Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 Next
Comments 90001 to 90050:
-
soo doh nim at 02:43 AM on 5 April 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
If memory serves, there was something similar to the Oregon Petition "debunking" evolution. The response from the biological community was "Project Steve": http://www.ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve. Perhaps something similar from the climate community would be appropriate... -
les at 02:21 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
954 Ryan I meant" The "2nd law" objection to the greenhouse effect is based upon a mistaken notion.." I don't disagree with you. However I'd like to suggest there is another problem. In the post, the statement of the 2nd law has missed out the phrase: "whose sole result". This is a statement that the 2nd law only applies to a closed system. For practical purposes, the system which consists of: the sun, outer space, the solid earth and the earths atmosphere is not a closed system.
HTH. I even already posted another phrasing of the same point from here"The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a close system"
what bit are you struggling with? -
L.J. Ryan at 02:11 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
les 953 So when you said:884 KR
What did you mean?
" The "2nd law" objection to the greenhouse effect is based upon a mistaken notion.." I don't disagree with you. However I'd like to suggest there is another problem. In the post, the statement of the 2nd law has missed out the phrase: "whose sole result". This is a statement that the 2nd law only applies to a closed system. For practical purposes, the system which consists of: the sun, outer space, the solid earth and the earths atmosphere is not a closed system. -
les at 01:32 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
949 Ryan. You can paraphrase what you like. But I would rather advise learning the meaning of the orriginal phrasing, put together by better physicists than you or I. But you really should not invent things like that that is my "revised position". I revised nothing. And you really cannot put a paraphrase into quotation marks! Yes, clearly the 2nd law is universal. But it doesn't say that energy can not flow from cold to hot. it says that energy can not flow from cold to hot without work being done. Any one who doesn't realise that should get a cold beer from the fridge and think about it. -
Albatross at 01:22 AM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Congratulations on the book John, very exciting. I'm sure that it will inform many people and offer valuable insights. I have added it to my B'day wish list for the family :) I'll send this URL along to some interested parties (including 'skeptics') who might consider buying it. -
Alexandre at 01:17 AM on 5 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
The table of contents looks really interesting. Ordered and looking forward to checking it out. -
L.J. Ryan at 01:17 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
CBDunkerson 950 I should have addressed my post to les 948 & 914...914 is linked within 948. -
Albatross at 01:16 AM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Moderator's, perhaps all future comments along the lines of "the ice loss is not significant for the earth's climate system", and all associated correspondence should be moved to a more appropriate thread? And if people insists with following this line of reasoning here, their should be deleted. Fell free to delete this once read. -
Albatross at 01:13 AM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Actually, muoncounter @80 makes an excellent point. BP is trying to claim that most of the ice loss was from albedo effects arising from soot. Here other claims are being made, while at the same time making the incredibly weak argument that the dramatic Arctic ice loss to date (and in the future), is of little consequence. Thank you John, Ken and BP for showing the incoherence, inconsistencies and sometimes contradictory nature of arguments used by "skeptics". CBDunkerson summarises the salient points in their post at 85-- Thanks CB. Now maybe it is time to ass Ken the same question that I asked JohnD @79: "This thread, again, is essentially about the upcoming Arctic se[a] ice melt season. Do you [Ken] have anything specific to say about that? Is the sea ice minimum this year going to be greater or smaller than 2010? Please substantiate your answer with evidence as logicman has done." Thanks too Tom for your comments refuting yet more BS from 'skeptics' (does it ever end?). -
Albatross at 01:05 AM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken, "Sphaerica has not responded to claim that my schoolbook planetary geometry is wrong - nor has anyone else." With respect I have personally decided not to do so b/c I am trying not to send this thread even further off topic. -
