Recent Comments

Prev  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  Next

Comments 91301 to 91350:

91301. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:34 AM on 24 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       ... and on Commentary on the RealClimate from 2004 shows how currently is growing rapidly science.
       Moderator Response: [DB] I'm sorry, Arkadiusz, I don't understand this one. Is this an extension of your previous comment? It is incomplete as it stands now.
91302. DSL at 00:27 AM on 24 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel: "Since the atmosphere is colder than the surface any radiation from it will not warm the surface because its photons do not have the energy to do this. What does happen is, photons from the surface, having more energy than photons in the upper atmosphere warm it, the heat thus transferred upwards is re-radiated (by GHGs) into deep space, keeping them cool. Do you agree?" So you're saying that the photons emitted by the atmosphere are only emitted away from the surface. No photon could possibly be emitted toward the surface, because the surface is warmer. Do you agree?
91303. Gilles at 00:27 AM on 24 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       DB : I am not rejecting the answers. I am rejecting the claim that we have definitive answers, and that no doubt is now allowed. That's not a "rhetoric" point of view. That's a point of view, and for me it is scientifically based, because science is exactly that : examining pieces of evidence and keep researching as long as they aren't clear.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Then it is clear you simply do not understand how science works nor the meaning of scientific consensus. This would be a step towards greater understanding in both matters. I suggest reading it.

91304. Tom Curtis at 00:19 AM on 24 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel @780, One last chance:

       Most GHE explanations say that this 'slowing' is because of a warming effect on the surface by radiation from GH gases in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is colder than the surface any radiation from it will not warm the surface because its photons do not have the energy to do this. What does happen is, photons from the surface, having more energy than photons in the upper atmosphere warm it, the heat thus transferred upwards is re-radiated (by GHGs) into deep space, keeping them cool. Do you agree?

