Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 Next
Comments 89951 to 90000:
-
Gilles at 20:00 PM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
adelady, I know there is a trend + variability. I'm saying that there is no clear indication of positive feedbacks since large excursions below the trend are not followed by an exponential decrease, going and faster and faster, but are generally followed by a return to the trend. The trend itself is measured only with the accurate satellite measurements, which weren't available before - so as I said it is very difficult to give a precise estimate of the natural noise. Unless you know perfectly the amplitude of spontaneous variability at this particular frequency (30 yrs)-1 , you can't say if it is significative or not. Just a remark : the decrease has accelerated at the very time when global temperatures seemed to stabilize , or at least did not accelerate. So it's not obvious at all that both are correlated. Another remark is that there is much less variation in extent around mid-May - so actually the variations of minimal extent are due to the last weeks just before the minimum - it is not obvious at all that this is linked with any "memory" of previous years. And finally I'd like to stress that the decrease of multi-years old ice is just the logical consequence of a pronounced minimum some years ago - it proves nothing more. If the minimum stabilizes, the multi year ice should also stabilize or recover. -
h pierce at 19:29 PM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Marcus at 13 Boats, planes, freight trucks and trains, heavy machinery used in agriculture, construction, forestry and minning, emergency and military vehicles, cars and light trucks with spirit and muscle (i.e., V-8's) personal rec vehicles (e.g., ATV's) and so forth will always use hydrocarbons fuels because these fuels have high energy density. The fossil fuel industry will be unaffected by any so-called climate change mitigation. They will pass any costs to the consummer. BTW tell me how to smelt economically iron ore without the use of coke. Or mine diamonds and gold without the use of mega gobs of diesel. -
adelady at 18:57 PM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles@96 Go back to the OP and have a look at "the tale of the tape" (just below the Kara Sea pic). It really is necessary to go to CT so you can look at the full width display. And at http://img215.imageshack.us/f/ctarcticareato150111.png/ here's a graph I asked a friend to prepare based on 'tale of the tape' to clarify the apparent trend in the anomaly graph as presented. As for the apparent uptick during the last week! That's just like weather, heatwaves, rainfall, whatever in a particular location. You're clearly not an ice-watcher, otherwise you'd know that there's a lot of excitement from time to time about possibilities of double or triple apparent minima/ maxima. (if anyone wants to properly link that imageshack thing, go ahead. My clumsy and clueless approach led to me invoking the three strikes - out! rule.) -
h pierce at 18:44 PM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Probably due to shipping costs. Qz is far away from cities where books are printed. -
Gilles at 18:18 PM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
"Back on topic: I'll go with Tamino with a predicted minimum sea ice extent approximately equal to that in 2008." I'll predict that you will be approximately right. -
Gilles at 18:16 PM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
#95 But it takes unmitigated gall to interpret "x is a positive feedback" as "x is a positive feedback and is the only influence on events" the only meaningful question is that if this positive feedback has a significative impact on the curve, or not. If yes : where do you see it ? -
Gilles at 18:11 PM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
I am just talking of the last week increase, that appears just at the end of the curve of sea ice area. There is no clear sign of feedbacks amplifying the variation, in my sense. Now concerning the interpretation of the decrease, I'd like to point out something important : it is generally impossible to interpret a variation over a period T if you don't have many similar periods of comparable lengths to compare with. A curve such the above graph for september extent looks very like the curve of the temperature during an afternoon or during the six last months of one year. However nobody would worry about them, because we know that these variations are "normal" in the sense that they belong to a periodic pattern , that we can easily detect on a many years basis. But without a much larger period of observations, it is impossible to know if this periodicity exists (or at least the amplitude of random fluctuations around the average ) . So the above graph can only be interpreted if you have an idea of the natural variance of the signal BEFORE the measurement, so that you can express the variation as a signal to noise ratio. So : what is the natural noise of this curve before the beginning of measurements, at this time scale ? so we have accurate measurements of it ? -
Gilles at 18:00 PM on 5 April 2011CO2 limits will make little difference
the whole post is just mixing up three different notions * reduction of energy intensity * reduction of annual rate of global emissions * reduction of total emission integrated over the century. so in the example of Nash equilibrium, one should first careful define which of the previous "reduction" it addresses. In my opinion, the constant failure of international discussions about "reduction" is simply due to the fact that this is never well defined. -
Tom Curtis at 17:58 PM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles @93, it takes a very creative imagination to see this graph as "stabilization":
It takes an even more creative imagination to see the slight uptick in sea ice extent over the last week as being the start of a recovering trend, rather than just a minor fluctuation like the seven similar upticks that preceded it.
