Recent Comments

Prev  1798  1799  1800  1801  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  Next

Comments 90251 to 90300:

90251. muoncounter at 11:35 AM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       h pierce#6: "In science exp's one always avoids "weird ball" numbers." That's one possibility. Here's another: Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D. But maybe you have a good idea. For the immediate future, let's avoid weirdball numbers: Pi is now and forever set to 3. And so is e. Makes things much simpler.
90252. h pierce at 11:21 AM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       Mike at 2 They used 250 ppmv because it is a nice even number. They should have used 400 ppmv rather than 390 ppmv. In science exp's one always avoids "weird ball" numbers.
90253. Philippe Chantreau at 11:09 AM on 31 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       "What I have accomplished above was to show the truth-value attached to the proposition "one of the major effects of AGW is a cooling of the Stratosphere" is False." No that is not what you have accomplished. What you have accomplished was to, once again, show that you are so eager to find fault that you will find it even where it does not exist and that you are so happy to find it that you can not even bother to verify whether or not the fault is real. You have shown that pattern consistently since the broad accusation of fraud on the coral and acidification thread. By the way, you never revisited that thread in the way you said you would. Same old pseudo-skeptic attitude.
90254. climatewolf at 10:59 AM on 31 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Hi again dana1981, Again I would like to point out that I agree on the inflation of the importance of this particular graph, but whether we like it or not, this was a published set of data produced by those to whom we look for accurate information. To answer your question I shall try again to illustrate what I am talking about. A temperature recontruction from proxy data has a start and end point in time. A valid method of verifying such a proxy is to compare where possible against instrumental results. When comparing the Briffa reconstruction to instrumental records, it deviated in the period 1961 onwards from the observed data and so this data was determined by those compiling the graphic and paper as invalid from 1961 onwards. "Mike's trick" is as shown in the OP a graphical tool whereby you ovelay and/or splice instrumental temperature readings onto a proxy. The basic idea is that if your proxy follows the instrumental data for a period then it adds weight to your proxy reconstruction. In producing the data and graph, Jones et al used the graphing process known as "Mikes trick" to splice the instrumental data to 2 of the reconstructions from the year 1981, and to the Briffa reconstruction from 1961. This was done in the case of the Briffa reconstruction to "hide the decline" Now I have no issue with the word "trick", I totally accept that this is a term that does not imply any malfeasance but merely refers to a data/graphing technique. The "Hide the decline" I can accept as merely a bad choice of wording on the part of Jones and whilst it has been called into question, I am not going to join the lynch mob in putting too much emphasis on these words. So, regardless of bias, which I have already addressed, it is clearly obvious from the Jones mail, that the Briffa data was removed from the graph for the period 1961 onwards and replaced by the instrumental record. So based on this my issue with your points is; "1) "That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline"." Those weren't the words in the email. He didn't just get the words wrong, he repeated the misrepresentation and claimed it was a direct quote." Whilst he paraphrased the email, Muller did not change the underlying facts, which was using the technique of adding/splicing measured temperature to the later part of graphs showing reconstructed data "2) "Mike's trick consisted of erasing that data, calling it unreliable, and then substituting the temperature data from thereon." "Mike's trick" does not involve erasing any data, calling any data unreliable, or substituting the instrumental temperature record. It merely involves plotting the instrumental record along with the proxy record." The way in which Mann used this technique as I have said before has not been questioned in Mullers presentation. The fact that Jones et al used the same technique but DID remove data, i.e the Briffa results from 1961 onwards is fact. So the article and graph in question did in fact remove data from the Briffa reconstruction from 1961 onwards. Hence, Muller whilst biased does not actually say anything that is factually inacurate. I hope this explains the point I am making Regards Wolf
90255. NewYorkJ at 10:28 AM on 31 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       "It is entirely fair to say that Muller has presented his facts with a slant/bias, however he is still presenting facts." When facts are distorted, they are no longer facts. Isn't it revealing that everyone who has suggested some misconduct from the "hide the decline" email has biased the facts in some way, while refusing to present an intellectual and complete discussion of the modern tree ring divergence issue?
