Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 Next
Comments 90751 to 90800:
-
Paul Magnus at 14:24 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Please support and pass on…. “Addressing Global Warming, I vow to eliminate all my non-essential flying. It’s a moral issue…” http://www.facebook.com/pages/ClimateFlightAction/165484890164497?v=info By signing up to reducing your non-essential flying you make a big impact on emissions reduction in multiple ways. >Your emissions are substantially reduce. >Your resolution highlights and focus the urgency of the issue and the sort of effort that will be required to address the problem with your peers. >Lead by example. We can not ask for climate action without making the first move. >You reenforce and provide suport to consolidate action in tackling global warming. -
Paul Magnus at 14:24 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Its a moral issue... http://moralground.com/mission/ >Yes, our lives must be an expression of what we most deeply value. >Yes, we can and must make conscience-driven choices about how we spend our money and time. >Yes, we must provide a safe and thriving future for our children. -
scaddenp at 14:22 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
I dont think Gilles believes that for a moment - he is specialist in debating tricks. But on off chance, the commonest adaptation is migration - any choice for salted deltas? How many million refugees is France taking? Is that preferable to changing energy source? -
scaddenp at 14:19 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
My point was not evidence that ENSO won't change. It was evidence that ENSO is not much of a player in total OHC. I argue against ENSO because its very hard to see physical reason for it to be able to do so. Paleo estimates show uncertainty about sensitivity, which is not the same as variability. However, it is extremely difficult to account for past climate with sensitivity as low as you are trying to claim. Your turn, where is your evidence for low sensitivity. There is plenty of evidence for a number about 3. See model reliability thread for "careful tuning of parameters". Try some evidence to support that accusation. Show me where a model parameter was tuned to fit overall climate instead of the empirical data on which it was based, but post it over there, not here. -
adelady at 14:14 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Spontaneous? Choosing the desert? The Irish left their green and very unpleasant land because they had to. My Swedish sailor great-grandfather jumped ship here to avoid an arranged marriage. My Rum Corps ancestor was a soldier who chose to stay on in the lush sub-tropical environment north of Sydney. And then their children grew up used to this environment - although they wrecked most of it by applying farming techniques from Europe. And yes. I am "arguing that mankind would have much less difficulties to replace 80 % of its energy sources, than to face a few degrees more on the Earth?" If you've never tried living in never-ending heat above 35C that occasionally warms up to 41+ or more, you wouldn't be so sanguine about the whole of mankind being able to cope with "a few degrees more". Those few degrees represent a =lot= of intolerable degrees for those on the high side of the average. I might swelter here from time to time, but the earth's average ensures that a lot of people are simultaneously sheltering from freezing. Let's face it, if there are to be a "few degrees more" then insulation and building re-design will be required expenditures anyway. Why not spend the money first and possibly maintain the capacity to work or play outside in more congenial temperatures? Double win. You have a better life in more comfortable surroundings. If your local climate worsens, you've already got your protection in place. If avoiding CO2 emissions manages to keep your local climate more livable, you've got a better workplace and house than you would have had if the changes hadn't been made. What's the problem? -
TimTheToolMan at 14:07 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
You point to 5 years of Argo data as evidence that ENSO wont change in the future and become biased one way or the other? You point to paleo estimates that show considerable natural variability and somehow reason that ENSO or other ntural effects like clouds didn't play a part? You're right about the models though. I dont have any doubt in my mind whatsoever with regards their usefulness for modelling altered future climatic conditions given their reliance on carfully tuned parameters that work against today's conditions. -
cjshaker at 14:05 PM on 28 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
A friend pointed me at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html I eventually got down to this web page: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/digitalfiles.html#DIG They want $2,200 for the complete data set from 1901 to current, or $500 for the summary of each day from the 1800s As taxpayers, we get to pay their salaries, pensions, health care, and then we have to pay again to access our public data? I just looked at the RealClimate.org webpage again, where you suggested, and am currently looking at the raw data section http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw Chris Shaker -
scaddenp at 13:57 PM on 28 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
