Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 Next
Comments 90301 to 90350:
-
les at 19:38 PM on 31 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
884 KR " 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. Outer space is, for practical purposes, an infinite sink. The sun is, again for practical purposes, an infinite source of energy. No one can deny that energy from the sun reaches the surface of the earth - at least, nor that radiated energy which isn't reabsorbed somewhere leaves the system... This is implicit in the text - body heat is in effect a source of energy external to the heat exchange system which is moderated with blankets. So long as some source continues to pump out energy irrespective of the destination of that energy, we're free to build an engine which uses that energy to, for example, concentrate it up to any temperature we can manage. How that engine works (photons, gases, cogs, whatever) is immaterial - the beauty of things like the statistical and termodynmaies is that they are defined for an abstract engine, which applies to all real engines... -
scaddenp at 19:18 PM on 31 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
I'd settle for the number of 900 Gt of proven reserves for 2010. That seems pretty well aligned with the assumptions of SRES, but comes from IEA and is pretty much same no. as WCA. -
Ken in Oz at 19:10 PM on 31 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Adelady, geothermal does appear to have a lot of potential however, like large scale energy storage it hasn't gotten serious attention. The reality is that Australia is still investing in coal fired power plants and, at best, the Carbon Tax looks intended to encourage a longer term shift to investment in Gas powered plants - which may be able to reach the early, low, easy to reach emissions targets but can't deliver the longer term reductions. Presumably the claim that it can be backup to renewables will justify ongoing construction but when built, operators will probably (on the basis of 'fair competition', jobs and profitablity), resist the kind of intermittent operation that would entail. Carbon Capture and Sequestration has got the lion's share of R&D funding in Australia and has provided a way to justify the ongoing government support for fossil fuels; current projections of future emissions reductions are almost entirely based on optimistic predictions of low cost CCS being taken up widely. Anyone looking to Australia for solutions and inspiration is going to be disappointed. -
Rob Painting at 17:40 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
H Pierce - They medium was not properly buffered. They should have added some ground up sea shells or dolomite lime. Altering the pH of the seawater kinda defeats the purpose don't you think?. -
Rob Painting at 17:33 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
Albatross & Sphaerica - H Pierce is confused when he refers to the "Ocean buffer system" The carbonate buffer typically referred to, are the chemical reactions which take place to inhibit the change in pH. For instance see the diagram below:
I've yet to find a graphic which adequately describes the process, but bear with me:
Equation 2 Carbonic acid easily breaks down releasing excess hydrogen ions and drives the pH of seawater down (pH being a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions. More hydrogen ions = lower pH ).
Equation 3 Here's where the buffering part kicks in, some of the excess hydrogen ions combine with carbonate ions to form bicarbonate ions. This last step serves to buffer the acidification because it reduces the concentration of hydrogen ions. So without this last reaction, the pH would be lower.
He seems to be referring to geological processes which increase alkalinity (often balancing out volcanic CO2 output) which takes place over the timescale of tens of thousands of years.
-
MidwestHES at 17:27 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
With regard to my previous post... I believe I called the Alabama "pi" fiasco a little too soon. Upon further research, I have concluded that the article, and subsequent rewrites were in fact satire...but indeed brilliantly written. The instance I was trying to find in the first place happened in Indiana in 1897. The original piece, with "disclaimer" at top is linked below...not real, but all too funny! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-squires/republicans-introduce-leg_b_837828.html My apologies! -
ejo60 at 17:27 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
For the Netherlands you can add lots of politicians to the database. I commented upon the statement "we can not rely on scientists who don't speak the truth" once made by Jacqueline Cramer in my blog: here The bad thing is, Jacqueline Cramer is from labour and from that part in the political spectrum you would expect support for climate polities. Climategate left a lot of damage, and in this case some politicians (such as Jacqueline Cramer but also RIchard Mos) simply repeat that the IPCC is lying, to put it bluntly. So where does this fit in the arguments database, perhaps that temperature records are inaccurate and that tree-ring proxy temperature series were manipulated? -
MidwestHES at 17:10 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
@Pete Did you know that the state of South Dakota even cited that Oregon Petition Project nonsense in recent legislation...essentially making it clear that the state is officially an AGC denier. Check it out... http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926 It reminds me of the politician that, years ago, tried to pass legislation making "pi" exactly 3. LOL...get this...I was thinking it was back in the 70's...or earlier maybe. When I just tried to look it up to quote facts, I found that the issue has been raised AGAIN...This time in Alabama...LAST WEEK!!!! MADNESS!!!!! -
