Recent Comments

Prev  1799  1800  1801  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  Next

Comments 90301 to 90350:

90301. muoncounter at 02:39 AM on 3 April 2011
       It's cooling
       Anyone in need of a laugh must read this CP analysis of the latest wackiness in Watt$ land: Seals predict cooling! Canadian Harp Seals may have “read” the predictions of the coming decades of stabilization of global temperatures and perhaps some cooling. Animals like the Harp Seal have experienced many millions of years of climatic change and, through the complex processes of evolution and natural selection, may have developed an ability to sense coming changes.
90302. CBDunkerson at 02:32 AM on 3 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       TimTheToolMan, you do realize that the practical difference between the 'infuriating', 'ignorant', and 'untrue' explanation and your own is effectively nil, right? Take out the smoothing and you know what the results show? Exactly the same thing, just with more bumpiness on the curve. The current rate of warming is still greater than anything found in the proxy records. Temperatures now are still the warmest in the studied period. Every conclusion of MBH98 and MBH99 is still just as valid... as should be obvious given the numerous studies since then (even 'skeptic' studies) which have validated it. The difference between this and 'making a mountain out of a mole hill' is that the mole hill actually has some elevation to it.
90303. muoncounter at 02:30 AM on 3 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles#149: "We begin the era of struggle for exhausting resources - meaning in reality the end of economic growth" So the real Gilles has finally emerged: Civilization to collapse, apocalypse on the horizon. Why then are you not fully committed to this or some other fully renewable scenario, as the last gasp of a civilization in peril? Could it be that it's simply easier to be a nay-sayer, shouting 'non!' at every opportunity? Could it be that doing the work necessary to offer something constructive is not Gilles' cup of cafe-au-lait?
90304. KR at 02:20 AM on 3 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       L.J. Ryan - Fascinating post, you've obviously put a lot of work into it. It is, unfortunately, completely incorrect. Tom Curtis has shown that far more rigorously than I could. As les noted, you have an embedded link to a Professor Jin-Yi Yu's lecture on the greenhouse effect. It's a nice presentation - I suggest you actually read it, and it's conclusions, rather than mining it for equations.
90305. Tom Curtis at 02:06 AM on 3 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJRyan @924: 1) The emissivity/absorptivity of a body varies with wave length. Therefore there is no absolute emissivity, only emissivity/absorptivity relative to a certain range of frequencies of emissions/absorptions. Hence we have: (Eq 1a') reflectivity(sw) = earth's albedo(sw) = 0.3 Eq 1a") 1 - reflectivity(sw) = emissivity(sw) = 0.7 (Eq 1b') reflectivity(lw) = earth's albedo(lw) = 0.02 (Eq 1b") 1 - reflectivity(lw) = emissivity(lw) = 0.98 Where (sw) indicates the range of wavelengths at which the Sun's radiation is most intense, and (lw) indicates the ranges of wavelengths at which the Earth's thermal radiation is most intense, and where equation (1a'and ") consider the whole Earth system, while equations (1b'and ") consider only the surface of the Earth, and do not include the effects of the atmosphere. 2) (Eq 2) is ok as it stands, provided it is indexed for wavelengths as in equation 1. 3) Equation 3 is false in that you interpret σTe^4 as dealing with the Earth's surface only, while S/4*(1-A) definitely deals with the total incoming radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Consequently, equation 3 should read: (Eq 3) σTe^4 = S/4*(1-A) where Te is the effective temperature of the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere, S is the total incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmoshere and A is the Earth's Albedo. Because equation 3 is valid only for the TOA, it places no limit on surface temperature of the Earth by itself, and no limit on the maximum energy radiated by the surface per second. 4) Equation 4 is false. The maximum black body absorption at the TOA is S/4, ie, the case where the Earth's albedo is zero. In this case, it is approximately 340 w/m^2. 5) Equation 5 is false. You had already applied the shortwave emissivity by compensating for Earth's albedo. There is no need, and it is contradictory to apply a second and different emissivity value. 6) Adjusting for errors to date, equation 6 is true. Stated correctly it is that the maximum out going radiation from the Earth at the top of the atmosphere, averaged over time, is S/4 or approx 340 w/m^2. Note, this is a TOA equality, not a surface equality, so as yet it tells us nothing about the Earth's surface temperature. 7) Equation seven and comments are irrelevant because of the preceding errors. We are not screaming about forcings. We are wondering why you can't even get the simple things right. I will not comment further at this time because: a) You have not established the appropriate groundwork, and are instead working on a host of demonstrably false assumptions. b) Your tables which carry your argument have unclear symbols, and are derived by an unexplained method. In other words, they are simply bare assertions.