Your opinions about RC nor tamino are irrelevant. They usefully include pointers to where to download data from. That is what you want. Education about real science is not marketing. -
scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Umm, as to evidence that ENSO doesnt impact long term energy budget, then I would say total OHC from argo, from here, supported by sealevel rise. I also usefulness of models which I am sure you don't. Add in paleo estimates of climate sensitivity and I would say a very long way from "no evidence". -
TimTheToolMan at 13:51 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
" I'll believe that if there is no OHC model result in AR5. " They'll have to have it by then, its a vitally important measure of our CO2's effect in our climate and needs to be compared to the models. But apparently not so vital that it cant be "ignored" for 8 years... -
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"I will look at the data as it appears and make my assessment then. Would you be giving up your beliefs in AGW if there is no OHC increase over the next 10 years? " Obviously - and same for more many other predictions of climate models if they don't turn out either. You neglected to tell us about Gavin's response was to when OHC would be available and tried oblique accusation of hiding data instead. Hmm. I'll believe that if there is no OHC model result in AR5. IanC - Lyman 2010 0-700m total OHC certainly looks to have ENSO signal in it to me, though I would be first to admit that I know little enough about oceanography. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:36 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Given that ENSO is due to a redistribution of warm and cold water across the pacific, there is no reason I think to believe that the overall heat content will increase or decrease significantly." I guess you missed the post. There is every reason to believe ENSO decreases OHC http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/ -
actually thoughtful at 13:34 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thank you for posts that examine the potential solutions, and the political situation that prevents the common sense answers from occurring. While the science is important, in 2011 we are no longer looking for evidence that AGW is happening - we are reeling from the first love tap from mother earth (summer of 2010, et al.). So how we move the politicians in various capitals from pandering to entrenched interest to working for the common good is the next essential step. For what it is worth - the case for early adopters and energy savings is HUGE - the early adopters, who act before the market signal is clear get government and other subsidies (in many cases). But they will reap the same financial reward as those who wait until the payback is less than 5 years, or whatever criteria makes energy efficiency/renewables viable in the free market. So if you have a dollar to spend, and wonder what the best investment is - right now it is in subsidized energy efficiency. Insulation, windows, more efficient appliances, more efficient transport (electric cars in particular), and it is in subsidized active systems - solar thermal (first), wind, PV - if you can get a 3rd party to share that cost now, your savings will be identical (actually higher because you have used the system longer) to the person who buys it after the subsidy ends. So the best use of a marginal investable dollar, in these extremely uncertain economic times, is obvious. For early adopters, the cost for converting to energy efficiency/renewable energy is not only small, but actually negative (as in you save more money than you spend). Break even (what this Blog has been jumping up and down about (aka grid parity)) means your 20 or 30 year costs are the same between paying the utility or throwing up wind/PV. Early adopters, especially for solar thermal, are in positive territory after 5-15 years (depends what fuel you are replacing). That is, between twice as well off or 6 times as well off (regarding energy) as the person who chooses to wait. -
IanC at 13:31 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, Scaddenp, Given that ENSO is due to a redistribution of warm and cold water across the pacific, there is no reason I think to believe that the overall heat content will increase or decrease significantly. Furthermore, the main action occurs above the thermocline, which is about 100-200m or 10% of the 0-2000m layer. Since the thermocline anomaly is also restricted to the equatorial pacific, I will be surprised if you can see ENSO signal in the OHC. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:23 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Just to be clearer. I am postulating that ENSO is simple internal variability in the system and does not impact on long term energy budget, for which total OHC is a better indicator. " Just to be clearer, I'm pointing out that you have no evidence for this and our ability to predict climate into the future relies on it. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:21 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"the OHC from argo does fit the expected response from modelling?" Expected response from modelling? It may surprise you that there is no expected response from modelling since 2003. I'm sure there is actually but I'm equally sure it will only be brought out by the likes of Gavin if OHC does increase again. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/#more-6056 "The next figure is the comparison of the ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC. As before, I don’t have the post-2003 model output, but the comparison between the 3-monthly data (to the end of Sep) and annual data versus the model output is still useful." No it isn't Gavin. Not when actual figures from models can be determined but noone has seen fit to do so for the last 8 years or put another way, since the OHC stopped increasing ...very much not in line with the model outputs... "Okay, but you will be convinced if 10 years down the track, the OHC from argo does fit the expected response from modelling?" I will look at the data as it appears and make my assessment then. Would you be giving up your beliefs in AGW if there is no OHC increase over the next 10 years? -