Gilles at 16:48 PM on 31 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
what are the known coal reserves following you ? -
bill4344 at 16:40 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
If you're going to tackle some of the locals please don't forget Abbott's latest 'interpretation' of Tim Flannery; "It will not make a difference for 1000 years"! -
h pierce at 16:32 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
I just crushed chalk into water and shoke the mixture vigorously for ca 1 minute. After the solid chalk had settled, I then measured the pH of the supernatant with a Macherey-Nagel (Product No 92110) pH indicator strip. The pH was 8. -
r.pauli at 15:56 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
These are not scientific statements - they are PR sound bytes designed to influence opinions. It is very civil of you to regard this as a scientific debate, but it takes place in the political arena, the rules are political - not scientific. To see the abuse of discourse in our democracy seems pitiful and pathetic. This form of political assassination of science is immoral. These are deliberate deceptions and misdirections demanded by carbon fuel constituencies. -
Pete Wirfs at 15:20 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
It just amazes me that the Oregon Petition is still being used as a talking point. The signatories I know (not one of them could be called a "scientist") signed for selfish reasons. They knew that the Kyoto accord could be the beginning of CO2 abatement rules and regulations, and that such regulations could put a damper on their own personal line of business, and therefore would impact their personal wealth. They received the survey from inside of a trade journal targeting engineers that design/build new construction. Why don't they put together a demonstratively accurate petition/survey, instead of this sort of haphazard shotgun attempt? Could it be that they wouldn't like the results? Or maybe its because they aren't interested in truth, but only in building up a talking point, in which case they have achieved 100% of their goals already? It seems that after the Kyoto accord fizzled, the petition took on a life of its own and (apparently) is going to live forever! As a side-bar, one of the authors of this petition, Art Robinson, ran for congress recently http://www.artrobinsonforcongress.com/ and even WUWT gave him some free exposure. He made a pretty good run against a popular Democrat incumbent, but lost by a relatively small margin. More recently though he's been making political waves by claiming that Oregon State University is treating his children unfairly because of his personal political views. In less than 24 hours WUWT posted his story to trump up the suggestion that another climate denialist is being unfairly persecuted. So far however, no one has been able to uncover an ounce of facts to support Art's story. Some people are now of the opinion that Art has gone off the deep end. -
Rob Painting at 15:17 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
H Pierce @ 9 - The buffer system of the ocean contains soluble bicarbonate and insoluble calcium and magnesium carbonates. As long the insoluble carbonates are present, the pH can not fall ca 8. This is nonsense. Do you want to try again explaining what you mean?. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:16 PM on 31 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
muoncounter at 909. I disagree. It can also be just double talk, or talk adapted to the need of the moment when conducting an argument with no other function than sowing confusion. Or could it simply be that Damorbel's own confusion is so thorough by now that he is completely lost in the whole thing?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Doublethink includes the ability "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed." -
h pierce at 15:10 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
Albatross at 11 Ocean Buffer System Formation of Carbonic Acid CO2 + H2O---->H2CO3 Neutralization of Carbonic Acid H2CO3 + CaCO3--->Ca2(HCO3) Dolomite is a mixture of calcuim and magnesium carbonates and is used to "sweeten" soil. A solution of freshly-preparded NaHCO3 has a pH of ca 8. A soluble bicarbonate is unstable and decomposes to carbonate.The pH increases to ca 10. -
John Cook at 15:03 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Umm, the button is not that snazzy :-) BTW, should give credit to everyone who added quotes to the database, including Dana who did the lionshare of the effort.Response: [dana1981] it is too snazzy! -
Bern at 15:02 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Chemware, technically, Steve Fielding is right: the science on both sides of the debate isn't conclusive. Remember that "conclusive" is defined as evidence that serves to prove a case, is convincing or decisive. The truth of the above statement is readily apparent when you look at the science. The science that says global warming is real, and that humans are very highly likely the cause, definitely is conclusive. However, the science that says it's not real, and/or that even if it is humans aren't the cause - well, that's most definitely not conclusive... So, you see, Senator Fielding was right when he said the science on both sides of the debate isn't conclusive... [ducks] -
villabolo at 14:38 PM on 31 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