90306. Bob Lacatena at 02:03 AM on 3 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       68, Ken Lambert, Number silliness. Confuse people with "ooh, that's no so much" analogies. Nice try. First, Arctic ice extent is down from the 1978-2000 average by 40%. That's 6.5 million kilometers. In addition, even within the area that still has 15%+ ice, the ice is clearly not evenly distributed over the extent. There will be more ice at higher latitudes, where the angle of incidence of the sunlight is less direct. The areas which receive more direct sunlight will have much less ice, even if they are part of the minimum extent, and so the area we are considering is even greater than 6.5 million kilometers. You also talk about only 3 months of solar radiation with low or negligible albedo. This is wrong. First, the Arctic day at that time of year is 24 hours long, so every day is like two equatorial days (or 3 temperate days, to put things in perspective for the casual readers who tend to live in temperate climates), so 3 months are more like 6 to 9. Similarly, the area did have a low albedo when it was covered with ice. The albedo of water is very dependent on the angle of incidence. Since at that time of year the angle of incidence is great than that at the tropics (66˚ at peak), it is like a non-stop tropical sun. The albedo of snow/ice is 0.9. The albedo of water at an angle of incidence 40˚ or higher is 0.1. Far from negligible, it is quite the opposite. Open water at that angle absorbs almost everything the sun can beam down. 24 hours a day. Over an area greater than 6.5 million kilometers (versus what used to happen, before global warming kicked in). With almost nothing reflected back. And it's getting worse! The day will soon come when that 6.5 million km² area is even larger. As far as Antarctica being "the big knob," that's silly. Antarctica is a continent, covered with mountains, so the surface is at altitude and always well below freezing. No melting on the continent itself is remotely possible. No matter how much the earth warms, the area of ice over Antarctica will not change. The "big knob" there can't be turned, so it's not a knob at all. Stop distracting and confusing people with gibberish.
90307. L.J. Ryan at 02:03 AM on 3 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Riccardo 927 you said: "that's just your interpretation" Be a bit more specific please. What is "that"?
90308. Gilles at 02:03 AM on 3 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       bug : next muoncounter's post has been posted before this one actually ...
90309. Gilles at 02:01 AM on 3 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       152 : end of economic growth doesn't mean sudden collapse of civilization - it just means that growth scenario of FF consumption and GDP such as described by the SRES are unrealistic. So if you really think that CO2 is the worst problem of the future, it should be acknowledged as a benediction. My opinion is however is that it will be very difficult to avoid an overall world recession, and that basically the current "developing" countries will never succeed in reaching the standard western level. This opinion is not a computer scenario for 2030 , 2050 , or 2100. It is just the observation of the real state of the world - all commodities climbing to the sky, the debts climbing accordingly, the only regulation being through recessions. I'm not saying "non" to opportunities - I'm very glad if you can offer any opportunity to avoid recessions. I'm just observing that building windmills or putting solar panels on a roof have never protected any individual or any country from economic crisis - because the problem is in the always diminishing yields and increase of all production costs - and replacing an expensive energy source by another expensive or inconvenient energy source doesn't solve the problem. I'm not saying "no" to opportunities : I'm just reckoning they're not enough to fix the issue.
90310. Riccardo at 01:34 AM on 3 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       L.J. Ryan that's just your interpretation.
90311. L.J. Ryan at 01:27 AM on 3 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       les 925 "Where did the rest of the material come from" Calculated base upon GHG physics. For example, an atmosphere with LW ε=0, will reflect all terrestrial emissions. That is, until accumulated energy is sufficient for visible spectra emissions. By the way surface energy for 1.998046785(T_eq) should be 120422 W/m^2.