But it takes unmitigated gall to interpret "x is a positive feedback" as "x is a positive feedback and is the only influence on events" so that you can conclude that "the effects of x should result in a monotonic trend". Especially when the positive feedback is dependent on the strength of insolation, which is currently about a third of the summer peak.
The question you should really ask yourself is how stupid to you think climate scientists are? Do you really think they would make a prediction of a monotonic trend when any glance at a graph shows the trend to not be monotonic? They are clearly not that stupid, so your attempt to interpret their views as though that was the prediction is either shere folly, or unmitigated mendaciousness.
Back on topic: I'll go with Tamino with a predicted minimum sea ice extent approximately equal to that in 2008.
-
adelady at 17:16 PM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles, This is the up to date graph on CT of sea ice *area*. Take a very good, close look at the last 4 months. Then look at the 2 years as a whole. Not once does the line representing the last 2 years so much as touch the 79-08 baseline. The current anomaly is over 900000sqkm below the baseline. If you see growth there, won't you tell me how. -
shoyemore at 16:52 PM on 5 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Richard Muller must be surprised to find that the deniers are treating him ... well, like a climate scientist. I thought Judith Curry had a aggrieved "Et tu, Anthony?" air about her blog. One can only wonder how Muller got himself into the position of taking denialism seriously. Andy Revkin has another take here: Revkin on Congressional Hearings -
Gilles at 16:25 PM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
if there is a clear feedback from insolation, how do you explain that ice is currently growing again despite the relatively low maximum? and how do you explain that the extent has stabilized after the 2007 minimum? this is not supposed to happen in case of a positive feedback, things should only worsen ! -
RickyPockett at 15:47 PM on 5 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Its interesting how the debate is running around in circles do to climate change AKA Global warming. Here is an artical I wrote yesterday about the situation 'Carbon Tax' and the hole in the Universe Introduction Firstly I wish to state my ground on 'Global Warming' so as to avoid being labelled as 'another sceptic' who only serves my own self interests. I still doubt the cause as to whether 'Global Warming' is the result of; Solar influences. Natural climatic fluctuations. Human's influence on the environment. That being said, I feel that regardless of the cause, we, as a global population can not risk "sitting on our hands" and doing nothing on the premise that we may or may not be to blame for the recent rises in global temperatures. If we are not to blame, changing our wasteful attitudes & practises will not (in my opinion) be a negative step (beyond the obvious economic ramifications) and can only take us toward a more sustainable future for generations to come. If we are to blame, acting now will hopefully reverse some of the damage that we have already done and ultimately, give future generations a planet that can be habitable for many millennia to come. Human influence on the environment Since the industrialisation of modern society, humans have taken full advantage of the planets natural resources and have utilised them to our advantage. Whether it be for food, economic, technological or social gains, we have grown lax in our appreciation of the limited bounty our planet has to offer. We have only to look at Easter Island in the south-east Pacific to see the consequences (in this particular case - deforestation) of plundering limited natural resources until they are gone completely. With so many different influences that humans have had on the planet, we should be asking two questions, "What -of the many- influences caused by man has led us to a point where we are affecting the climate of our planet?" and "What can we do/change in our activities/lives that will reverse the damage already done?". As both questions are interwoven to each other it should be as simple as finding what major influences humans have made to our planet in the last 200 years. Did I say "simple"? It appears that is far from the truth as the scientific community is still debating as to whether humans are responsible - let alone the cause - for our planets change in climatic conditions. As I have stated above, this paper is not going into the debate as to whether humans are, or are not responsible for 'climate change'. I am assuming that "we are" for the reasons given in the introduction. So I will re-word the question. "What has mankind changed on the face of this planet more than anything else"? Surprisingly enough, there is a simple answer to what would seem like a question that could have many credible responses. We have removed roughly two-thirds of our planets forests and replaced them with either farms, residences or industry. In some cases all three can be found within a few kilometres from each other. In some countries, we have as little as one-twentieth of the original rain-forests left. According to forecasts, we may be only have 10% of our natural forests left by the year 2030C.E. So what has this got to do with the proposed 'Carbon tax' that the Australian government is proposing to liberate our troubled climatic woes? Everything and nothing! Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen rather dramatically in the last 50 years. To quote some statistics, Carbon Dioxide has increased from roughly 300ppm (parts per million) to 390ppm. As I'm sure that any of you who do click on that link, will immediately notice that Carbon Dioxide is still a trace element. It is about as likely to influence climatic warming as turning on an air-conditioner in summer. So, is our current issue of global warming caused by over consumption of power and an industrialised society bent on consuming fossil fuels? Unfortunately, I fear the answer is no. It is more likely that deforestation is the real culprit in this debate. As much as I would like to think that we are taking a step in the right direction and that 'Carbon tax' will ultimately benefit our planet & all of its inhabitants. There seems little proof that imposing a tax for the purposes of reducing emissions will do anything but put more money in to government coffers. What can we do to reduce/eliminate the threat to our environment caused by "Global Warming"? The short answer does not exist. Much of the deforestation on our planet is caused by a need to create farms to feed the masses. The long answer involves careful legislation and western countries investing in our third-world brothers. It is pointless telling an Afghani farmer that he/she should reduce half his crop by planting trees that will produce no income whatsoever. It just isn't going to happen! However if we were able to educate that same Afghani farmer into producing crops that offer a more productive yield and can ultimately, introduce practises that help maintain the soil quality, such as planting trees in key parts of their fields. We may be able to begin a change that sees humankind turn the tide on deforestation and ultimately, combat "Global Warming". In conclusion Whether or not man is to blame for the change in our climatic conditions that are causing "Global Warming", I strongly urge that regardless of cause, it would be a folly to do nothing. Though to implement a 'Carbon tax' would be just as great a folly as it serves only political interests. It does absolutely nothing but segregate the population into "those for" versus "those against" and gives those who truly wish to make our planet a better place, a false sense of security. Opposing a 'Carbon tax' is not turning your back on our once pristine planet as many proponents for the tax would have us believe. I think that it does the opposite, it questions the motives of our politicians and brings forward the need for real solutions that won't just band-aid the problem but defeat it at its source. Remember that we are gambling our only habitat. To make the wrong move and focus our energies in the wrong direction could easily wipe out humankind altogether. We need to fix the problem and not just slap a tax on it and think that industry will find a solution for it. So the next time you are asked whether you support a 'Carbon tax'. Be confident that you can point out that the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has changed by less than 0.01%, but our planets forests are already less than 33% of what they were 200 years ago and that by 2030C.E. it is projected that there will only be 10% of them left. Do not blindly oppose 'Carbon tax' as you will only get labelled as someone who doesn't care for the environment or our children's future. Instead start the conversation on how we can increase the worlds forests, you may be surprised at your ability to turn a negative situation into a situation where we can all offer our thoughts on potential solutions to the 'Global Warming' crisis. I am sure that there are many strategies that can be used to re-populate the forests of our planet but, I fear I am ill equipped to suggest what would be considered sound legislation in regard to re-forestation. The Original document can be found at http://rickypockett.blogspot.com/ -
Tom Curtis at 12:36 PM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJRyan @932: 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. The fact that you are so completely wrong does not make a post which points that out a knee jerk response. Perhaps it is time you reconsidered your arrogance which believes, on this topic, that you alone have the truth, and the world's physicists from Arrhenius on have been barking up the wrong tree. A little humility is the first step to wisdom, so it is about time you learnt some. Second, my equations (1xx) are not equivalent to yours. That is because the Earth absorbs most of its energy in as visible light, but emits most of it as IR light. I would of course be delighted for you to prove me wrong. Don't just cite Kirchoff. Apply his proof to the actual situation on Earth and prove that his results have the consequences you claim. To do so remember that you must use all of the following sinks and sources: i) The Sun; ii) The Earth's surface; iii) The Earth's atmosphere; and iv) Space. For greater realism, you must also include clouds. For greater realism still you must split the atmosphere into about 30 odd layers, treating each as a separate sink/source, and treating clouds in each layer distinctly; but we won't expect that from you (though it is what we expect, and more, from climate scientists). I note that nobody understands a law of physics unless they can use the proof of the law to set up an appropriate model to model any situation in which it applies. So if you cannot make the argument called for above, it is because you do not know what you are talking about when you cite Kirchoff. Of course, if you do set up an argument as called for above, you will find that either your model contains obvious, and obviously relevant disanalogies with real life; or that it simply confirms the theories of the physicists. I am also not interested in any other argument from you because, quite frankly, I am tired of your bullshit and obfustication. For your help in setting up the model, the SW