@2 Berényi Péter: "Not necessarily. It depends on how hard posterity is willing to work." @3 Bern: "Given the warnings given by scientists about problems a century hence due to global warming, and the marked lack of action by world governments, I hold grave doubts that they'd work to prevent a problem a few hundred million centuries down the track. :-P No, the "world governments" of today aren't going to be in a position to do anything a thousand years from now. More importantly, if Humanity survives, it will be a different species alltogether. A species lacking in the genetically predisposed behaviors of Dominance/Submission; the hierarchical societies that it creates; and psychopathology; is the only type of Humanity that can survive. So it's either a radically different Humanity (behaviorally speaking) that will inherit the future or none at all. A lot of things will be possible for that kind of Humanity, including relocation of Venus/Mercury and Earth/Moon. A terraformed Mercury would make a nice satellite for a terraformed Venus. -
scaddenp at 14:37 PM on 31 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
And as we have repeatedly told you, temperature record is not about mean data temperature. This is a strawman argument. Didnt you even read the links we gave you? I youtube lecture is not a citation. -
Chemware at 14:35 PM on 31 March 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
How about adding a few local ones:- Tony "Climate change is crap" Abbot
- Nick "We didn't do it" Minchin
- Barnaby "Well, climate's changing all the time" Joyce
- Heartland Steve science on both sides of the debate isn’t conclusive Fielding
Response: [John] We very likely will be releasing a collection of Australian politician quotes also. We've already started collecting some so thanks for these links. -
Albatross at 13:52 PM on 31 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Daniel, Thanks-- you rock!Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks, but you did the hard part (finding scientific evidence to trump speculation). -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:40 PM on 31 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
BP @2 Interesting concept and totally possible with only a moderate development of our space travel capability. The key sticking point is not technical but psychological. At present our human psychological development has not progressed to the point where we could consider such a long term project. Millions of years from now I surely hope we have developed to that point. Perhaps our response to AGW is one of the first tests of that, the first hurdle. Can we bring enough emotional maturity and dispassion to our thinking on this, as a species, to solve the problem? Watch this space... -
Albatross at 13:38 PM on 31 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
And just a quick comment to people lurking on this thread. The title of the thread is "Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite". Interesting the how the contrarians and deniers of AGW then, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the troposphere is warming because of AGW, try and spin things to detract from that inconvenient fact by fabricating false statements about trends in global stratospheric temperatures. A good try, but yet another epic fail for the anti-science crowd. -
Albatross at 13:33 PM on 31 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Glenn, e, Phillipe, and BP, The graphic shown here really blows the following nonsensical comment right out of the water: "one of the major effects of AGW is a cooling of the Stratosphere" is False." It shows the global stratospheric temperatures have cooled by about 1.5 K since the late fifties. If anyone can figure out a way of posting the image contained in the link on this thread, please do so. Thanks!Moderator Response:[DB] Ask & ye shall receive:
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:19 PM on 31 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
BP I hadn't seen the Ramaswamy paper cited by e but have to agree with e's assessment. The signatures of El Chichon and Pinatubo show up clearly in the latitudinal plots and only indicate an impact over the mid latitudes. This can't be determined from looking at the behaviour of just the global average temp anomaly, which calls into question the validity of the approach you are using correlating the global signal to volcanic events. It seems to me far more likely that the volcanoes had a residual effect in subsequent years and what we are seeing is a trend with volcanic spikes superimposed. Perhaps if you repeat this analysis looking at TLS data from different latitude bands and see how consistent the graphs are across the bands. That said there is the possibility - this is speculation on my part here - that the volcanoes may have had a longer term impact. Solomon et al 2010 discuss an apparent decline in stratospheric water vapour levels over the 2000's following an apparent rise in the 90's. Speculatively, could the BIG eruptions inject H2O into the atmosphere that persists for years. Solomon et al is discussed here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-global-warming.html Irrespective of that, this post is about the impact of stratospheric cooling, from whatever source, on the accuracy of our tropospheric temp measurements. -
Albatross at 13:02 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
h pierce, You seem to think that you have some valid points. And maybe you do-- a good means of determining whether or not they have merit or of consequence, is to write a comment to the journal. Personally I do not find comfort in these findings as they corroborate previous research. There are no free passes for doubling or trebling atmospheric CO2 levels in a very short time. To think otherwise is naive and going against a whole lot of science, both empirical and theoretical. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:01 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
h pierce, On pH, from their paper:Multiple daily measurements of pH (calibrated prior each use with NIST traceable standards, ± 0.002, Orion Star Series Benchtop pH meter; Thermo Scientific) indicated experiment beakers maintained a constant pH level throughout all experiments (<0.5% RSD within treatments).