scaddenp at 13:12 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Just to be clearer. I am postulating that ENSO is simple internal variability in the system and does not impact on long term energy budget, for which total OHC is a better indicator. -
scaddenp at 13:08 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Missed your post. I entirely agree about upper ocean OHC. ENSO has major role in heat cycling. But I am talking about total OHC as indicator of global energy budget and 0-2000 (best proxy for it) looks smooth to me. -
scaddenp at 13:05 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Okay, but you will be convinced if 10 years down the track, the OHC from argo does fit the expected response from modelling? Also, we have a few cycles of ENSO since argo - agreed it seems to have little influence on 0-2000 OHC? Which I would read as little influence on long term energy budget. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:54 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Given ENSO doesnt seem to show much on the 0-2000m OHC" Oh yeah, and I generally disagree with your assessment anyway. So does NOAA http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/ "El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability is intimately linked to alternating stages of oceanic heat content build-up and discharge in the equatorial Pacific (Wyrtki, 1985; Cane et al, 1986; Zebiak, 1989). Jin (1997) elegantly described the relationships between heat content, sea surface temperature and zonal wind stress in his "Recharge Oscillator" theory of ENSO. Recent studies of oceanic and atmospheric variability have confirmed these relationships and elaborated on their implications for understanding the dynamics of the ENSO cycle (Meinen and McPhaden, 2000; Kessler, 2002; Trenberth et al, 2002). " -
Don Gisselbeck at 12:51 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Wouldn't solar powered battery charging of vehicles already be cost competitive if we we paying for the Mid East wars (and most of our military) directly through gas taxes? We could do without most of our military if we didn't need to import oil. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:42 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Given ENSO doesnt seem to show much on the 0-2000m OHC," I'm not convinced we have a good enough handle on OHC yet. Since Argo there has been no ocean heating. Its pretty clear that the stitching together of the two datasets (XBT et al + Argo) has created an unrealistic jump in OHC that is attempting to be resolved even now. Its another one of these cases where ( -SNIP: accusation of fraud deleted- ) change was thought to be happening quickly and the more we measure it, the less it changes.Moderator Response: [DB] In deference to scaddenp, who has already replied to this, your comment was snipped instead of deleted. Future comments with similar accusations (and even insinuations) of fraud will be deleted; be advised. -
johnd at 12:35 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Alexandre at 11:22 AM, I haven't time to get into deep discussion right now, but regarding your PS, it hasn't bothered me because that is what the paper is generally about. Examining the uncertainties and limitations of our current far from complete understanding, and how those limitations has a substantial impact on the global climate predictability. Whilst is does produce some useful and interesting modeling, that is a useful byproduct rather than the objective of the study, but enough to support relevant points one might want to debate. One aspect I found particularly interesting is the noting of the JAMSTEC prediction system being superior in certain areas to many other existing systems, JAMSTEC being one tool that I have frequently referred to for a number of years now. -
scaddenp at 12:30 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Great that is settled that oceans are heating. For a moment, I thought you were arguing that there was none. Given ENSO doesnt seem to show much on the 0-2000m OHC, how come you think it has considerable influence on the long term energy balance? This isn't rhetoric - I am not following your argument. And yes, TOA imbalance size has issues with absolute accuracy of the measurement, (but not the sign). -
michael sweet at 12:24 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, Thank you for your carefully researched and referenced posts. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:07 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