absorptivity of the surface is, on average 0.875, although if you exclude clouds for simplicity, you may want to treat it as 0.7. Third, you certainly did quote mine Professor Jin-Yi Yu's lecture slides. The thing about lecture slides is that they are never self explanatory. They are designed to be accompanied by a lecture which explains the slides, and without that lecture you are always missing crucial information, including, in this case, the definition of the symbols. lecture notes are much better, but not ideal because they are often too compressed. Text books are best of all, but rather hard to directly link to. However, despite the deficiency of lecture slides, even the slides you quote contain enough information to prove you wrong. Specifically on the slide titled "Greenhouse Effect"(about page 15), we have the following two formulas: a) Ta = Te = 255K b) Ts = (2^0.25)*Ta = 303 K Clearly the effective temperature (Te) does not equal the surface temperature (Ts) as you require for your version of equation 3 to be correct. Note that your comment about black body surfaces is irrelevant. The effective temperature is the temperature of a theoretical black body the would radiate the same power as is actually radiated from the the top of the atmosphere. It does not imply that the TOA has that temperature, or that all the OLR at the TOA is radiated from a surface at that point. It is no wonder you are so confused if you do not even understand basic terms of the science. Fourth, nothing else in your post is worth responding to IMO. This is because of your tantrum. I am not going to dignify your "shouted" comments and those bracketed by them with anymore response than to note that it is irrational to treat a tantrum thrower as both a tantrum thrower and a rational disputant at the same time. If you want to debate, be polite. -
muoncounter at 12:02 PM on 5 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Paul Krugman's 4 April column is also relevant here. -
muoncounter at 11:58 AM on 5 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Nicely done! Links to the page ought to go everywhere, especially to Reps like Ed Markey (former chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, before the November putsch) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (independent firebrand from Vermont). -
chris1204 at 11:52 AM on 5 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Interestingly, Judith Curry just now happened to give a much more nuanced dissection of Richard Muller's position and evidence at these hearings. Dividing the world into "true believers" and "deniers" is fraught with limitations, impedes communication, and ultimately risks generating coherent responses to the challenges of climate change. -
citizenschallenge at 10:57 AM on 5 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
I just noticed my tip of the hat to Scruffy Dan, is missing from the above. http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=1157 -
citizenschallenge at 10:37 AM on 5 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
For a more detailed look at the Global Cooling myth check out this detailed study. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck’s "A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then." "But perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time, each group of researchers pursuing their own set of questions, was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today." 2. RECOGNITION OF A PROBLEM: THE POTENTIAL FOR WARMING. 3. THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS: A COOLING TREND? 4. ICE AGE UNDERSTANDING 5. CARBON DIOXIDE 6. AEROSOLS 7. MEDIA COVERAGE 8. SURVEY OF THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE "The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations." "Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered wrong in the sense of getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered. They are one cooling paper (Bryson and Dittberner, 1976) and one warming paper (Idso and Brazel, 1977) and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977, Herman et al. 1978)." "As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but not reversed. " -
calyptorhynchus at 09:16 AM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Just a side note, another demonstration of why many Australians buy their books from overseas instead of locally. Why should a book cost $10 more in Australia than anywhere else in the world? -
SEAN O at 09:03 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
I like the way Carl Sagan summed it up: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -
Riccardo at 08:49 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
e doh! Thank you. I think I'm going to use it often ;) -
JMurphy at 08:19 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
That's a good one, e. And, having read your link, I was distracted by another link there : the Chewbacca Defense. I think we have seen that over on the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory thread, including the related Chewbacca Dilemma, as shown by those trying to explain the facts to those who don't seem to be able to understand them ! -
There is no consensus
Riccardo, There's actually a name for this tactic, it's called the Galileo gambit. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:53 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo... Your post begs the question, where are you trying to keep informed on climate change issues? -
Riccardo at 07:35 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
Actually Galileo is more cited than known. I'd invite to study history a bit more in depth before making any analogy. Should we consider this as a modified version of the famous Godwin's law? -
