by the ocean. As already stated, the angle of incidence doesn't much matter above 40˚, where the albedo is consistently about 0.1. Even below 40˚, there is still considerable absorption. I'll also readily admit that this is at the edge of the area of interest, and that as one moves north, the angle decreases, but we are not interested in getting anywhere near the pole at this point. We're talking mostly about the Arctic Circle at 75˚N, where the peak angle of incidence would be 38.4˚... still close enough to 40˚ that the albedo of the ocean is substantially different from that of ice. So stop misrepresenting my position to make yourself look smart and your position look tenable. Now let's get to your position (which I wish you would state clearly). You seem to claim that you feel that because this insolation can't possibly be as strong as the tropics. I won't argue whether it is or is not... my position is not that it is as strong as the tropics, but rather that it is more than strong enough to amount to a notable, relevant and concerning positive feedback in the climate system. Please re-read that sentence several times, so that you don't again misrepresent what I've said, or keep distracting people through a special version of the "strawman" that I call "argument by hyperbole" (i.e. exaggerate the other party's position, and then argue against that hyperbole rather than the actual position). But your position is that the angle of incidence is too low (it's not), the albedo of the Arctic waters is too high (it's not), the length of day doesn't matter (it does), and the duration of sunlight of 3 months for 20 to 24 hours a day is too short (it's not). In a nutshell, your position is to tell everyone not to worry, nothing bad can happen, because you say so and you know how to play games with what other people say. -
KR at 04:47 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan A gray body with a LW emissivity of 0.618 (as you postulated above), radiating 240 W/m^2, will have a temperature calculated by the Stefan-Bolzmann equation of: P = SB const. * emissivity * T^4; hence T = [ P / (SB const. * emissivity) ] ^0.25 [ 240 / (5.6704*10^-8 * 0.618) ] ^0.25 = 287.675°K, or 14.53°C That's 287.675°K required to radiate that power, not 341°K, as you claim. I haven't bothered to track your math and logical errors down in this case - I don't consider it worth my time. You are quite simply in error, as both Tom and I have noted in the past. -
L.J. Ryan at 04:31 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 966 and KR Tom Curtis you said: “First, anybody who has read anything that I have written knows I am not given to knee jerk responses from my writing style alone, even if they do not understand the content.” Ok Tom, I have to admit, for the most part you are well considered;...though still wrong. So knee jerk was not appropriate, rather I should have said dismissive response. Regarding your arguments to my post 924. You set up hallow challenges to my equations. For example, your parsing of emissivity between SW and LW is irrelevant. Why irrelevant you ask...simple, I do not conflate the two. For example, lets compare the equations I used to the simplified models equations via slide 14 of Jin-Yi Yu's lecture. From Jin-Yi Yu's lecture: For Earth's surface S/4 * (1-A) +σ TA4=σ TS4 For Atmosphere σ TS4=2 σ TA4 (blackbody) Compare these equations to my Blackbody table. Notice the similarities.
The highlighted row confirms Jin-Yi Yu conclusion. The other rows simply evaluate this rightful equation prior to and following equilibrium. Why examine beyond equilibrium...simply as a point of comparison. Before I school you further, indulge me with a couple self-serving quotes:Tom you said: a) You have not established the appropriate groundwork, and are instead working on a host of demonstrably false assumptions. b) Your tables which carry your argument have unclear symbols, and are derived by an unexplained method. In other words, they are simply bare assertions. KR you said: Please, L.J.Ryan - read some of the references you have equation-mined. Learn a bit more about the science. You're approaching the issue with a lot of erroneous preconceptions, and those are leading you to incorrect conclusions. Do some reading, L.J. Ryan, including the sources you yourself have linked to.
Do you favor your crow warm or cold? Back on point, the white and gray tables explore the same base equation save a change in emissivity. An atmosphere perfectly reflective to LW radiation will, according to GHG physics, get hotter faster as compared to ε= 1. The key question is, at what surface flux will SW emissions of 235 W/m2 be therein...when added to albedo reflection achieves equilibrium. According to blackbody emission curves ~1200K nets ~235 W/m2 at 700 nm.
Intuitively, these value make sense...(if you subscribe to GHG physics). With an atmosphere which reflects all LW radiation back to the surface, surface energy accumulation with respect to time is geometric. Lastly, a gray atmosphere with ε= .618 will, (according to GHG physics) increase equilibrium temperature. As KR said: As stated before, given a known amount of outgoing radiation, the black body temperature is an absolute minimum on the temperature of an equivalently radiating graybody, due to the relationship of emissivity and temperature. So, what is actually borne out by the math. Assuming a gray body reflectivity = .388 the following table results:
Look KR is right! A gray body emissivity does confer a higher temperature....341K. Now, all we have to do is get those thermometers to fall in line with GHG physics.Moderator Response: [mc] Please limit width to 500 when posting images: <IMG SRC="" width=500> -
muoncounter at 04:29 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Here's an interesting perspective: The popular debate surrounding “global warming” is rife with emotion and has paralyzed U.S. policymakers. Military planners, however, remain divorced from the emotional content of the topic, looking at possible future scenarios and conducting planning to address the associated challenges and threats arising from sharp changes in climate. Guess they haven't heard that 'its all just natural oscillation.' -
Albatross at 04:25 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Dana, Correct me if I am wrong, but DDT has not been banned as a pesticide in Africa, yet Christy claims that millions of people have died in Africa because it was. Tim Lambert is quite the expert on the various DDT mythss, maybe he could help out? -
arch stanton at 04:19 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Daniel - sure, belly up all! (1 round but not 10) -
dana1981 at 04:13 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Steve L - it was a general question, but Christy was referring to DDT use in Africa. -
Steve L at 04:00 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Aw, really? Christy is a DDT nut too? As Alabama State Climatologist, where did he want to "re-introduce" DDT? -
CBDunkerson at 03:55 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Alexandre, thanks for that info. Good to hear that support for the carbon tax has been growing since it was passed. That suggests that people are seeing that it is beneficial to them... though I agree with Steve L in that any way it can be made 'in your face' (i.e. annual carbon tax rebate check or some such) would be a good idea for other areas looking to go a similar route.
Prev 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 Next