90256. e at 09:57 AM on 31 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       BP> Unfortunately it is a question that mainstream climate science, trapped by the old CO2 paradigm, failed to address so far. False. Your claim is 5 years too late. The step-wise nature of the cooling was discussed in Ramaswamy 2006 et al. among others. From the abstract: "Observations reveal that the substantial cooling of the global lower stratosphere over 1979–2003 occurred in two pronounced steplike transitions. These arose in the aftermath of two major volcanic eruptions, with each cooling transition being followed by a period of relatively steady temperatures. Climate model simulations indicate that the space-time structure of the observed cooling is largely attributable to the combined effect of changes in both anthropogenic factors (ozone depletion and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases) and natural factors (solar irradiance variation and volcanic aerosols). The anthropogenic factors drove the overall cooling during the period, and the natural ones modulated the evolution of the cooling."
90257. Philippe Chantreau at 09:50 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel if you keep digging at that rate, you will soon find yourself in molten iron. Wein's law says nothing like what you imply. It says what is the most likely frequency of photons emitted by a source according to the temperature of that source, provided it is a blackbody. If there are several sources emitting at the same time with overlapping spectra, all it tells you is how likely it is that one frequency originated with a source rather than another. If I'm in a room with some light coming from outside (i.e. from the sun) where a light bulb is on, Wein's law can not allow me to determine what was the source of a given photon. Only the relative probability. To go back to the origin of this discussion, it must be made clear that a photon coming from the sun at a given frequency and one coming fron the light bulb at the same frequency will have the same energy. Exactly the same. You previously argued that it was not the case. Wein's law does not allow you to defend that either. Photons do not carry ID cards, no matter how badly your confused mind wants it. The energy of a photon depends only on its frequency. There is no way to tell where an individual photon originated only by examining its frequency. You could say where it could not have originated, that's all. I must say that throwing the photoelectric effect in the mix was yet one of your funniest moves in that strange display of yours.
90258. RW1 at 09:49 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel, "What % of the heat tranferred to the atmosphere from the ground by radiation:- 14%?......40%?.......90%?" "That is the question I asked you. But I will accept evaporation and convection as 'kinetic'." I'm not sure what you're getting at here or why this matters, but I'll give it a stab. If over 90% of the thermal mass of the planet is in the oceans and about 5% is in the land mass, that leaves maybe a percent or two in the atmosphere? Are you looking for an actual number? Again though, all the kinetic energy flows from the surface to the atmosphere and back to the surface, relative to the radiative budget, are zero. They have to be because all the energy leaving at the top of the atmosphere is radiative. Also, I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm not sure I understand you're fundamental objection here. I don't see how the greenhouse effect violates the second law because it's not about energy going from cold to hot in conduction process. Are you claiming that a photon cannot travel from the colder atmosphere toward the warmer surface?
90259. Sean A at 09:41 AM on 31 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       dana1981, you have misunderstood my position. I'm not pro-nuclear, I'm for realistic energy plans that work. That means lots of renewables, plus at least some nuclear. I'm not one of those nuclear advocates who think renewables are worthless. I never thought I would ever become an advocate for nuclear power at all. But it is doubtful that we can reach a zero-carbon goal without a significant investment in nuclear technology. I'm skeptical of any plans that try to rationalize a way to achieve this goal without any nuclear. And next generation reactor designs are actually pretty good, reducing the waste problem and addressing safety/proliferation issues. Also, I see energy abundance as a boon for sustainable development that protects the biosphere and biodiversity.
90260. grayman at 09:29 AM on 31 March 2011
       Was Greenland really green in the past?
       Rob I will check it out and get back to you.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Have a look at CCNY's cryocity.org Greenland 2010 report as well.