KR at 01:05 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan - "To claim effective LW emissivity of 0.612 is measured, is specious. How do measure “effective emissivity”? " That's quite a statement you're making there, L.J., and quite unsupportable. (A) The effective emissivity is quite simply measured by looking at the surface temperature (well known, well measured, etc., not to mention being what we're interested in) and the integrated power emitted at the top of the atmosphere (about 240 W/m^2). The tool used for those measurements is an infra-red spectroscope, incidentally. That's about 61% of the power that a black body at 15C would radiate, and hence the effective emissivity is 0.61. (B) That number matches the physics, as per line-by-line spectral modelling of the atmosphere such as in the MODTRANS and more up to date computations. It's always nice when the model matches the data - it's excellent support for the model being correct. So - that's the data, and it's supported by the (correct) models. You also have stated that "Delta T must be a function (of) a non-radiative input", rather than the well understood greenhouse effect. Just what non-radiative input would that be??? Invisible volcanos? Little green men? Accumulated friction from the hand-wringing of climate skeptics? I quite simply cannot take your argument seriously when you invoke Mysterious Unknown Forces (MUF's) as a replacement for the last 150 years of science. 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. -
CBDunkerson at 00:49 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan, you 'quote' the phrase "closed loop system" twice in your comment above, yet I cannot find it anywhere in the preceding comments. I assume this is meant to be a reference to comments about over-simplified versions of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (e.g. 'energy can only flow from hot to cold') only being applicable to 'closed systems'. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is universal (so far as we know)... however, poorly stated versions of it require qualification. -
Tom Curtis at 00:41 AM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Just to put Ken Lambert's line of argument into perspective, the additional 0.01% of the Earth's surface that is exposed ocean rather than ice in the Arctic due to warming over the last 30 years absorbs an additional 1.34 * 10^22 Joules of energy each summer. That in turn is enough to melt 4 * 10^13 tonnes of ice, or 14 million square kilometers of sea ice with an average depth of 3 meters. That is nearly three times the extent of sea ice at the minimum in 2007, and more than two times the extent at the minimum of 2011. Of course, not all the ice is melted because much of the energy escapes to space rather than being used to melt ice. But Lambert's implied suggestion that because only a small part of the Earth's surface is effected, therefore the energy involved is inconsequential is simply false. Further, once the entire cryosphere is considered, the implied suggestion of little global impact is also shown to be false by Flanner et al, with the total NH cryosphere feedback representing about 80% of the initial GHG forcing over the last 30 years. -
CBDunkerson at 00:25 AM on 5 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
It seems clear that the decline in Arctic ice volume (both land and sea) is being driven by a combination of factors; the same increased greenhouse warming impacting the entire planet (though somewhat higher here since carbon maps show northern hemisphere and polar CO2 levels frequently higher that other regions), additional warming due to changes in albedo as ice melts, additional warming due to changes in ocean currents bringing in more heat from the tropics, increased transfer of ice out of the Arctic due to loss of ice blockages and stronger currents, et cetera. Thus, I'm not really seeing the importance of the whole 'how much impact does albedo change have' debate. Theoretically, this should actually be the easiest factor to quantify (as the study Tom Curtis cites seems to have done)... but regardless of whether these albedo changes are causing 5%, 10%, 25%, or whatever of the ice loss... the ice is still being lost. Once it is gone we will still see profound changes in ocean currents and weather far beyond the bounds of the Arctic. Hence, I'm failing to see the point. -
L.J. Ryan at 00:21 AM on 5 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
les 948 Let me see if understand your revised position on the GHG physics and the 2nd law. I paraphrase you (maybe): Because the earth's radiative energy system is not a "closed loop system" and the 2nd law applies only to "closed loop systems", GHG physics therefore does not follow nor is required to follow the 2nd law. Do I have this right? -