90312. Ken Lambert at 00:55 AM on 3 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Sphaerica #67 "Facts one and two point to a need to ignore [--Snipped--] obfuscation (like trying to trivialize the melting of the Arctic ice by declaring that the Arctic is small in relation to the tropics) and instead begin to take reasoned, responsible action towards cutting fossil fuel emissions at the earliest possible date." Well it is small in relation to the tropics - and it should be looked at in terms of the total quantity of heat imbalance claimed to be available to warm the planet. " The act of melting the ice will cause a serious positive feedback which will add to the warming (and thus will increase future melting, which will further add to warming" You seem to be suggesting that the Arctic is some kind of ice melt trapdoor which lets in vast amounts of heat if it melts. Adelady seems to be of the same impression. There cannot be any more heat energy available than the Insolation at TOA. Loss of ice and more open ocean means less reflection and more absorbtion of the available solar radiation in the summer. But the numbers are tiny. To get a more accurate picture of the numbers - the Arctic ocean (15.3 million km2) is 3% of the Earth's surface and the area inside the Arctic circle 66N is about 4.4% (22.4 million km2). The Minimum Sea ice extent is 12 million km2 down by 0.27 million km2 from the previous low of 12.27 million km2 according to the original post. So we are talking about an extra 0.27 out of 12.27 (which is 2.2%) being open ocean exposed for 3 months to solar radiation with low or negligible albedo. This is 0.27 million km2 of the Earth's surface of 510 million km2 or 0.05% (5/100 of 1 percent). Antarctica has 90% of the planet's ice - kilometres thick. It is the big knob on the Earth's thermostat. The Arctic is a sideshow in comparison.
90313. Bob Lacatena at 23:31 PM on 2 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       65, johnd, What the heck are you talking about? No one is saying we need to take direct action to stop the Arctic from melting, other than to stop greenhouse gas emissions. You're creating straw men. Fact 1) The Arctic is melting, and it is very clear empirical evidence that the globe is warming in a way that has not been seen for many, many thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of years. Fact 2) The act of melting the ice will cause a serious positive feedback which will add to the warming (and thus will increase future melting, which will further add to warming). Fact 3) Facts one and two point to a need to ignore denialist obfuscation (like trying to trivialize the melting of the Arctic ice by declaring that the Arctic is small in relation to the tropics) and instead begin to take reasoned, responsible action towards cutting fossil fuel emissions at the earliest possible date.
90314. les at 22:27 PM on 2 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       924 L.J. Ryan. Nice embedded link to the lecture notes of some Professor Jin-Yi Yu - who has some other nice explanatory material for those finding this all a bit hard. http://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/ess55.html Where did the rest of the material come from (it is only polite to reference sources, after all)?
90315. mspelto at 21:59 PM on 2 April 2011
       Soot and global warming
       Thanks for pointing out Doherty et al (2010). One key point at the end of the abstract "Nevertheless, the BC content of Arctic snow appears to be no higher now than in 1984, so it is doubtful that BC in Arctic snow has contributed to the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice in recent years." The impact on glacier melt can be real, but likewise would not have accelerated on the Arctic glaciers or Greenland due to BC. The impact on glaciers is limited to the zone where the material can accumulate at the surface and alter albedo. This is not in accumulation zone, nor in zones where there is heavy debris cover. The latter is not seen in Greenland. However, in the Himalaya many glaciers have heavy debris cover near the terminus, and the accumulation zones recieve frequent summer monsoon accumulation limiting the impact of BC to a small section of the glacier near and below the ELA, such as on Boshula Glacier or Gangotri Glacier
90316. Gilles at 21:40 PM on 2 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Philippe, even if CO2 had no infrared bands, we would have faced anyway the exhaustion of FF, and finding replacements would have been mandatory anyway. What I'm stressing here is that it is by no means granted that we will succeed in doing this, and that blindly believing in all fake fire brigades like Ecofys could only worsen the problem.
90317. TimTheToolMan at 19:37 PM on 2 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       I wasn't going to post here anymore but this sort of thing infuriates me. Mr Cook, you are ignorant of the facts. You say "The 'trick' is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data." But this in untrue. Specifically the trick has been fully analysed, reproduced and is described in detail at Climate Audit and is described as Mike’s Nature Trick Mike’s Nature Trick was originally diagnosed by CA reader UC here and expounded in greater length (with Matlab code here and here and here ). It consists of the following elements: 1. A digital splice of proxy data up to 1980 with instrumental data to 1995 (MBH98), lengthened to 1998 (MBH99). 2. Smoothing with a Butterworth filter of 50 years in MBH98 (MBH99- 40 years) after padding with the mean instrumental value in the calibration period (0) for 100 years. 3. Discarding all values of the smooth after the end of the proxy period. So you see the instrumental data has a DIRECT impact on the proxy temperature curve before any instrumental temperatures are inappropriately tacked onto it.