90261. ranyl at 09:28 AM on 31 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       "I suggest that by mid-April the sea ice will be in a similar condition to that of late August 2010. In plain terms, the 2011 melt season will soon continue more or less where the 2010 melt season left off." Does this mean that the in April 2011 the volume of sea ice will be the same as in late Aug. 2010? Because I can't see how it means that the arctic melt is a month ahead as suggested by D. Bailey, however for "By April 30th, ice extent graphs will show a strong downward trend similar to that of May - June 2010." that seems to be the case. Lawrence, D.M., A.G. Slater, R.A. Tomas, M.M. Holland, and C. Deser, 2008: Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11506, doi:10.1029/2008GL033985. This article is suggestive that losing the summer sea ice will accelerate arctic region, extending 1000 mile south, by 3.5X, and that model didn't include the more recent data on the increased stength of the albedo effect reported by Flanner et al, Nat. Geo, vol 4, 151-155, 16 Jan 2011, "we conclude that the albedo feedback from the northern Hemisphere cryosphere falls between 0.3-1.1 w.m2.k, substantially larger than comparible estimates obtained from 18 climate models." Also considering the already changing weather patterns (Arctic Dipole) that effect the whole NH, what is next is going to be interesting. This rate of arctic sea ice loss, is well ahead of any computer predictions, what is the next 0.7C of global temperature rise going to bring? Oil speculation in the arcitc? A massive arctic wind farm to cool the arcitc? Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms C. Wang and R. G. Prinn Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2053–2061, 2010 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Flanner's work was discussed here.
90262. Rob Honeycutt at 09:15 AM on 31 March 2011
       Was Greenland really green in the past?
       Continuing the conversation from here. Grayman... Your comments about it being warmer in the past based on Greenland once being green are inaccurate. Please look at the website of Dr Jason Box and you can see what the modern temperature record is for Greenland. I would also highly suggest you read two papers on Greenland: Miller 2010... Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic Alley 2010... History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights I think you'll find the issue is vastly more complex that Vikings living in Greenland.
90263. Berényi Péter at 09:08 AM on 31 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       
       Re: Moderator Response: [DB] You identify a number of different topics which are best discussed elsewhere (like volcanoes, for example). If you wish to pursue them, do them elsewhere.
       I'd happily do that as soon as statements cloaked as an imperative from the article above like "And recall(!) that one of the major effects of AGW is a cooling of the Stratosphere" are also moved elsewhere. Until it's done, it remains perfectly appropriate to discuss the issue under this heading. What I have accomplished above was to show the truth-value attached to the proposition "one of the major effects of AGW is a cooling of the Stratosphere" is False. If the overall downward trend in the 32 year record of MSU/AMSU ch. 4 (TLS) is due to two step-like drops associated with well known volcanic events, as it is the case, and these eruptions were not anthropogenic ones, then one can not say the trend demonstrates "one of the major effects of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)". Or can, but in that case you can't expect anyone to take it seriously.
90264. Rob Honeycutt at 09:00 AM on 31 March 2011
       Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
       grayman... If you're interested in discussing that particular subject (it being warmer in the past) we can post on the appropriate thread here.
90265. Stu at 08:54 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel, you seem insistent that the following 'fact' is of great import: - the energy of a photon can tell you the 'temperature' of the particle that emitted it Firstly, a single particle doesn't have a temperature, which is a statistical measure. It has an energy. This seems to have been explained to you before. However we are discussing gases, liquids and solids that, as has been explained, emit photons with a range of energies. These spectra are clearly the applicable measures when discussing radiative energy transfer. Next, from what people have said, it seems you believe that a photon emitted by a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. Is this an accurate description of your stance?
90266. KR at 08:53 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - "I asked you to define 'an object'." I cannot find such a request from you. But I'll answer it now that you have asked. I am speaking of relevant objects to the radiative greenhouse effect - the surface of the Earth, and the atmosphere. Both are large, ensemble objects, containing temperatures defined by thermal distributions, with thermal emission and absorption spectra defined by their component molecules. You cannot determine the temperature of such an object from a single photon. Single photons have a single energy, a single wavelength. Absorption likelyhood, the real question at hand, is based upon absorption spectra and individual photon energies. So I will ask again: Are you asserting that the possibility of absorption of a photon is not a function of that photon's energy and the potentially absorbing object's absorptivity spectra? DSL - rotfl.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Oddly enough, damorbel used to agree:

       We are all familiar with the Planck spectrum, the amplitude of which is a function of the temperature, But taking one photon (with energy a function of frequency), or even one spectral component, does not represent the entire spectrum thus the temperature is not defined. Although a single photon has energy it does not have a temperature.

       See comment#70, this very thread.

       One could only describe this behavior as 'doublethink.'

90267. Paul D at 08:45 AM on 31 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Another new development, water 'battery': http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110329134254.htm I have lost track of all these new ideas or improved ideas. I should keep a list! IMO if all these technologies were used wisely (a big ask for humans) we would have plenty of diverse sources and no real need for fossil fuels and a minor use of nuclear (until fusion is cracked).
90268. DSL at 08:44 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       When the fish is in the boat, it may tend to flop and wiggle violently, desperate to once again command the murky, muddy waters in which it has evolved to thrive.
90269. damorbel at 08:42 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #904 KR you wrote:- "I asked about a photon and "...the temperature of the object that emitted it...". You replied regarding an individual particle, not an object temperature, strawman." I asked you to define 'an object'. Until you do, I don't know what you are talking about. So pleeaaase - do it now! For example you wrote:- "as there are multiple possible emitting down-transitions in electron orbitals for an excited molecule; it doesn't have to drop to ground state." Yes and these transitions can be (almost) anywhere in the EM spectrum where many other kinds of interactions can take place; but please let us stick to thermal matters, i.e. interactions that affect temperature.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Pedantic requests, such as the definition of 'an object,' are exactly what have put this thread at over 900 comments, many mere attempt at distraction. If you have difficulty with definitions of everyday language, how can your definitions of scientific terminology be taken seriously?
90270. KR at 08:38 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       I referred to the Statistical Mode, not emitting, molecular, orbital, or other modes. Mistaking statistical mode for mean (average), or vice versa, is a common error. The rest of your post is rather irrelevant to the discussion.
90271. damorbel at 08:32 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #898 KR you wrote:- "Actually, the peak of the curve is the mode, not the average; the two are not identical unless the distribution is symmetric. That's a fairly common error. " This is a better explanation of mode The relation of temperature to the peak is, once more, a critical one in quantum theory.
90272. KR at 08:31 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - You have completely misread my question; I have to wonder if it's deliberate. You have two complete strawman arguments misstating what I asked. I asked about a photon and "...the temperature of the object that emitted it...". You replied regarding an individual particle, not an object temperature, strawman. An individual photon does not give the temperature of an emitting object. It doesn't even give the temperature of a single molecule, as there are multiple possible emitting down-transitions in electron orbitals for an excited molecule; it doesn't have to drop to ground state. Your answer is incorrect! "Does this mean that photon interactions do not need to be quantised?" - All photon interactions are quantum interactions, I never stated otherwise, strawman. The issue is whether photons emitted by a cooler object can be absorbed by a warmer object (ensemble temperatures), namely the atmosphere and the surface. Since an individual photon does not indicate it's emitting objects temperature, it's absorption depends only upon the absorptivity of the warmer object (determined by quantum interactions, which are off-topic) and the individual photon energies. You are really reaching here.
90273. Phil at 08:29 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Darmorbel @901 "damorbel - Are you asserting that an individual photon (with a particular energy) can be used to identify the temperature of the object that emitted it, thus affecting it's absorption? " Yes I am, that is the basis of all quantum interactions. This is incorrect. A molecule of CO₂ (for example) has 4 (one doubly degenerate) vibrational modes. These occur at 2565 cm^-1 1480 cm^-1 and 526 cm^-1 If a molecule is in the 1st level excited bend state it can emit a photon at 526 cm^-1 But this reveals nothing about how many molecules are in excited states in the other vibrations or rotational excited states or the translational energy that the molecules have.
90274. grayman at 08:24 AM on 31 March 2011
       Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
       Moderator, thank you for the reply. I understand your concern for more questions and comments to it leading the to really being off topic, i was not trying for that just for the lead in and when i reread before submitting it looked good to me. I like the moderation stlye so far, good job and i will try to stick to adding citations , thanks again Rob, wrong, no but that is another topic for another day. I do try to look at all the evidence i can, and as any scientist or layman, with good common sense can attest to science can somtimes make things more complicated than they need to be. Engineers and designers are good about that. Moderator my apologies again.