JMurphy at 07:27 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo Anderson wrote : "As a person who tries to keep informed about the Climate Change issue..." Unfortunately, everything you typed after those words shows that you have failed in keeping yourself informed, except in as much as you seem to have 'informed' yourself via the medium of websites of denial, misinformation and disinformation. However, it is never too late to start, so try these links : Newcomers Start Here The Big Picture List of Skeptic Arguments -
IanC at 06:51 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo, I think you are misinformed on a few of the topics. Regarding you issue with "hide the decline", the decline is not in the temperature record but rather in the divergence in the tree ring record. You'll find a good summary of the issue here The temperature record using modern instruments have shown very good agreement, and have with stood independent reconstructions. See here for details. In fact recently the BEST project ran by Richard Muller, who is hardly pro-AGW, showed agreement with the other temperature series. "The East Anglia emails show the extent that pro-AGW group will go to hide dissent. (The application of pressure on journals to fire editors who dare to publish contrary opinions: the modern day equivalent of burning heretics at the stake)." Here is a good summary of the issue surrounding the allegation. "Look folks it is so complicated that only the truly smart can understand climate change." This cannot be farther from the truth. While some aspects are no doubt highly technical, the theory on the whole is very approachable. What is required is the patience to go though all the details, because a LOT has been done. Most of the skeptics "objections" you hear nowadays is nothing new, and they all have been considered at some point (some long time ago). -
DSL at 06:46 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
Oh, and just in case you are actually human, Neo, perhaps you'd like to read and move your comments to a more relevant thread. -
DSL at 06:43 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
Thanks, Neobot. Of course, the crucial difference is that Galileo had evidence and all the Church had was faith. It's also not so complicated nor so filled with doubt. -
invicta at 06:34 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
NA #285 Thank you. If you spend too much time looking at the evidence for AGW it can sometimes become a little depressing but your post made me laugh out loud. -
Neo Anderson at 06:17 AM on 5 April 2011There is no consensus
As a person who tries to keep informed about the Climate Change issue, I can't help but view the pro-AGW group as the early 15th century Holy Roman Catholic Church, and the anti-AGW group as Galileo. The East Anglia emails show the extent that pro-AGW group will go to hide dissent. (The application of pressure on journals to fire editors who dare to publish contrary opinions: the modern day equivalent of burning heretics at the stake). The same emails indicate that the data is being manipulated to show warming that is no longer occurring. AGW scientist won't/are scared of showing their algorithms, etc… The failure of the pro-AGW groups to have honest and open debates, and the active attacks that this same group perpetrates on scientists with different opinions is more than enough reason to disqualify this science. I know many Christians that are more open to debate and discussion about their religion and faith, than AGW-advocates are about their ‘science.’ As an outsider, I also shake my head with dismay as this whole science has become a moving target over the years. The earth is warming and that's a fact. Oops the upper levels of the atmosphere aren't warming. Ahem, well that is part of our theory, yeah it really was. Oops, only the troposphere at the very lowest levels is supposed to warm. Yeah, that's the ticket. Oops, these temperature levels are declining. Ok, let's manipulate the data to “hide the decline” and attack all the deniers and rename it "Climate Change." Ok, it is going to get so hot, that it really cooling off. Look folks it is so complicated that only the truly smart can understand climate change. Who are the truly smart? Well, they are whoever we say they are. Climate Change is what we say it is. -
Peter Bellin at 06:13 AM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Another book detailing denialism in the case of lead hazards and chemical prollution: Deceit and Denial, The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution, by Markowitz and Rosner. I am thinking of ordering a copy of your forthcoming book for my local library. -
dana1981 at 06:06 AM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
I was able to get a bit of a preview of the book, and I can confirm, it's quite good. Congrats John and Haydn, well done! -
muoncounter at 05:54 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
les#948: "we pay respect to this great moment by giving up on this assault on the nodal discipline of physics by attempting to prove/disprove another of it's great achievements" That's a great point. Perhaps this will be the year when the deniers swear off the 'I am right and all of physics is wrong' arguments. Out of respect for past great physics achievements ... probably not. But maybe for their own self-respect? -
KR at 05:36 AM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Anyone interested in this topic of denial might also find Thank You for Smoking worth reading. It's quite a description of tobacco company tactics in denying their product health effects. The movie isn't bad either! -