90318. L.J. Ryan at 19:36 PM on 2 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       KR When investigating complicated system it's important to approach the mechanism front-wise and linearly. Starting at the start (solar input) avoids confusion as introduction of secondary input/variables (forcing) manifest. If in fact, all the tenets of GHG theory are valid then such a stepwise approach will only hone their formulation. Let's start with what we undoubtedly agree: (e₁)emissivity + reflectivity =1 earth's albedo =.3 (e₂)emissivity = ^{absorbed energy}/ _{incident energy}---or stated continuously--- emissivity = ^{absorbed power}/ _{incident power} (e₃) σT_e⁴= ^S/₄ * (1-A) flux density emitted via blackbody earth = flux density absorbed via blackbody earth (note to muoncounter, blackbody equivalent) So σT_e⁴= 240 W/m², represents the theoretical maximum power emitted and adsorbed, via SW, by the surface. This theoretical max flux can be used to calculate actual max flux absorbed by earths surface. Intuitively it make sense, a surface must absorb energy before radiating said energy. So properly, this must be calculated prior to surface to atmosphere emissivity consideration. Also, immediately jumping to actual surface temp and backing out flux, will as said earlier lead to erroneous conclusions. (e₄) Because 240 W/m² is max blackbody absorption it is equal to max incident power. (e₅) Earths ε = .98. Using (e₂) earths actual absorbed power =.98 * incident power = .98*240 W/ m² = 235 W/ m² (e₆)Because 235 W/ m² represents the true absorbed SW radiation value it also represents earth's maximum gray body emissions due to SW. (e₇) When surface LW emission flux is equal to SW solar absorption the earth's system is in equilibrium; 235 W/ m² equates to 254K. Because the 1st law must be upheld this represents the temp maximum via solar radiation. Any additional temperature increase must come from non-radiative energy input. I suspect you are screaming "What about forcing". Ok, by adding radiative reflection/re-radiation flux to solar input, with white, black and gray atmosphere emissivities, LW forcing is easily evaluated. The following section (e₈),(e₉), (e₁₀), demonstrates GHG physics. Specifically, by adding flux regardless of quantitative magnitude and/or vector magnitude. (e₈) Atmosphere ε=0 T_eq=time to equilibrium (e₇) (235 W/m²) Note: As Time approaches 2T_eqthe Surface flux approaches infinity. Also, as Time approaches 2T_eq the atmosphere becomes transparent to visible surface emission...when visible emissions = 240 W/m² TOA equilibrium is at hand. According blackbody emissions this equates to ~1200K. (e₉) Atmosphere ε=1 T_eq=time to equilibrium as defined by (e₈)
       Note: As time approaches 4T_eqthe Surface flux approaches infinity. Also, at 3T_eq the atmosphere radiates 235 W/m² plus the 5 W/m² originally reflected by the surface (e₅) give the required 240 W/m² TOA...302K. (e₁₀) Because(e₈) confers the maximum temperature (~1200 K) for TOA equilibrium and (e₉) confers the minimum temperature (302K)for TOA, radiative forcing is shown to be a false mechanism. That is, since actual temperature (288 K) is well below the minimum temperature established by blackbody atmosphere, ε < 1, will generate a temperature higher then 302K. (e₁₁) If gray body ε=.612 then, according to (e₁), gray body reflectivity = .388 (e₁₂) If gray body ε=.612 then, according to (e₂), gray body absorbed = incident flux* ε. (e₁₃) Atmosphere ε=.612 T_eq=time to equilibrium as defined by (e₈) Note: TOA is achieved when surface radiates 768 W/m²...341K. (e₁₄)As demonstrated, a body's emission can not be increased by it's own reflection,re-radiation, or insulation. As demonstrate lower energy does not increase higher energy, low light does not make more luminous a brighter surface. As demonstrated atmospheric forcing, GHG physics is a false mechanism which in fact violates the 2^nd Law. Choosing to ignore this fundamental law leads to fallacious results. Fallacious result such as 341K with an atmosphere emissivity of .612. But just as fallacious misapplication of physics which leads to ε=.612 equating to 288K. Notice I did not say atmospheric radiation does not exist...I did not say the downward radiation does not exist. Atmospheric radiation is isotropic however, lower energy atmospheric radiation can not increase the higher energy surface. Solar input, assuming .3 albedo, can only account for 240 W/m² flux and therefore delta T between solar input and actual temperature must be a result of non-radiative input.