And to the mods, this discussion isn't supposed to be about models. This is about the difference between day to day weather and effects that are longer that have considerable effect on the earth's energy balance (like ENSO) that cant be predicted in the same way we cant predict day to day weather. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:01 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Tim, are you denying that the ocean's are accumulating heat despite the OHC data" Where did that crazy jump in logic come from? "You are aware that there is a TOA energy imbalance?" Were you aware that what we measure and what we calculate it should be are radically different? -
scaddenp at 11:52 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, are you denying that the ocean's are accumulating heat despite the OHC data? You are aware that there is a TOA energy imbalance? -
TimTheToolMan at 11:52 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Actually, the water vapor will stay water vapor until it cools, at which point it will condense. " You're talking about rain. That wont happen in the case of a pool in a room. condensation happens on surfaces in this case. "short term (decadal or less) redistributions of energy and temperature variations that inhibit or enhance SAT and thus radiation to space do not change the average radiation capability, or the average absorption, and hence do not change the long term temperature average." So you say. But you have no evidence that say for example La Nina effects wont predominate in the future thus cancelling out any further temperature increases from CO2. It could go the other way and that El Nino effects predominate and radically increase the temperatures. The current assumption is that the status quo happens. Thats a big assumption and is a necessary one if we're to believe we can "predict" climate in the future. And if you want to look at effects that actually effect the irradiance and radiation then clouds will do that and again we just dont know what they'll do in the future under altered climatic conditions. -
IanC at 11:48 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, You said, "Stuff like reduced atmospheric water vapour content is likely, cloud coverage changes, pressure changes cause blockings to change and so on." What causes these to happen in the first place? What causes the water to condense out? To illustrate that the air will cool irregardless of water vapour, what if it is pure nitrogen of 22C over a 5C pool? -
Bern at 11:39 AM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thanks for the 50 posts, Dana - especially the recent ones about what can be done to fix the problem. It's always useful to have a potential solution handy when stating there's a problem. -
Weather vs Climate
TimTheToolMan - "The water vapour will condense out into the pool taking its heat with it..." Actually, the water vapor will stay water vapor until it cools, at which point it will condense. On the larger scale of this example and ENSO cycles - it takes on the order of decades for even moderately transient climate feedbacks to kick in. And even without them, short term (decadal or less) redistributions of energy and temperature variations that inhibit or enhance SAT and thus radiation to space do not change the average radiation capability, or the average absorption, and hence do not change the long term temperature average. The climate will still tend to a stable point, unless there are long term changes such as greenhouse gases that affect climate averages. -
SNRatio at 11:25 AM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
As for regulation of wind (and PV) power, Europe has about 160 TWh of hydro magazine capacity today, about 5% of a year's electricity production, 2-3 weeks' production. Much of this magazine capacity can be modified for pumped hydro - there is only a need for much larger generation capacity, which is not that expensive to install. Already, Europe's wind power production is about 160-180 TWh, i.e. it has passed 5% of overall electricity generation - without much power system adaptations whatsoever. That there may occur problems with regulation and production in such a situation, is obvious. But I would have expected a lot more trouble with the rapid phasing in of wind and PV (>20 TWh now), and the problems are surely not very hard to solve satisfactorily. And, as has been pointed out here, several solutions are under development, in addition to the old, simple one of pumping hydro. As for environment impacts, most of future wind power will probably be offshore, mostly with floating wind turbines, like this seemingly succesful prototype. It is expensive to develop the technology, and cabling will never be cheap for most actual locations, but we are not talking oil investments worthless when the wells are empty after a few decades here. -
Alexandre at 11:22 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
johnd #80 Now I managed to download it. Very interesting, indeed. The importance of better skill on interannual and interdecadal predictability has been stressed on the last WCC, and this Japanese paper seems to address it. Their model seem to suggest a good part of this recent warming may be due to SST, but they also say this quantification is outside the scope of the paper, and that SST itself may have risen because of the GHE. I read only abstract and conclusions. Those questions I asked still stand. If one wants to explain GW via SST rise, he will have to reconcile that with the rest of the existing evidence. The energy trapped by GHG (and the temperature rise caused by it) is well understood and directly measured. I assume you understood the relevance of the questions I asked. PS: this paper was based on a model simulation. It does not seem to have bothered you this time. -