90275. Phil at 08:19 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       darmorbel @897 Wein's displacement law, and the spectrum you allude to apply only to black bodies. Gases (such as CO₂ and H₂O) are not black bodies. The photons they emit will correspond to some of the frequencies of a black body, but their distribution of intensities will not. It is therefore not appropriate to talk of "temperatures" of photons. The energy of a photon is only related to the quantum states involved in the decay when that photon is emitted. Black bodies are "black" because they have a wide range of quantum states, merging into a continuous band. Otherwise they wouldn't be "black".
90276. damorbel at 08:17 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #894 KR you wrote:- "damorbel - Are you asserting that an individual photon (with a particular energy) can be used to identify the temperature of the object that emitted it, thus affecting it's absorption? " Yes I am, that is the basis of all quantum interactions. Since 'an object' can be an individual particle, I don't see the diffiiculty. Further you wrote:- "Or that the possibility of absorption is not a function of photon energy and absorption spectra? If so, you are sadly mistaken." Does this mean that photon interactions do not need to be quantised? Well I don't accept that photon interactions can occur in a non quantised way; throughout the whole electromagnetic spectrum photon interactions with massive particles are always quantised; both on the macroscopic level (many particles described statistically) and at the individual particle level. NB Photons do not interaction with each other.
90277. KR at 08:16 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Phil - "...the "back radiation" is emitted from molecules that have previously absorbed surface IR radiation (which must of the same frequency)." Actually, Phil, that's not correct. By my estimates each absorbing molecule at sea level collides with an absolute minimum of 1000 other molecules before it has a chance to emit, each modifying it's internal energy. (10^9 collisions per second, 10^-6 seconds minimum before emission) Emission spectra of the atmosphere depends on the temperature and makeup of the emitting gas - the varied energy level drops resulting in EM emission reflect the varied energies of the emitting molecules and their possible transitions through a radiating level. On average the photons from the surface will be of higher energy (shorter wavelength) than those from the air. But that's irrelevant to the fact that photons from the air are indeed absorbed by the surface, and that this absorption (by the 1st law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy) affects and slows the total, net energy transfer to the atmosphere and hence to space.
90278. Rob Honeycutt at 08:11 AM on 31 March 2011
       Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
       grayman... Note that I believe your comment was crossed out as much for being off topic as it was for being wrong. I highly suggest you take more time to read up on the science before applying common sense. Our human instincts can sometimes lead us astray when it comes to scientific issues. And this issue (climate change) has many whom wish to divert our eyes from the preponderance of evidence at hand. Read carefully. Be skeptical. Look at all the evidence before you decide.
90279. Phil at 08:07 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       darmorbel @895 We have been here before, the energy of a photon is available for electromagnetic particle interactions which are governed by quantum laws just the same, so it doesn't matter if the particle energy is defined in electronvolts or temperature, my use of the word 'temperature' to define the energy of a photon is common and justifiable. (In single particle interactions as in high energy physics individual particle energy is frequently just given in Joules. So you agree that photons have an energy, which is related to their frequency, and you agree that the "back radiation" is emitted from molecules that have previously absorbed surface IR radiation (which must of the same frequency). So you agree that your previous notion of surface IR radiation of having "warmer photons than the back radiation" is wrong !
90280. KR at 08:07 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - "The diagram on this page Wien's displacement law (top right) has a temperature for each peak of the Planck curve - that is the temperature associated with the average energy of the photons. " Actually, the peak of the curve is the mode, not the average; the two are not identical unless the distribution is symmetric. That's a fairly common error. However, both mode and average are statistical values. You have now contradicted yourself; individual photons do not convey the temperature of the emitting object, as that requires a statistical ensemble.
90281. grayman at 07:59 AM on 31 March 2011
       Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
       Hey back Dana, I will read the post you recommend but first to the moderator, that section you crossed out was not a question or being off topic for the thread, just a lead in to the comment below it. Thank you for putting it in paragraph form, i will try to be more mindful of that in the future.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] First and foremost, as a first-time poster here we all definitely want you to feel at home here. And Dana's post does indeed touch upon a variety of topics. The part struck-out, in and of itself, is contrary to the current understanding of things (without a source citation for others to follow). I didn't then want other commenters here to follow those bits up with further questions that might then detract from the topic of this thread. That was my point.