90319. adelady at 18:33 PM on 2 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       johnd, I doubt very much that clouds have had much to do with it (so far). There are probably clues here and here and here and most of all here
90320. Philippe Chantreau at 17:57 PM on 2 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       "people will desperately fight to keep as much as possible their standard of living while constantly receding. And the outside temperature will just be their least concern, when looking at their energy bill or learning they have just been fired." And to think that I have been called an alarmist on this very site, without ever producing anything near that kind of a panic in words. Well Gilles, it sounds like you're advocating the complete eradication of fossil fuel use on an industrial scale before it imposes itself on us. Sounds wise. Seems that you're suggesting that the effort should be started as soon as possible in order to maximize the chances to ease up what will be anything but easy. Many will likely agree with you on that.
90321. Gilles at 16:56 PM on 2 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       148 : I was just answering question asked by scaddenp #117 and #121 so please don't reproach me it now ! and which "more informed" information? are you serious ? where is the bettest information used by the SRES, since oil and coal production are free to vary randomly between almost zero and tens of Gt at the end of century ? I said it already, a child with a set of colored pencils would have produced exactly the same set of curves - no information there, just "what if" scenarios (and I can give you references showing that even climate scientists recognize that if you insist). I just used the official proven reserves, I did not invent them. The simple fact is that SRES scenarios do simply not care about proved reserves - they just take all kind of proved, unproved, potential, unconventional resources as if we could extract them at the same pace as conventional ones - which is an economical heresy - and peak oil is just currently demonstrating how ridiculous it is. You're just confident in people who repeatedly failed in forecasting energy crisis, that is just now upon us. We begin the era of struggle for exhausting resources - meaning in reality the end of economic growth - and people will desperately fight to keep as much as possible their standard of living while constantly receding. And the outside temperature will just be their least concern, when looking at their energy bill or learning they have just been fired.
90322. Rob Painting at 15:16 PM on 2 April 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       H Pierce - "So you guys stop bugging me!" Stick to the facts, and we won't have to correct you. Deal?.
90323. johnd at 15:15 PM on 2 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Sphaerica at 14:41 PM, I feel you are being "penny wise and pound foolish". Irrespective of what is happening, the melting is a symptom rather than the problem. If solar radiation is a the major factor as DB seemed to stress, then what are you going to do, have everybody wave their hands hoping to blow clouds back over the Arctic to reflect off the solar radiation? If we follow the solar radiation assertion, then shouldn't we be looking at if cloud patterns have changed, and if so has anything man done that could have affected that, or is it simply part of cyclic pattern. I have already indicated what I think may have changed cloud distribution to some degree in other parts of the global system. Every region is linked when it comes to climate. If you want to merely debate the symptoms, then this is the right thread. If you feel that the causes are perhaps more relevant then that will need to be discussed in the appropriate thread.
90324. nigelj at 15:01 PM on 2 April 2011
       Soot and global warming
       Landy Jim #1. There are particulates and particulates. The dark ones absorb heat, the lighter ones from your dust storms reflect heat, as do sulfate aerosols.
90325. Bob Lacatena at 14:51 PM on 2 April 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       h pierce,

       Does the high conc. of CO2 affect the respiration of the larva and consequently their growth and development?

       Does it matter? The study raised CO₂ levels, just as is happening in the environment. Your question casts doubt on an irrelevant issue.

       How does pH affect the action of these antibiotics? At the lower pH will the antibiotics influence the growth and development of the larva?

       Now you're clearly just fishing for reasons to distrust the study. Why not just come out and say that it arrived at a conclusion you don't like, cover your eyes, and keep singing until it goes away?

       I don' know so I'll have to check this out.