dana1981 at 11:20 AM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Phil - that's not what I said. I'm not saying people won't change their lifestyles. In fact, the way individuals can make sure carbon pricing doesn't impact their wallets is by taking advantage of energy efficiency programs. I'm talking about impacts to the economy as a whole, which will be small, and benefits will outweigh costs. And that's economics, not energy. Energy consumption will have to become more efficient overall as well. I think you're misreading what I'm saying. -
Marcus at 11:09 AM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Well here's an interesting article about the future of fuel production. -
TimTheToolMan at 11:07 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
" I guarantee you the air temperature will drop as the cold water absorbs ambient heat from the air in the building." Of course it will and its through effects like decreased water vapour content and net radiation flow. The water vapour will condense out into the pool taking its heat with it and the difference in radiation means that the net radiation now flows towards the water and away from the atmosphere. But does that heat the pool? No, only to a very tiny extent...the energy simply isn't "sloshed around" in the system as you'd like to believe. Once it leaves the ocean, its going to be radiated away and doesnt wait around until the next La Nina to be put back. -
muoncounter at 10:49 AM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
"the effect on birds deaths due to WindFarms ? Will they same standard be applied to Windfarms as oil?" Let's hope not. Bird deaths and spilt oil Every year at least half a million water birds die from encounters with spilt oil, according to Jay Holcomb, executive director of the International Bird Rescue Research Center in Fairfield, California. Bird deaths in oil sand production facilities A new study says birds are likely dying in Alberta oilsands tailings ponds at a rate that is at least 30 times higher than that suggested by the oil industry. How oil affects birds When a bird encounters oil on the surface of the water, the oil sticks to its feathers, causing them to mat and separate, impairing the waterproofing and exposing the animals sensitive skin to extremes in temperature. This can result in hypothermia, meaning the bird becomes cold, or hyperthermia, which results in overheating. Instinctively, the bird tries to get the oil off its feathers by preening, which results in the animal ingesting the oil. -
Phil263 at 10:44 AM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
"I examined economic studies, and found that carbon pricing has a small economic impact, and in fact its benefits outweigh its costs several times over, as we've seen in real-world examples." Dana, Saying that mitigating or adapting to climate change will bear no economic costs is deluding ourselves.In fact, the whole point of mitigation measures such as carbon taxation or ETS is to impact on people's wallets so that they change their behaviour. But fundamentally, economic "growth" is the root cause of runaway carbon emissions as well as other environmental impacts ( degradation of landscapes, natural habitats, destruction of renewable respources and natural ecoservices).... My point here is that we are not addressing the fundamental problem of " externalities" by saying to the public: You can vote for climate change measures and it will not impact your "lifestyle". It would be better if the economic argument of climate change action emphasised the devastating effect of economic growth overall and called for a review of the current economic model which is focussed on material wealth rather than well being. -
Trueofvoice at 10:41 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, Let's say we have an empty olypmic sized (because I always demand the best) interior swimming pool. The air temperature in the building is at 22C. We then quickly fill the pool with water at a temperature of 5C. I guarantee you the air temperature will drop as the cold water absorbs ambient heat from the air in the building. That's how the temperature in a water-cooled engine is maintained. The liquid is kept at a lower temperature so it can absorb heat from the engine and prevent it from overheating. -
TimTheToolMan at 10:27 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"How does this happen? Since cold is in fact the absence of heat (meaning you can't "add" cold to the atmosphere) atmospheric heat is drawn into the cold water upwelling from the ocean." No. Atmospheric heat doesn't get "drawn" into the cold water at all. The energy from the earth system is ultimately just gone. Radiated away. The cold water effects the weather with whatever effects that come along with it...Stuff like reduced atmospheric water vapour content is likely, cloud coverage changes, pressure changes cause blockings to change and so on. The cold water is eventually warmed again by downward shortwave radiation (ie direct from the sun) and the quasi-periodic cycle starts again. -
johnd at 10:23 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Alexandre at 10:10 AM, it may take time to download, otherwise do a Google search for the title. This study may not answer the questions you have asked, but it may cause you to rethink what questions need to be addressed. -