       Feel free to disagree with the thread posts, but please use source citations and/or links to help others understand the substance behind why you're disagreeing. Tips on composing comments can be found here.

90282. damorbel at 07:58 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #893 Phil you wrote:- " 3. The temperature of the black body can be calculated using the frequency of the most common (or more intense) photons. This is notated as υmax indicating the frequency at which there is maximum intensity. 4. The photons of this frequency do not have this, or any other, temperature." The diagram on this page Wien's displacement law (top right) has a temperature for each peak of the Planck curve - that is the temperature associated with the average energy of the photons.
90283. KR at 07:57 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - I am quite frankly appalled by your last post - I suspect I am not alone. The photoelectric effect (and in fact your entire post on it here) is a complete red herring, irrelevant to absorption of thermal energies. QED is the basis of absorption spectra determination, but that's a different question - also irrelevant. You are misusing "temperature" - particles have energies and velocities, photons have energies, an ensemble of particles have temperature, an ensemble of photons have spectra, the last of which can (with some idea of the emitting object spectra) be used to identify emitting object temperature. Your personal re-definition and misuse of a term is not in any way a compelling argument against thermodynamics. Do you have any answer to the two questions I posed at the end of my last post? The ones actually relevant to energy exchanges between cooler and warmer objects (atmosphere and surface)? Questions on the actual subject of this thread?
90284. Albatross at 07:50 AM on 31 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Scaddenp @48, Well, they actually started off claiming that the loss was not evening happening and that is was "recovering". But as for the rest of your post....right you are.
90285. damorbel at 07:41 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #891 KR you wrote:- "Absorption does not require photoelectric emission of an electron; that's a completely different question - Herring." That was the point of departure for quantum physics in 1905, something I made quite clear. But it is now generally accepted that all electromagnetic interactions take place in the domain covered by quantum physics - it is called quantum electrodynamics (QED) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics But you are making much of the statistical distribution of energies in a given sample of particles with a given temperature. To start with, to have a defined temperature the particles must be in equilibrium, the average energy must be steady. In this condition the average energy is the total energy of all particles in the sample divided by the number of particles in the sample. But there is no need to have a certain number of particles to make a sample, so one particle with the same energy as the average energy of all the particles also has the same temperature as the whole sample. you wrote:- "Individual photons have energies, not temperatures - False statement" We have been here before, the energy of a photon is available for electromagnetic particle interactions which are governed by quantum laws just the same, so it doesn't matter if the particle energy is defined in electronvolts or temperature, my use of the word 'temperature' to define the energy of a photon is common and justifiable. (In single particle interactions as in high energy physics individual particle energy is frequently just given in Joules. You wrote "Estimates of object thermal emission temperatures require a spectra (statistical knowledge) and some idea of the emission spectra. An individual photon is incapable of supplying sufficient information - Incorrect statement and herring" What do you mean by 'object'? (First line above.) Is a particle not an 'object'?
90286. scaddenp at 07:36 AM on 31 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Actaully as Arctic situation gets worse (as predicted by climate theory), it becomes a priority for denialists to find reasons for trivializing it. So far we have "its not nothing to do with global warming" (with side dose of "its a natural cycle"), "it not important (only a small area)", a lame attempt at "but its happened before recently". I am guessing we will soon get "it good for us - opens up oil/gas reserves and new areas of arable land". Any other bets?
90287. KR at 07:32 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - "one particle with the same energy as the average energy of all the particles also has the same temperature as the whole sample. " (Emphasis added) Flatly wrong. That photon (the subject of the discussion) will have the average energy of the whole sample. Any individual photon can come from anywhere in the emission spectra of the object (high to low), and from any individual photon there is no fixed determination of temperature. damorbel - Are you asserting that an individual photon (with a particular energy) can be used to identify the temperature of the object that emitted it, thus affecting it's absorption? Or that the possibility of absorption is not a function of photon energy and absorption spectra? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Boltzmann thermal distributions are off-topic distractions. Energy transfer from cooler to warmer objects is the issue raised in this thread.
90288. Albatross at 07:30 AM on 31 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       John @45, "Almost always, just those few words brings greater illumination than days of numerous minds shining light on things irrelevant." I might regret asking this, what do you believe to be "irrelevant", and why? Please provide some science and citations to back-up your assertions/belief, otherwise you are just pontificating.
90289. dhogaza at 07:27 AM on 31 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       