       1) The Green House Gases in the atmosphere undoubtedly radiate in all directions as, a) this is the predicted behaviour in theory of radiation; and b) the radiation from those gases have been observed from space, and from high flying planes lookding down; and from the ground and from low flying planes looking up. An example of one such measurement is found in the intermediate version of the above article. So, as a matter of empirical fact, IR radiation is emitted by GHG in the downward direction. 2) The surface of the Earth has a very high emissivity and hence absorptivity in the wavelengths in which IR radiation is emitted by Green House Gases. This is shown very clearly (from observation) in post 703 by Alexander above. Note, the wavelength of peak emission by CO2 is 15 microns, with the "wings" of peak emission extending from 13 to 17 microns thus showing significant overlap with every type of surface shown, except coarse snow, which of course significantly overlaps with H2O emissions. Thus, over land, the vast majority of Downward Long Wave Radiation is absorbed by the surface, and at sea a significant proportion of it, in most cases the majority of it is absorbed. 3) If a photon is absorbed by a surface, the surface gains the energy that was contained in the photon (by conservation of energy). 4) If energy is absorbed by a surface, all else being equal, the temperature of the surface will rise, and the surface is warmed. 5) However, the surface of the Earth is typically warmer than the atmosphere, so it itself is radiating energy to the atmosphere, and is radiating more energy than it receives from the atmosphere. 6) Therefore, absent any other energy sources, the net effect of the interchange of photons between atmosphere and surface is that the surface cools and the atmosphere warms. 7) However, if the atmosphere was not there, or did not radiate IR radiation: (a) the total energy emitted by the surface would still be the same, because that energy is solely a function of its temperature and emissivity; but (b) the surface would receive less energy because it would not be absorbing photons emitted by the atmosphere. 8) Therefore, over a given period of time, and ignoring all other energy sources, the Earth will cool quicker without an atmosphere containing GHG than it will with one. 9) Of course, the Earth's surface is periodically warmed by a very bright energy source, the Sun. For most locations on Earth, the period it is warmed is for on average 12 hours out of every 24. 10) The amount of energy received from the Sun in any 24 hour period at any location is (to a first approximation) not a function of the temperature at that location. Therefore, the Earth at any location will be warmer if it cools less at night because it will add the Sun's energy received that day to a higher base level. 11) Therefore, because GHG slow cooling, they result in warmer temperatures on the surface of the Earth, not because they are by themselves capable of providing a net warming to the Earth, but because they slow the loss of the energy provided by the Sun. (12) This does not explain the equilibrium temperature of the Earth's surface, which is governed by the need for the Outgoing Infrared Radiation to balance the Incoming Short Wave Radiation, which balance is achieved by the interplay of upper tropospheric temperatures and surface temperatures brought about by the lapse rate and GHG concentrations. Each of (1) through (12) above is straight forward, blindingly obvious, and well confirmed by by being predicted by basic physical laws, and by being observed multiple times. Jointly, they refute your entire case. I am not entering into a discussion on this point out of deference to the moderators request that we not feed the trolls. However, laid out step by step like this, even you, Damorbel, should be able to see what absolute drivel you have been serving up.
91305. CBDunkerson at 00:08 AM on 24 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJ Ryan, I note that you continue to make nonsense claims about greenhouse gases being unable to redirect energy from a colder area to a warmer one while refusing to answer how a parabolic mirror does so. In short. You give every appearance of knowing that your argument is groundless and not even trying to defend it... save by obfuscating with trivialities; Like using a solar cooker to cool something. Which really applies the same principle in reverse. Infrared energy coming off the object inside the cooker is reflected away towards open space. Provided the cooker is insulated enough to limit IR coming in from other directions and the IR input from the area it is pointed towards is less than the IR being reflected away from the object you get a net cooling effect. This proves that energy can flow from warmer areas to cooler ones... just as using the cooker/parabolic mirror during the day proves that energy can also flow from cooler areas (the mirrored surface) to warmer areas (the heated object at the focal point). damorbel: I thought your arguments were too ridiculous to be actually believed back when you were just arguing things like 'the reflectivity of an object has no impact on its temperature' and 'electromagnetic waves can only travel from cold areas to warmer areas in large bandwidths'. Now that you've moved on to 'the greenhouse effect is caused by gravity' and the like we clearly live in universes too profoundly different to allow any sort of rational discussion.
91306. Gilles at 23:59 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       "Try reading the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report, it is full of discussion of what is uncertain and in need of further research" My personal experience is that when I'm read the IPCC WGI report, I don't find any certitude concerning the exact role of CO2 in the XXth warming. Although I would also admit that "average temperature" (not really "climate" ) is changing, and that mankind probably contribute to this change. But I'm not going much beyond- and certainly not up to the conclusions that GW is the worst problem in the world. I have no idea of how many scientists would say the same - but actually I don't really care about that.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] You keep insisting on a simple answer to a complex question and then reject the answers given you without an obvious demonstration that you've objectively tried to understand them.

       If your aim is not to understand the science of climate change but to simply offer up non-science-based rhetoric with no sourced links to substantiate your contrarian positions, then other websites exist to serve that purpose.