I see nothing that says this was only done for lower-CO2 samples, or why they should do so. I'm also unsure if your buffering argument holds, since it is unclear in the paper whether they did or did not address it directly in any way. They did use actual sea water which presumably would have the right general levels of everything, and at least in our scenario, the levels of buffering agents in the actual ocean are not changing appreciably over time, since CO2 is entering the ocean through the atmosphere rather than through geologic weathering processes. Their pH did fall below 8 (8.171, 8.052, 7.801 and 7.532 respectively for 250 ppm, 390 ppm, 750 ppm and 1500 ppm). -
Chris Colose at 12:52 PM on 31 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
Typical inner limits push the orbital distance for substantial water loss at ~0.95 AU (for our own sun) and down to about 0.84 AU for a true runaway greenhouse (e.g., Selsis et al., 2007). Jim Kasting has some of the best work on this; Bullock and Grinspoon (2001) paper is another must read if you're interested in the evolution of Venus. The problem is that so much of these estimates are based on clear-sky physics, or clouds only very crudely modeled, because we don't really know how well they help to offset the increased luminosity and make a runaway harder to achieve. They could also make a runaway easier, but that's probably not the case because the gaseous form of water swamps anything else in the atmosphere in the near-runaway regime. If we accept that Venus was liquid water free a billion years ago, then we can at least say that the inner orbital limit is its current distance of 0.72 AU multiplied by (1/0.92)^0.5, or ~0.75 AU (based on the Gough Equation in my first post, the solar luminosity was 8% less, and the flux goes as the inverse square of the distance). If it was water free 2 billion years ago, then we can narrow that to about 0.85 AU. Unfortunately we don't know the timescales of water loss or how large its initial water inventory was with any confidence. -
cloa513 at 12:39 PM on 31 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
That's because the raw data is restricted by intergovernment agreements ( - Musings about conspiracy theories snipped- ) to three data centres. He makes the clear the debate is not over and that mean temperatures have no physical meaning- its a descriptor of the system.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please refrain from baseless speculations. And you are simply incorrect on the data being restricted to 3 data centers. In the vast majority of cases, the data is available upon request from producing nations.
-
h pierce at 12:32 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
There are a potential flaws in the procedure: They medium was not properly buffered. They should have added some ground up sea shells or dolomite lime. The buffer system of the ocean contains soluble bicarbonate and insoluble calcium and magnesium carbonates. As long the insoluble carbonates are present, the pH can not fall ca 8. Since the medium was not buffered properly, the production of certain micronutrients of the phytoplankton may have been affected. ATTN: Sphaerica Did they actually measure the pH of the medium during the experiments? It appears they computed the pH at the higher levels of CO2 and didn't actually measure it. -
Riduna at 12:28 PM on 31 March 2011Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
According to William Howard, a marine geologist, the current rate of acidification is about 100 times faster than the most rapid events in the geological past (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-ocean-acidification-intimates-long-recovery-from-climate-change) It is estimated that By 2100 pH will have fallen from its present 8.069 to 7.824. The speed and magnitude of decline makes it impossible for calcifying animals to adapt. As pH falls, so does aragonite and other calcite saturation. That saturation is essential for corals, plankton and other marine calcifiers to make protective shells without which they can not survive. By 2050, Pteropods (Thecosomata) will be extinct and most coral reefs dangerously vulnerable to predators. These changes pose two problems: a serious break in the food chain and loss of marine habitat for water breathing animals. These problems are exacerbated by persistent overfishing and ocean pollution. Both are occurring as a result of human activity and population growth. Both are likely to result in loss of an essential food source and the extinction of many marine animals by 2100. Why? Because we prefer to pursue BUA and short term profit rather than a sustainable future. -
Bern at 12:08 PM on 31 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
Thanks Chris, that's kind of what I thought. So it's entirely possible that Venus might have had liquid water around for a few hundred million or even a billion years or more, before it all boiled off. I wonder how close it was - whether it was only a few watts/m2 over the limit, or if it was more than that. I seem to recall Hansen did a lot of his earlier work on greenhouse effect on Venus, I'll have to do a bit of reading of his early work! -
muoncounter at 11:35 AM on 31 March 2011Acidification: 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. -
h pierce at 11:21 AM on 31 March 2011Acidification: 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. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:09 AM on 31 March 2011Of 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. -
climatewolf at 10:59 AM on 31 March 2011Muller 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 -
NewYorkJ at 10:28 AM on 31 March 2011Muller 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? -
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." -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:50 AM on 31 March 20112nd 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. -
RW1 at 09:49 AM on 31 March 20112nd 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? -
Sean A at 09:41 AM on 31 March 2011A 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. -
grayman at 09:29 AM on 31 March 2011Was 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. -
ranyl at 09:28 AM on 31 March 2011Arctic 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:15 AM on 31 March 2011Was 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. -
Berényi Péter at 09:08 AM on 31 March 2011Of 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:00 AM on 31 March 2011Dana'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. -
Stu at 08:54 AM on 31 March 20112nd 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? -
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.'
-
Paul D at 08:45 AM on 31 March 2011A 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).
Prev 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 Next