       over the years I have often, as I'm sure you have done so as well, call for all to pause and get back to basics in order to regain perspective, just as your brief observation so ably demonstrates.

       Here's a basic: the arctic plays a large role in the weather of the NH. Just look at last winter ...
90290. dana1981 at 07:26 AM on 31 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       And Wolf, if you still disagree, I would ask you to explain how the statements I outlined in my Comment #87 aren't factually wrong.
90291. scaddenp at 07:25 AM on 31 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       When thinking about arctic seaice as indicator, perhaps we should also consider this: When was the last time there was a ice-free summer at the pole (and I dont mean polynas)? Melting in Greenland is actually more important but arctic ice gets a lot of attention because of what the models predict (they underestimate loss) and the view that it is the "canary in the coal mine".
90292. dana1981 at 07:24 AM on 31 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Wolf #91:

       "Nothing in Mullers statements is factually innacurate, just biased."

       Sorry, I can't agree. I refer you back again to Comment #87, in which I showed two indisputably factually inaccurate statements. They are both wrong. Period. As I've said, I agree Muller has a valid point about the WMO graph. As I've also said, I don't really care, and don't see why Muller cares, because it was a cover on an obscure report that basically nobody even knew about or saw until the emails were stolen in '09. Frankly, the only reason Muller cares is because of the errors he's making. He's inflating the importance of the obscure report cover.
90293. Phil at 07:24 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Wein's displacement Law: 1. A black body emits photons at range of frequencies. 2. The number of photons emitted (otherwise known as the intensity) at any particular frequency will vary. The plot of the intensity versus the frequency is the "black body spectrum" 3. The temperature of the black body can be calculated using the frequency of the most common (or more intense) photons. This is notated as υ_max indicating the frequency at which there is maximum intensity. 4. The photons of this frequency do not have this, or any other, temperature.
90294. damorbel at 07:21 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #889 KR you wrote:- "Any argument that photons from a cool object will not add to the internal energy of a warmer object they impinge upon due to their origin are specious; there is no such information encoded in the energy of an individual photon" But you are making much of the statistical distribution of energies in a given sample of particles with a given temperature. To start with, to have a defined temperature the particles must be in equilibrium, the average energy must be steady. In this condition the average energy is the total energy of all particles in the sample divided by the number of particles in the sample. But there is no need to have a certain number of particles to make a sample, so one particle with the same energy as the average energy of all the particles also has the same temperature as the whole sample.
90295. KR at 07:21 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - Quite a kettle of fish in that post, which is to say red herrings. I note that by comparing it to facts: Absorption does not require photoelectric emission of an electron; that's a completely different question - Herring. Individual photons have energies, not temperatures - False statement. Estimates of object thermal emission temperatures require a spectra (statistical knowledge) and some idea of the emission spectra. An individual photon is incapable of supplying sufficient information - Incorrect statement and herring. "...absorbing takes place at the particle level. Further, to be absorbed a photon has to encounter the absorbing particle in the correct phase etc." - Herring. My statement in this post regarding absorption points out that if the absorption spectra of an object has a value of 0.8 for 6 micron photons, it has an 80% chance of absorbing any 6 micron photon, no matter the origin. - Your post is flatly, completely, wrong.
90296. dana1981 at 07:15 AM on 31 March 2011
       Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
       hi grayman, and thanks. Please see Greenland used to be green. I agree with you on the EPA, they've done a good job.
90297. scaddenp at 07:15 AM on 31 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       gilles - indeed. Half the known coal reserves. Actually I think the about of CO2 in atmosphere is still dangerous with half the coal burn of A12 scenario.