       [Dikran Marsupial] You said it would be desirable to "precise what is not enough understood to justify keeping on doing research". The statements of uncertainty in the IPCC WG1 provide you with exactly the precis you want, it is a bit daft to then complain that the IPCC report doesn't provide "certitude". Science isn't about "certitude" it is about assessing the plausibility of the competing hypotheses that remain after you ignore the ones that are inconsistent with the observations. I have pointed out to you repeatedly that there is no proof of any theory regarding causality in the real world, it is fundamentally impossible. If you want certitude, stick to mathematics, or politics (where words like "proof" and "certainty" have weaker connotations).
91307. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:58 PM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       @dana1981 Cited paper mainly says that there is a problem with the carbon balance for the Holocene - the CO2 from the soil (not only the influence of ancient civilizations agricultural): “However, there are uncertainties in our current study, which provides the guidance for future studies of peatlands and Holocene carbon cycle dynamics. The uncertainties related to our model simulations are mainly caused by the terrestrial vegetation ...” A well, there is a sentence: “However, these uncertainties are not critical to the interpretation of our results, as the overall magnitude of NP carbon uptake is large.” But there are doubts (perhaps the errors - and certainly "not critical"?) - but certainly they are not my mistakes. And 0.5 ppm of CO 2 per year - participate in the unbalanced excess atmospheric CO2 - not a hypothetical value. There are analysis indicating the decisive contribution of natural CO2 Spencer. Spencer only speculate where it is a natural surplus of CO2. Sources shows study a case of Mt. Pinatubo and El Nino in 1997/8. Volcanoes - in total - so far the negative impact on global NPP - ”many years after the eruption”. The same is confirmed - says in this work: Aerosols and the land carbon sink, Angert & Krakauer, 2010. in connection with (contra) to work: Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon Mercado, et al., 2009. The resulting conclusions are most interesting in this paper: Impacts of large-scale climatic disturbances on the terrestrial carbon cycle, Erbrecht & Lucht, 2006. Every sentence is extremely important here: “The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere steadily increases as a consequence of anthropogenic emissions but with large interannual variability caused by the terrestrial biosphere.[...]” “The response of soil respiration to changes in temperature and precipitation explains most of the modelled anomalous CO 2 flux.” “We therefore conclude that during the last 25 years the two largest disturbances of the global carbon cycle were strongly controlled by soil processes rather then the response of vegetation to these large-scale climatic events.” “Atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements show that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 varies substantially from year to year ...” “It is widely accepted that these variations are caused by the terrestrial biosphere through the processes of carbon uptake during photosynthesis and carbon release during soil respiration ...” Mt. Pinatubo: “In comparison, variations in the oceans [Two decades of ocean CO 2 sink and variability, Quéré et al., 2003.], deforestation, and land use change are much smaller ...” “Results show that a large fraction of the observed CO 2 growth rate variability is controlled by varying soil organic matter decomposition rather than changing plant productivity [...].
91308. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:55 PM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       @#IanC “... the biosphere sink somehow distinguishes natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2.” This is true. But how would "impossible" my scenario? There is no chemical difference (14C/13C/12C) between the old carbon from fossil fuels, the old soil, ventilation of the deep ocean. Thus, if the current warming is unprecedented in the Holocene, unprecedentedly rapid respiration it must be used not only from present NPP - but with the old carbon stocks and ... can not be in balance with the sink - type of biosphere. Decomposition of old organic matter as a result of deeper active layers in a snow depth manipulation experiment, Nowiński et al., 2010.: “Our results indicate that, as permafrost in tussock tundra ecosystems of arctic Alaska thaws, carbon buried up to several thousands of years ago will become an active component of the carbon cycle, potentially accelerating the rise of CO 2 in the atmosphere.” “Radiocarbon ages of heterotrophically respired C ranged from <50 to 235 years BP in July mineral soil samples and from 1,525 to 8,300 years BP [!] in August samples ...” Carbon respiration from subsurface peat accelerated by climate warming in the subarctic, Dorrepaal et al., 2009.: “Climate warming therefore accelerates respiration of the extensive, subsurface carbon reservoirs in peatlands to a much larger extent than was previously thought ...” “Assuming that our data from a single site are indicative of the direct response to warming of northern peatland soils on a global scale, we estimate that climate warming of about 1°C over the next few decades could induce a global increase in heterotrophic respiration of 38–100 megatonnes of C per year. Our findings suggest a large, long-lasting, positive feedback of carbon