       Sounds like concern-troll-speak to me. Denial cloaked in faux-reasonable-wary-interest is still denial.
90326. Bob Lacatena at 14:41 PM on 2 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       63, johnd, My observation is that your approach is to trivialize and ignore everything (claiming to calmly "keep it in perspective"), with the net result that currently surmountable problems will soon become insurmountable problems. Solutions are easy, as long as the world is committed to the problem. The current dilemma facing us today is how to keep people like you and Lambert from trivializing the startling observation that we will see an ice free Arctic in our lifetimes (and, I personally believe, in the next decade). If you can look at the indisputable fact of melting Arctic ice, yawn and say "so what?" then the world is in big, big trouble.
90327. michael sweet at 13:37 PM on 2 April 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       Hpierce, I do not have a copy of your old chemistry textbook. My chemistry textbook (which was published in 2003), does not give the solubility or ionization of carbonic acid in sea water, only fresh water. I pointed out to you previously that sea water is different from fresh water. In the ocean carbonic acid is primarily ionized, as we have all pointed out to you. If you do not understand the chemistry you should not lecture others who do.
90328. Philippe Chantreau at 13:29 PM on 2 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel, you didn't need anyone's help to cover yourself with ridicule. It is glaringly obvious that, not only you haven't the fuzziest idea about these matters, but you are willing to contradict yourself for the sake of argument. This is rather amusing: in the instance noted above, you later adopted an incorrect position, opposite to your originally stated one, which was correct. And you defended the latter with all your rethorical might. Really, that is comical. Cut your losses.
90329. h pierce at 13:27 PM on 2 April 2011
       Soot and global warming
       RE: Cryconite in Greenland You all should check the June 2010 issue of Nat Geo. There is a really good article on cryconite, the brown mineral dust that settles on the ice sheets in Greenland. In particular check pp 38-39 to see the black water produced by evil stuff.
90330. h pierce at 13:18 PM on 2 April 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       Sphaerica at 23:06 PM on 31 March, 2011 says: The experiment was well designed and meaningful In these experiments two variables change: the pH and the concentration of CO2 in the water. Does the high conc. of CO2 affect the respiration of the larva and consequently their growth and development? Or Does the lower pH of then medium affect their growth and development? They added 3 antibiotics to the medium to supress growth of microbes. How does pH affect the action of these antibiotics? At the lower pH will the antibiotics influence the growth and development of the larva? I don' know so I'll have to check this out.
90331. Philippe Chantreau at 13:15 PM on 2 April 2011
       Soot and global warming
       cbrock is right. The atmospheric warming effect was directly observed by Ramanathan in his UAV study of the Asian brown cloud. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html
90332. muoncounter at 12:56 PM on 2 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles #146: "why would it contradict the "back-of-the-envelope calculations"?" Do you really need me to point out the difference between your 'let's assume we burn X Gtons of coal, Y oil and Z gas' and calculations based on real data and more informed projections? Or do you place your X, Y and Z guesstimates in such high esteem that we should accept them and throw over peer-reviewed science in toto? If so, please furnish your address, so that we may make pilgrimage to visit such an all-seeing oracle. Check that, just give me the name of the winning horse in the 9th at Aqueduct tomorrow; I'll give you a cut. Really. Science is not based on 'I disagree, so I get to make up my own numbers.' If you think it is, then you are indeed proposing a racecar on a train as a counter-example of special relativity.
90333. h pierce at 12:38 PM on 2 April 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       ATTN Rob The info I have stated in this thread is from Chapter XXI, Carbonic Acid and Its Ions, pp 386-398 _in_ "Principles of Chemistry" by J.H. Hildebrand and R.E. Powell (Sixth Edition, 1962). And the info is straight from the text. So you guys stop bugging me!
90334. johnd at 12:13 PM on 2 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Sphaerica at 11:55 AM, what you say may be all well and good, but what are your plans to do something about it apart from promoting it as the most important issue facing mankind above all others. For instance, in relative terms, has global deforestation had a smaller or larger impact on global climate? Irrespective, that is something that not only can be addressed by mankind, but must be done for a whole host of benefits. I think the point Ken made was that everything had to be kept in perspective.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] This is an Arctic ice thread. Global deforestation is well off-topic.