KR at 05:22 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan - If you feel that integrated spectra are not measurements, well, then, I'll pass that on to the spectroscope manufacturers I work with. That should be good for a laugh. "Effective emissivity" is a useful summary of surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, band blocking, emission altitudes, and the lapse rate. You get the same results from either orbital measures of emitted spectra compared to surface emitted spectra, or from computationally modelling the entire atmospheric physics. That's the fractional efficiency of TOA energy radiation due to surface temperatures, relative to a black body. Incidentally, do you recognize that the black body temperature required to radiate a fixed power is the absolute minimum temperature required for a gray body to radiate the same power? With the gray body temperature going up as emissivity goes down? I've raised that point a few times with you, but you have not responded. Your objections to this are beginning to consist of nothing but flat denials with no backing; until and unless you post a physical argument that actually makes sense, preferably with references that support it, I don't believe I'll bother replying to any more of your posts. After almost 1000 posts, I believe there's more than enough information present for anyone who isn't sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "La la la la la..." Do some reading, L.J. Ryan, including the sources you yourself have linked to. -
logicman at 05:13 AM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
I would like to thank everybody who has contributed comments to this thread. Yes, everybody. It feels good to have people agree with me, but it takes a contrarian to make me check that I have covered all the bases. Is Arctic ice loss due to natural variation? Patterns of natural variability play a part in Arctic sea ice decline. The Arctic Oscillation is a major atmospheric circulation pattern that can take a positive or negative mode. In its positive mode, it sets up winds that tend to break up sea ice and flush it out of the Arctic, and the thin ice left behind is more likely to melt. In its strongly positive phase in the early to mid-1990s, the oscillation may have made sea ice more vulnerable to summertime melt. Since the late 1990s, however, the Arctic Oscillation has exhibited a more neutral mode, while sea ice has continued to decline. Sea ice decline has persisted through different patterns of precipitation, wind, and local temperature variation. Researchers have found marked declines in sea ice difficult to explain without considering overall Arctic warming. My emphasis. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5887 Ice gets younger Based on results of a simple model that keeps track of the age of ice as it moves about on the Arctic Ocean, we show that the areal coverage of thick multi-year ice decreased precipitously during 1989–1990 when the Arctic Oscillation was in an extreme “high index” state, and has remained low since that time. Under these conditions, younger, thinner ice anomalies recirculate back to the Alaskan coast more quickly, decreasing the time that new ice has to ridge and thicken before returning for another melt season. Rigor, I. G., and J. M. Wallace (2004), Variations in the age of Arctic sea-ice and summer sea-ice extent, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L09401, doi:10.1029/2004GL019492. http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2004GL019492.shtml 'Tropical' heating of the arctic: The first person to write about this effect was George Best. I propose that we should call this the Best Effect in his honor. http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/george_best_elizabethan_climate_scientist Recent Arctic amplification. I have compiled a collection of images and citations for the decade 2001 to 2011 which show the breaking of record after record. Total loss of Arctic sea ice has long been predicted. We are now solidly in the region of, not if, but when. http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_decade_2001_2011-77700 -
les at 04:38 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
wot? Where's Ryan? I'm expecting something like: You say "Not at all", let me rephrase "yes exactly". Do I understand? Well? -
muoncounter at 04:29 AM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
KL#82: "BP Arctic ice melt due to soot argument and mine are not incompatible." Of course they are not incompatible: You minimize the warming effect of sunlight; he maximizes it. Obviously both are right. Various authors put the BC albedo effect as equivalent to a forcing of between 0.06-0.3 W/m^2. Is that was significant compared to the following? Sphaerica#90, "that still gives open water an albedo that is substantially more than "negligible"" Key point. Here are some comparisons of albedo for a variety of Arctic settings. By far, the worst case (lowest albedo) is the difference between snow/ice (0.65-0.8) and open water (0.07-0.2). That was the problem identified by Serreze et al 2009: This Arctic amplification is largely driven by loss of the sea ice cover, allowing for strong heat transfers from the ocean to the atmosphere. And that is indeed the subject of the Flanner thread, where the equivalent forcing is found to be in excess of 0.6 W/m^2. Worse still, if the predictions in the post are even close, the open water season will be that much longer than in years past. -
les at 04:16 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
961 Ryan. "The physics used to validate GHG theory however, is at odds with this tenet." Not at all. Although I've yet to see much discussion of physics in these posts. Never the less, if it's of help, I refer you, again, to the paper of Prof. Pierrehumbert for illustration. -