Tom Curtis at 23:55 PM on 4 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken Lambert @83 As pointed out in my preceding post, the loss of the complete ice cap would expose 15 times as much water as has been exposed by the increased summer melts over the last 30 years. 15 * 2.8% = 42% (the 43 being a consequence of slightly different roundings). For the snow, approximately 12% of the Earth's surface lies north of 50 degrees North. The average insolation in spring in the NH at those latitudes is of the order of 200 w/m^2. I estimated the change in albedo from snow to earth as being about 0.4, which is very conservative, although treating all areas north of 50 north is, of course, not. That yields a ball park figure of 0.8 w/m^2 globally averaged. (In truth the land area effected by reduced snow cover is significantly less than used in my calculation, but then the effect is evident for significantly more than the one month I allowed, so the figure is a reasonable indicator of the magnitude of the effect.) The 0.63 w/m^2 comes from a scientific study that broke the effect down cell by cell, month by month from actually measured data. There is no ball park involved in that study, but there is an uncertainty, with bounds of 0.33 to 1.07 w/m^2. Follow the link provided for more detail. As you noted, the area enclosed by the arctic circle, which you noted is at 66.4 degrees North, is about 4.4% of the Earth's surface. However, not all land north of 50 degrees north is within the arctic circle. Why are you assuming that only forcings within the arctic circle itself have contributed to polar amplification? Finally, I can make a reasonable estimate of how much of incident solar radiation is absorbed by arctic oceans because the laws of physics do not change with latitude. Ergo the emissivity of arctic oceans closely matches those of oceans everywhere, and though the low angle of incidence does increase reflectivity, it is overall a minor effect. Bear in mind that even tropical oceans have sunsets and sunrises, and that in consequence they have high angles of incidence for only a short period of every day. -
Ken Lambert at 23:16 PM on 4 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Tom Curtis #81 I am glad your calculation agrees with mine that the effect of arctic ice melt is trivial (2.8% increase in arctic forcings since 1978). The leap is then made to 43% with a loss of the 'ice cap' - presumably the summer sea ice disappears entirely. So how then is the leap made to one month earlier snow melts down to 50 degrees north and 0.63W/sq.m? And all this from an area of the Earth's surface of less than 4.4%?? What about the effects on the other 95.6% of the Earth's surface, like the 70% occupied by the oceans where we still can't find the absorbed heat. Last time I looked there were hardly any Argo buoys above 60 degrees north, so what monitoring of ocean temperatures are we relying on to measure the solar energy absorbed in the Artic ocean? -
Ken Lambert at 22:55 PM on 4 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
muoncounter #80 The BP Arctic ice melt due to soot argument and mine are not incompatible. Tell us what is the average albedo of ocean surface at an average Arctic angle of incidence of 23.4 degrees, and what is the albedo of sooty snow and ice at similar angles of incidence? It seems that Sphaerica made the claim that I was talking gibberish and he (she) was sure that the Arctic ice melt was due to insolation higher than the tropics with a sun incidence angle of 66 degrees at the North Pole. I simply pointed pointed that this was wrong in fact. Sphaerica has not responded to claim that my schoolbook planetary geometry is wrong - nor has anyone else. Johnd makes salient points about heat flows affecting Arctic melt. -
JMurphy at 22:31 PM on 4 April 2011Soot and global warming
Some perspective on the LIA : However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation (see Bradley, 1999). Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. Mann et al. (1998) and Jones et al. (1998) support the idea that the 15th to 19th centuries were the coldest of the millennium over the Northern Hemisphere overall. However, viewed hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). Was there a "Little Ice Age" and a "Medieval Warm Period"? -
chris1204 at 22:07 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
PS: I just bought the book. -
chris1204 at 21:52 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Marcus @ 13: "Once more, HR, you seem to be full of denialist clap-trap. Try to do better next time please." Might I suggest, "More light, less heat" or "lighten up" [puns intended]. Meanwhile, heartfelt congratulations John on what has clearly been a labour of love. -
WSteven at 21:46 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
'Grats on your book, John. Now I'll have to see if my wife will let me buy a copy. ;) -
CBDunkerson at 21:25 PM on 4 April 2011Soot and global warming
thingadonta, you'll notice that we are not currently >in< the 1950s... or even 20 years thereafter. Any impact of that solar forcing or feedbacks set off by it are long gone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide was level at 270 +/- 10 ppm for thousands of years until ~1800. Then it started increasing. Thus, the optimal time to compare current temperatures against would be ~1800. That said, all three of the major temperature anomaly records start in 1850 or 1880... because we don't have significant thermometer readings before then. No "agenda" involved. Just using all the data we have available. Thus, the available anomaly records are technically not "pre-industrial"... they pick up after the first 10 - 15 ppm of CO2 increase. However, this is close enough that people are usually referring to the warming shown in those records when they say 'pre-industrial'. In essence, the current ~0.75 C total warming anomaly generally cited leaves out the small amount of warming from 1800 - 1880 caused by industrial greenhouse gas emissions. In any case, the accusation of "ideological" selection bias is pure nonsense... 1880 was long after the Little Ice Age and obviously 'chosen' based on the fact that it is the data we have. -