90335. Bob Lacatena at 11:55 AM on 2 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       61, johnd, No, John, I didn't miss anything, you did. You're getting carried away with comparing it to the tropics, when the comparison is irrelevant. Ken's "point":

       ...my point is that the amounts of energy absorbed in Arctic ice melt are tiny compared with the purported amounts being absorbed by the Earth system globally.

       And that's as silly as the denialist talking points that CO₂ is only a "trace" gas, or that 2˚C warming isn't really that much. It's a completely ignorant position which is based on playing on people's unfamiliarity with the processes involved. The way you are comparing it to the tropics is woefully misleading. The Arctic does not need to be as big as the tropics for it to matter. What does matter is that all of that radiation is radiation which would otherwise (as in every summer for many, many thousands of years into the past) have been reflected into space. Instead it is being absorbed. Instead it is heating the planet, in addition to the heat being added by greenhouse gases. The amount being absorbed is far from inconsequential, and handwaving claims about the relative size of the polar region are nothing more than gamesmanship.
90336. Phila at 11:47 AM on 2 April 2011
       Soot and global warming
       "What a load of rubbish, such bad science does not deserve funding." I'm getting a little tired of "skeptics" trying to tell the rest of us what scientific work does and doesn't deserve funding, while making basic factual and logical errors that virtually no peer-reviewed scientist could get away with. The phrase "unskilled and unaware of it" springs to mind, for some reason.
90337. johnd at 11:41 AM on 2 April 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       MMead at 10:37 AM, somehow you've messed up the link, it directs straight back to the comments page. You can find out how to properly link by clicking on the tips for posting images or hyperlinks at the bottom of the comments panel. I have provided the link below and have tested it. However as it is a paper that finds decelerating trends in sea level rises, you should instead post it in a thread that addresses the controversy of whether any sea level rising trends are accelerating, or decelerating as your paper indicates. Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
90338. Stu at 10:43 AM on 2 April 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       MMead, try this response to the paper: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/so-what/
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Tamino's response was briefly noted on the latest sea level rise thread, which has excellent background information.
90339. MMead at 10:37 AM on 2 April 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       The following journal article regarding sea-level acceleration from the Coastal Education & Research Foundation (CERF) was pointed out to me by a skeptical friend. Not being a scientist, I don't know how to respond. Any thoughts on these findings? jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
90340. h pierce at 10:18 AM on 2 April 2011
       Soot and global warming
       LandyJim I ask you this simple question: Since 1900 where have the billions (and billions and billions!) of pounds of rubber and asphalt dust gone? The short simple answer is anywhere and everywhere. In addition to these there is brake dust, the stuff that builds up on the sidewall of tires. Lots of reddish-brown rust falls off motor vehicles. Other sources of rust are ships, steel rails, wheels of railcars, brake drums and disk rotors. Modern synthetic rubber does not decompose upon exsposure to sunlight, air or microbes. Once in the environment, this stuff is there forever. Try this. Take a Post-It note and dab in the dusty top surface of car until it does not stick anymore. Then examine the stcky surface with viewer with 30-40x magnification. You will tiny black flat flecks. These are rubber particles. You sill also see bright highly reflective particles. These are sand particles from concrete. There are also particles you can't see at low magnification. These particles are few microns or less in size. And you breath in these. All rubber contains some natural latex because it improves sidewall flexibility. Natural latex contains proteins and fine rubber dust may contribute to the increasing incidence asthma in children.
90341. GCNP58 at 09:50 AM on 2 April 2011
       Soot and global warming
       LJ: I agree with cbrock. Soot has a very positive greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. The imaginary part of the index of refraction plays a huge role in whether a particular aerosol will cool (scatter) or heat (absorb). The imaginary index of refraction for soot is huge. It heats, regardless of location. Soot-containing particles are implicated in closing some of the unknowns in radiative transfer in the atmosphere, where the measured scattering coefficients don't match what would be expected based on the inorganic chemical constituents (the imaginary index is way too high). However, small amounts of soot boost the imaginary index up, so that the scattering is less and the absorption is greater. Don't make those comments around aerosol chemists or radiative transfer specialists, they will be very forceful in telling you how wrong you are. If you do just a bit of googling on strings like "soot radiative impact atmosphere" you will clear up these misconceptions in very short order. -Bill
90342. Gilles at 09:39 AM on 2 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       just one thing : do you have an idea of how much oil we should find per year to insure 20 Mbl/d of "yet to be found" fields in 2030 ?