L.J. Ryan at 04:05 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
les 958 We agree it must follow. The physics used to validate GHG theory however, is at odds with this tenet. -
les at 03:59 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
addendum: In truth, I can see that when I pointed out that the 2nd law as stated in the blog doesn't hold, it may be read as "the 2nd law doesn't hold"... but, really, that is a bit silly given that I mentioned the "sole result" clause... -
L.J. Ryan at 03:58 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR 951 re (A) As I stated, it is not measured. Rather effective emissivity is calculated by solving solving for emissivity with given temperature and power...and the assumption GHG mechanics are correct. So when you calculate for unknown X and then turnaround and use X to calculate one of the given variables, you have simplified verified your formula ([ 240/(0.612 * 5.6704*10^-8 ]^0.25 - 273.15 = 15.2C). The problem is with your given variables. If you are measuring radiation via atmosphere, should not the temperature variable also be that of the atmosphere. Why use temp. from one source and use it to calculate emissivity of another? re(B) I assume the modals would match the data because both assume the wrong input variable..namely surface temperature and atmosphere radiation to measure atmos. effective emissivity. I refer the above reply, why not use atmosphere temperature? KR: I am not damorbel. -
citizenschallenge at 03:50 AM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Oh and love the cover art, years ago I was playing with a bumper sticker design featuring this same Official Bird of the Republican Party, with a few select words regarding denial and willful ignorance. -
les at 03:48 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
956 Ryan. As mentioned above, everything obeys the 2nd law and the 2nd law states "bla bla sole result bla bla ... " or words to that affect. But now I see you confusion. "another problem" refers to the observations of KR 849. I should have hyperlinked that as the numbering of the comments tends to change from time to time. I must say I can see absolutely no reason to infer from any of my remarks that I believe the 2nd law doesn't hold. The reason for my comment was, on the contrary, to suggest that because the important "sole result" or close system clause is missing from the blog post, many people seem to be very very confused. Be that as it may. Now we have cleared up to your confusion I am confident that you will agree that the green house affect does not violate the 2nd law and we can bring a stop to the physics abuse of this thread. Great! -
citizenschallenge at 03:44 AM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Thanks John, you've already made my Hero List - I look forward to reading it, to see how many more notches up the list you climb. I sure it will be an excellent time saving resource. I ordered it, do you have any idea how long before delivery can be expected? Oh and thanks for the 20% discount. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:54 AM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken, I stopped responding because you're in clear denial and therefore not open minded in any way, so there is no point to continuing this. Briefly, the simple answer to your geometry question is that we're not talking only about the exact spot of the north pole, but rather the entire area affected by ice. I did err in the 66˚ -- the angle of incidence in the area in question is probably between 30˚ and 38˚, but that still gives open water an albedo that is substantially more than "negligible", so your argument is still moot. More importantly, I'd also point out that your efforts to say that any feedback effects would be trivial are equivalent to saying the same about feedbacks from glaciers, natural CO2 release, methane release, clouds, deforestation, etc., etc. The fact is that that you can make your "ooh, it's so small" argument about any one feedback (except H2O). The problem is that while you can try to argue that the effect of any one feedback is small, the sum of the feedbacks is not not. Many lines of evidence point to the sum of those feedbacks being equal to roughly double the initial forcing. You can't argue that away, and this is a case of a feedback developing before our eyes. The point is that this is a clear positive feedback, it's easily observed, it's something that hasn't happened in many millenia, and it's getting worse -- as per the original post, there is a good chance that this summer will see one of the lowest extents or the lowest extent on record. Denial that the globe is warming is that much more difficult to spew with a straight face as a result. No more on this. It's become silly and repetitive. -
KR at 02:51 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Moderators - I'm noticing a similarity in approach, in some word choices, and the use of terms I previously used replying to one poster appearing in another; are damorbel and L.J Ryan the same person? We appear to be getting "trolled" again... Please delete this post if I am incorrect. -
L.J. Ryan at 02:50 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
les 955 "This is a statement that the 2nd law only applies to a closed system."...Ok applies only to closed systems "For practical purposes, the system which consists of: the sun, outer space, the solid earth and the earths atmosphere is not a closed system. "...Ok the earth's system is not closed These together suggest you are saying the earth's open system does NOT have to follow the 2nd law. Otherwise, why would have "another problem" or for that matter the entirety of 914?
Prev 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 Next