funglestrumpet at 21:15 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
2 Meikol. Ok, so you agree that Climate Change is a fact. Why then are you and all those like you so intent on thwarting action to counter it? You might be in some doubt as to the origin of an asteroid headed for the earth, but would you really thwart action until we could be absolutely certain of its origin? No, of course not. But there again, there would no vested interests in having an asteroid hit the earth. The same cannot be said of Climate Change. Get your calculator out and try entering '2' then hit '+' and then another '2'. The answer will probably surprise you. As for the book, I hope it is the success it deserves to be. -
Marcus at 21:04 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
"A warmer Earth in any case will lead to less differences in climate, which means that there will be less, not more changes (once things have changed for better or for worse)." Lets *assume* for 5 seconds you're correct-though you're probably not. What impact do you think a lack of variability in climate is going to have on our crops? Once again I see the Denialist crowd speak without actually thinking. -
Marcus at 21:02 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
"Do you contemplate the existence of a warmist industry" So, tell us HR, who is *really* going to benefit from this supposed "Warmist" industry? After all, we *know* what the fossil fuel industry has to lose if climate change mitigation takes place, but I don't see a lot of scientists getting rich from predicting climate change. Once more, HR, you seem to be full of denialist clap-trap. Try to do better next time please. -
les at 20:38 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Congratulations to the Authors. One small recommendation: Given what 10 Bern noted, along with the discount, may I suggest you include a months worth of some general purpose SSRIs? This would enable inhabitance of the deniosphere to read the book, increasing your potential readership by at least 1%. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 20:35 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Congratulations John! Now the question is, when will you be touring the UK so I can get you to sign the book? Cornwall is beautiful :) -
Bern at 20:15 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
I can't believe the "It's not us" and "It's not bad" memes both appeared in the first 10 comments! Back on topic - congrats on the book, that's a real achievement. Shame it's 40% more expensive here in Oz than the US price (but I've seen some books where the difference was over 150%, so 40% isn't too bad. :-) -
thingadonta at 20:09 PM on 4 April 2011Soot and global warming
Sorry, that should read "20 year time lag from solar effects", and also "cloud cover changes which are both immediate and delayed", and "it was colder than the average over the last 10,000 years during the immediate pre-industrial period". (So don't chose it as a baseline!) I'll try to spell check next time. -
thingadonta at 20:03 PM on 4 April 2011Soot and global warming
"Since solar forcing is actually negative compared to the baseline that means the warming from greenhouse forcing is actually >greater< than the total warming observed thus far." No, solar activity gradually increased from around 1800-1950, meaning the solar forcing would continue until at least then. On top of this, you get at least a 20 year time lag from soal effects, which has been shown by various research papers. There are also could cover changes which are immedaite and sloightly delayed. Aside from this, the reason I mentioned 1700 rsther than 1800 as pre-industrial T is because of the very reason I outlined, 'baseline' should not be chosen irrespective of the relative natural climate at the time, which just happened to be very cold-Littel Ice Age (LIA). The LIA bottomed earlier than 1800. Also, if oen takes into account natural factors, baseline should be ~1950, because it was naturally colder than average over the last 10 years during pre industrial period. You dont chose as a baseline something well below a running mean unless one has an agenda, the very fact that the European Climate Union (or whatever they call themselves) chose this date is largely ideological, it has nothing to do with optimal temperatures, effects of industrualisation, or a running mean upon which to use as a baseline against human activities. -
les at 19:37 PM on 4 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