90298. damorbel at 07:07 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #887 (& 849) you wrote:- "identifying the temperature of an emitting object requires a statistical analysis of a spectra of photons" Temperature is the property of an individual particle since it is the measure of the energy in that individual particle. I have mentioned this before and nothing about statistics is necessary to establish this. What you are thinking of is the temperature of an ensemble of many particles that are interacting strongly with each other (in equilibrium) so that the particles have a distribution of energies, the distribution is called the Boltzmann distribution. Your #849 directly contradicts the basis of quantum theory. You write:- "An object, at 20C, has an 80% absorptivity for 6 micron photons" For a start - absorbing takes place at the particle level. Further, to be absorbed a photon has to encounter the absorbing particle in the correct phase etc. But, according to quantum laws, the photon cannot be absorbed at all unless it has sufficient energy E (E=hv, 'h' is Planck's constant and 'v' is the characteristic frequency) This was the basis of Einstein's 1905 paper on the Photo-electric effect It is an experimentally observed fact that photons must have sufficient energy i.e. a sufficiently high equivalent temperature (discovered from the Wien displacement law) before they can be absorbed and cause an electron to be emitted. This applies in all areas of physics and chemistry, ozone is formed when O2 is split into 2 x O atoms, with light; but this only happens with ultraviolet light (UV) shorter than 0.2microns
90299. KR at 07:02 AM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       To fill out my last post: Any argument that photons from a cool object will not add to the internal energy of a warmer object they impinge upon due to their origin are specious; there is no such information encoded in the energy of an individual photon, absorption is based solely upon that energy and the absorption spectra of the impinged object. Hence any such "2d law" energy transfer objections are clearly wrong, and based upon a misunderstanding of the physics involved.
90300. grayman at 07:00 AM on 31 March 2011
       Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
       Hi Dana, congradulations on you 50th article and you will have many more to come. As we do not agree on the causes of the warming, i will not get into that, but the economics of mitigation IMO will be greater than most estimates from any person on the planet. Knowing that most parts of the world were warmer than today as evidenced by Greenland glacier melting and finding viking settlements there and glacial retreat in Swiss mountains and finding whole villages that were swallowed by the glacier is very compelling evidence to me in that respect. (off-topic) Adaption will be easier than anybody can really understand. The biggest cost to any of it will be moving the millions of people away from the coasts of the continents with sea level rise, which even with a 3c rise in temps would take many 100s of years if not 1000 years. Rob, how are you? I agree that the chinese are starting to do what they can about the working conditions of the people but IMO thier biggest problem is the pollution that they are creating just like us and Europe in the past 100 to 2oo yrs. The USA came up with the EPA to combat this problem and they have done a very good job of cleaning up the smokestacks and enviroment of this land and we all know we have just strached the surface in that repect, Right Dana. Personally i see a revolt in the future, all over the world just like the middle east because of the same things they have, ie, corruption, no employment, more corruption, more have nots than haves. Carbon pricing or trading will put untold billions or trillions in the bankers pockets with no real impact on the climate IMO. We can study it till we are blue in the face, but face, greed is a human condition that can not be stopped much less legeslated out of the globe. I am know scientist as Dana and Rob know just a man with good common sense who has travelled the world and seen all this thru out the world. Again congrats on the 50th article Dana, look forward to more.
       Moderator Response:

       Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

       I also recommend watching this video on why CO₂ is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

       Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

       Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

       Some of your comment is off-topic on this thread; you can find other threads here at Skeptical Science to better discuss them there (Search thingy).

Prev  1798  1799  1800  1801  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  Next