90343. Gilles at 09:38 AM on 2 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Mucounter : I don't see clearly your point - I agree with most of what you say, but what do you try to prove against what I'm saying ? and why would it contradict the "back-of-the-envelope calculations" ?
90344. KR at 07:57 AM on 2 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - I'm quite surprised to see you back. Have you read my posting here? Evaporation, convection, and the adiabatic lapse rate have all been covered in tedious detail on this thread; if you're interested, look it up. But (personal opinion) I do not consider it worthwhile to debate with someone who (like you) is willing to contradict your own posts in order to prolong an argument - that is trolling, not science.
       Moderator Response: While these topics have indirect relevance to the 2nd law and its relationship to the GHE, this thread is not intended as a substitute for a college level physics course. As you pointed out, these topics have already been covered here in excruciating detail. Future off-topic or repetitive comments will be deleted.
90345. damorbel at 07:42 AM on 2 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #900 KR You wrote: "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." You write about the 1st Law and radiation as if these were the only two energy processes involved - you take into account radiation only. But for a thermodynamic analysis you must include all forms of energy involved in the whole thermodynamic system that comprises the atmosphere. By confining your consideration to radiation only you may well get the answer you are seeking but that is hardly science! As I have mentioned before, you must also account for the gravitational energy of the gas that makes up the atmosphere; it is, after all, the gravitaional component that gives the troposphere its temperature profile (lapse rate) of -6.5K/km. Any attempt to may an 'energy balance' that doesn't include gravitational energy is not going to give an accurate picture.
90346. dana1981 at 06:53 AM on 2 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Thanks JMurphy. Now we can get to work responding to the hearing.
90347. Stephen Baines at 06:47 AM on 2 April 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       Rob Painting...Yes, that was the paper I was talking about. It shows short term effects of acidification on Fe availability due to effects on binding strength of organic ligancs with fe(III). The Sunda article points out the caveats - like whether such a mechanisms will in the long terms increase the total amount of Fe by preventing scavenging of Fe(III) on sinking particles.
90348. JMurphy at 06:13 AM on 2 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       That House Climate Hearing seems to be available here, but having read some of the transcripts available at the link provided by chrisd3, it seems that the same old nonsense was repeated by all the usual so-called skeptics : including Christy's constant reliance on his own work and references to such 'authorities' as ClimateAudit, McIntyre (who he positively seems to idolise) and McKitrick; Armstrong's constant use of the terms 'alarm' and 'alarmism', and reliance on Soon; and Muller's references to Watts and his supposedly soon to be published (any day now, honestly) paper, while also showing how what Watts is claiming is actually disproved by the work being done by BEST. Same old, same old.
90349. muoncounter at 06:08 AM on 2 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles#143: "decrease of oil production will be driven by lower demand and reconversion to other energy sources, and not by geological availability" Oil production is driven in part by all those factors, but it is primarily driven by economics. Once the initial investment is made, the time value of money demands a targeted production schedule. Depletion inhibits production, so we often do not meet those targets. "exactly what happened in the 80's with the oil counter-shock, that provoked both a nosedive of barrel price" You can believe in shock/counter-shock models if you like. But we must have lived through different decades: the oil price drop of the mid-80's was a means of destabilizing the Soviet Union. Why else would half a million US jobs be sacrificed with hardly any notice outside the oil patch? "I'm saying nothing else for oil." That will help you from digging any deeper holes in what remains of your credibility. "I don't see why they would be "instructed" to say that we need to find new oil fields that we don't know yet where they are-" Borderline gibberish. We know where to find oil -- in oil-producing basins. The industry will not suddenly stop finding oil this year or in the next decade; the projection of 'oil yet to be found' expresses that confidence. It will simply become increasingly expensive to find and produce new oil - and that is what will inevitably make renewables economically attractive. "what's wrong with back-of-the-envelope calculations ?" They are usually incorrect. Yours are tantamount to "racecar on a train."
90350. cbrock at 05:59 AM on 2 April 2011
       Soot and global warming
       RealClimate has an interesting discussion here of the downside of controlling soot in lieu of going after the big fish--CO2 regulation.

Prev  1799  1800  1801  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  Next