947 - Glenn. Nice article link. As an aside, and of only the slightest relevance to this blog post, I note his statement "The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a close system"... as noted above and to which 934 Ryan should have assumed I was alluding. Now, I suggest that as, as noted by the Economist, this is the 150th anniversary of some relevant and great physics (the unification of Electric and Magnetic fields) - 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 (the laws of thermodynamics) through bean-counting and pseudo-modelling. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:19 PM on 4 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred "If we make the simplifying assumption of an effective emission level in the atmosphere, this fixes the outgoing radiative temperature (at 255K as it happens). Anything which increased that temperature would increase outgoing radiation, and the atmosphere would cool down. Anything which reduced that temperature would have the opposite effect." You are missing several factors here Fred. As GH Gas levels increase, then the altitude at which emitted photons have a clear path out to Space increases. With altitude Temperature decreases so the emission temperature decreases so less radiated because the altitude of radiation increases. To use a simple analogy, its like a Cloud Bank. At the bottom of the 'cloud' a photon can 'see' the ground so can reach it. At the top of the 'cloud' a photon can 'see' Space and can reach it. One of the two effects of increased GHGas levels is to increase the upper altitude of the 'cloud'. So when a photon can reach Space it will be emitted from air that is colder. There is an excellent article on the radiative physics of the GH Effect by Prof Ray PierreHumbert in Physics Today here http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf Have a look at his figure 3a, modelled and measured spctrum of radiation leaving the Earth. At around wavenumber 670, right in the highest absorption region for CO2, the amount of energy reaching space spikes up. Right in the middle of the highest absorption part of the CO2 band the emission temperature spikes back up! Why? Because the altitude at which the path to Space at that wavenumber is clear because of the high levels of absorption is SO high that it is above the altitude where lapse rate causes a temp drop with altitude and is high enough that atmospheric temps are climbing in the upper stratosphere. The models of radiative transfer are so accurate that they capture this altitude dependent temperature behaviour superbly. That graph is a thing of transcendent beauty. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:03 PM on 4 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Wow. Comment 945 and counting! Not to intrude too much on everyones fun, but a few questions for Fred: "From the source, surface, to the sink, atmosphere, most of the energy transfer is via conduction, convection and evaporation." Source please! Radiation transfer from an object at temerature x is determined only by its temperature, not other parallel heat transfer mechanisms. "and the simplistic “back-radiation” theories of AGW are wrong. ". Oops. Small problem here Fred. Back Radiation has been observed for decades and has been increasing in the radiation frequencies of the GH gases. Damn pesky thing observations aren't they. A beautiful theory derailed by a mere observation. "That is why we must use the net transfer of energy to the atmosphere, e 873, from the surface, and not the back transfer (the negative term in Stefan Bolzmann) to calculate any possible GHG effects" Wrong Fred. Yes the net of the two flows will be what determines (is) the actual energy flux. However this is made up of several different phenomena that occur because of different mechanisms. Radiation flux from the surface is driven solely by surface temperature. Absorption by the atmosphere depends of the absorption properties the GH gases alone. Back Radiation depends on the temperature of the lower atmosphere at an altitude where the path back to the surface is not 'optically thick'. Several phenomena coming together to create the GH Effect, rather than the GH Effect being caused by the net of the heat flux. -
CBDunkerson at 19:00 PM on 4 April 2011Soot and global warming
Thingadonta: "Why is the benchmark for T 'pre-industrial levels'..." We should determine the total change in temperatures caused by industrial carbon dioxide emissions from some point other than when those emissions started? Which, by the way, was around 1800... not 1700. On the whole, 'earlier temperature changes were caused by the Sun' bit... temperature forcings from solar fluctuations are obviously temporary. When the solar output changes the forcing 'goes away'. Thus, if solar forcing were currently equal to the 1800 level then none of the current cumulative temperature change would be due to the Sun. Since solar forcing is actually negative compared to the baseline that means the warming from greenhouse forcing is actually >greater< than the total warming observed thus far.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I suspect the 1700 startpoint is because of land use changes, which are as much industrial as agricultural (particularly iron smelting - for which coke was also used in the 18th century). -
Chris S at 18:51 PM on 4 April 2011Soot and global warming