Alexandre at 10:10 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
johnd #74 The link did not work. I'll try again later, it does not seem to be broken at its origin. But in light of it, and assuming that you read and understood it, how would you answer those questions I asked in my previous post (#73)? -
Marcus at 10:05 AM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
"The current state of WindFarms shows some cause for concern" Ah, that old myth is back again. In the US, Wind Farms account for about 10,000 to 40,000 deaths per annum-which amounts to barely 1 death per year per MW of installed capacity. Of course, that figure has an upward bias because it includes the many thousands of older Wind Turbines that really *did*-& still do-cause a lot of bird deaths, due to poor siting, poor colouring & smaller, faster spinning blades. Wind Farms built in the US, post-2000, have a bird fatality rate much, much lower than the national average due to major improvements in siting, better colour schemes & larger, slower moving blades. For a comparison, though, windows kill between 100 million & 1 billion birds per year in the US. Automobiles kill 60-80 million birds per year & oil extraction kills around 3 million birds per year. So, compared to other human activities, Wind Farms have very little impact on bird populations. Indeed, Wind farms even compare favourably to other forms of electricity generation, with Nuclear power causing almost twice as many deaths-per GWh-than wind (about 0.5 deaths vs 0.25), & about the same number of deaths as coal per GWh (about 0.22 for coal-without considering impacts of climate change-vs 0.25 for wind). Of course, as older wind farms are replaced with newer, more bird friendly turbines, the deaths per GWh figure for wind will almost certainly fall below 0.2. Of course, Stevee, if Wind Power was such a bane to bird life as you claim, then why does every Bird Preservation Society in the world give Wind Power such a big thumbs up? Of course, this endorsement does come with the caveat that the industry keep striving to reduce bird fatalities still further, but I doubt they'd side with a source of electricity generation that was so bad for the wildlife they're sworn to protect! -
Trueofvoice at 10:00 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, During La Niña, the easterly trade winds strengthen and cold upwelling along the equator and the West coast of South America intensifies. Sea-surface temperatures along the equator can fall as much as 7 degrees F below normal. We also see that in certain parts of the world such as North America average atmospheric temperatures fall. How does this happen? Since cold is in fact the absence of heat (meaning you can't "add" cold to the atmosphere) atmospheric heat is drawn into the cold water upwelling from the ocean. No, the sun doesn't dribble energy at the planet, it radiates it. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap a certain amount of that radiation, causing a radiative imbalance (temporarily more coming in than going out). The planet responds by heating up, thus radiating more energy and eventually achieving a new radiative balance. Yes the amount of energy entering and leaving the planet is enormous. Increasing CO2 traps a relatively small amount of energy that would otherwise have been radiated back into space, but that energy accumulates over years and decades and eventually begins to impact the greater climate. -
Alex C at 09:46 AM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Ah, I remember your first post Dana :) I can feel the nostalgia now. Glad I could contribute to your work here even before I became an author! -
TimTheToolMan at 09:43 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"During a La Nina heat from the atmosphere is essentially transferred to the oceans." No. Quite apart from the fact the atmosphere doesn't heat the oceans to any appreciable extent at all, this is a fundamental misunderstanding many people have with regards the energy flows around the earth. Your view comes across as if the sun dribbles energy to the earth which mostly holds it and lets some go to keep in balance and it lets less go with additional CO2 keeping it here. The fact is that the energy flow through the earth is MASSIVE. Three times per day the earth receives and then radiates away the same amount of energy it has accumulated over the last 100+ years. -
johnd at 09:40 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Trueofvoice at 09:23 AM, you don't feel that the oceans also interfere in that, when they remove heat from the atmosphere, that heat cannot be liberated to space, fast or slowly, and only when the oceans do release heat can that heat then be liberated to space? -
scaddenp at 09:38 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Trueofvoice : so you agree that energy conservation does *not* imply a constant average surface temperature ? " It DOES imply zero trend in temperature over long period. -
scaddenp at 09:36 AM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Straw man. To reduce rate of climate change, you dont need to replace all fossil fuel use immediately. Just that in fairness, the big cuts need to be made in the West. (cue for Gilles to go off-topic on social justice issue). As to hazard, well looking at WG2, I'd say yes. (and if a warmist used comparison of migration to climate change, I doubt you would have much trouble refuting it).
Prev 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 Next