Does anyone know why West Europe is not included in the figure? I think I've tracked down 'Bond et al. 2000' (poor referencing there) to "A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 109" but that does not break down the geographic units in the same way as the figure does (e.g. Europe is taken as a whole and North Americas is not split into the US & Canada as in the figure). -
lord_sidcup at 18:10 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Many congratulations John. Sounds like a very interesting read. -
RSVP at 17:56 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
A warmer Earth in any case will lead to less differences in climate, which means that there will be less, not more changes (once things have changed for better or for worse). -
shoyemore at 17:01 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Well done, John, and thanks for the discount offer! -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:13 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Congrats John, I'm sure you had no shortage of material to write about... -
thingadonta at 16:12 PM on 4 April 2011Soot and global warming
"....necessary to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C above preindustrial levels in the next 50 years" Why is the benchmark for T 'pre-industrial levels', when this time period (ie around 1700) was the amongst the coldest in the last 10,000 years?, ie the Little Ice Age? Shouldn't a T baseline be when c02 effects on T apparently became stronger?, such as from about 1950? Using 'pre industrial T' as a baseline might appeal to ideological conveniences (if one is anti-industry, anti-caplitalist, anti-fossil fuels, pro-socialist control, pro-alternative energy etc etc), but it is generally scientifitcally accepted that most of the warming from ~1700-1950 was caused by the sun, not by human industrial activities. Moreover, the T at 'pre industrial levels' could be argued to be not the most optimal for human and ecological health, (there is no real 'optimum' in any case); in terms of human health, optimum T is certainly a little warmer than Little Ice Age conditions, so neither such a temperature, nor climate period, should be used as a baseline for social objectives. -
OPatrick at 15:22 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Denial is a fact. What is causing it is a bit of a greay area, but maybe if I read some books on it I might have a better idea.... -
L.J. Ryan at 15:07 PM on 4 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR You said : However, you make the (false) assumption that this power level is a boundary condition on the surface. and T = [ P / ( ε * σ ) ]^0.25 K [ 240/(0.612 * 5.6704*10^-8 ]^0.25 - 273.15 = 15.2C from where does the P (240W/m^2) LW originate....the surface? This very flux is the sole source of LW...without the 240 W/m^2 of SW input the there will be no LW. So save changes to albedo or solar radiation, this IS a boundary condition for radiative energy. Said otherwise, because P input to the surface must equal P output at equilibrium...you can not get more LW flux out then SW flux in. Re-radiating Pout can not increase Pin. Delta T must be a function a non-radiative input. To claim effective LW emissivity of 0.612 is measured, is specious. How do measure “effective emissivity”? Emissivity with the qualifier effective, only aids in obfuscation. “Don't bother looking a the real mechanics of GHG physics, it can all be explained by effective emissivity" -
HumanityRules at 15:01 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Danno beat me to it! "This is most obvious in the denial industry ......" Do you contemplate the existence of a warmist industry????? Congrats as well. -
David Horton at 14:59 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Congratulations John. -
miekol at 14:45 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Climate change is a fact. What is causing it is a bit of a grey area. -
danno at 13:58 PM on 4 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
"Obviously you've created this site just so you can make money from selling books!!! CONSPIRACY!!!!" Congrats on the book John, I hope it's a success. -
scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 4 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
TTTM has quite some faith in CA I see. I wonder if he has read this and checked the CA version against the originals. -
michael sweet at 12:35 PM on 4 April 2011It's cooling
Eric, We can agree that Harp seals appearing in small numbers in the Northern USA are not an indication of global cooling. -
pbjamm at 12:13 PM on 4 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
TTTM@118 I recommend a website called Skeptical Science. it contains all the information you need to educate yourself on the subject of climate change. As for you accusation of censorship, complete nonsense. People here are allowed to present any evidence they like so long as it is on topic and not an accusation of fraud. Pick any thread you like as evidence of this. I recommend Meet the Denominator and The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics to see just how accommodating the Moderation Policy is if followed. If you continually run afoul of it then the problem lies with you.
Prev 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 Next