stored in northern peatlands to the global climate system.” In the past, the main sink for the large surpluses of CO2 has always been a terrestrial biosphere - higher plants - tissue. Organisms tissue always respond (longer process of reproduction) of delay in relation to a unicellular soil bacteria (respiration) or CO2 from the deep ocean ventilation. Hence - L-V model is - for source and sink - especially photosynthesis - the most reasonable. This confirms this paper: Loss of Carbon from the Deep Sea Since the Last Glacial Maximum, Yu et al., 2010. : “Combined benthic δ13C and [CO3 2-] results indicate that deep-sea-released CO2 during the early deglacial period (17.5 to 14.5 thousand years ago) was preferentially stored in the atmosphere, whereas during the late deglacial period (14 to 10 thousand years ago), besides contributing to the contemporary atmospheric CO2 rise, a substantial portion of CO2 released from oceans was absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere.” Only after three thousand. years the biosphere has removed the natural surplus of the early Holocene ... Theory o 100% of the anthropogenic origin of the unbalanced excess CO2 in atmosphere - affect the basics of ecosystem sciences - population dynamics.
91309. Robert Murphy at 23:53 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       "I would much preferred 51% of those democratic peoples to have voted for their leaders, and 51% of scientists to agree on all the main facts of AGW." Comparing scientific consensus to a brutal dictatorship is less than convincing, to say the least. You may "prefer" to have only 51% of climate scientists agree on the main points of AGW, but wishing it doesn't make it so. And imagining that their acceptance of AGW is done at the point of a metaphorical gun is also wishful thinking, because you have nothing to back your wish up with. Reality is not very yielding to our personal preferences.
91310. RSVP at 23:47 PM on 23 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       alan_marshall 48 "For example, rather than ration gasoline, it is much better to price it in a way that gives people an incentive to use less..." ...and in this way give the rich the break they deserve? making "draconian control" almost sound attractive. But aside from what might be envisioned here, think about this one moment... If climate were taken back to 1750 conditions, as per hockey stick graph, the world could only need more, not less energy considering the increased winter heating costs that will be needed. (At the same time, less AC waste heat (assuming cooler summers) will also have to be made up in the cooler season.) So it looks like this whole focus on CO2 is pointless. We need more energy period, and if it can be supplied by so called alternate sources so much the better.
91311. damorbel at 23:25 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #783 damorbel - & Response: [DB] DB I am deeply dissappointed to have to write this, since my capabilities are definitely 'off topic' and it might be thought that some of the remarks in the cited link are 'ad hominem'. Your link has this :- "I didnt describe any experiment." You must forgive me, I was looking to you to describe an experiment to which I could agree. Next in the link it has:- I proposed that an experiment be designed such that normal understanding of physics and your understanding would calculate a different result." This of course doesn't mean I am abnormal. Then the link has:- "This is normal way to test scientific arguments." I'm afraid I do not quite understand what this means, does it also mean that I cannot achieve a scientific result? And:- "I asked if the experiment didn't go your way," As yet no experiment to 'go my way' Further in the link:- "whether you would be prepared to abandon your view and read the textbook. (ie, behave like a scientist) Interesting question. But I don't know which textbook I am suppose to read or whether it is a requirement for scientists to read text books. Personally I recommend original works, textbook contents are at least 2nd hand if not much more; at university my tutors always advised original texts, they had a low opinion of published textbooks. Finally:- "Got a yes/no? In fact, have you got an experiment that you think validates your views over mainstream physics?" I have set out clearly what the essence of how energy is transferred by means of photons and so far nobody has shown it to be incorrect.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] We've heard the one about textbooks before. No need recycling your old ideas when they didn't work first time around.
91312. Ken Lambert at 23:11 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       Ho Chi Minh used to get about 97% vote every time he stood for election. So too did many other leaders of Peoples Democratic Republics. I would much preferred 51% of those democratic peoples to have voted for their leaders, and 51% of scientists to agree on all the main facts of AGW. ( -Snip- )
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic portion deleted.
91313. Kevin C at 23:08 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       SME @15: Well done for bringing up Popper. Have you read Kuhn and Feyerabend? They may give you a slightly different perspective. But actually, I think there is considerable space for the idea of consensus science even in Popper work (especially if we introduce Bayes as well). The naive understanding of Popper is that hypotheses fall into two classes: falsified and not-yet-falsified. Unfortunately that model is so simple as to leave science as almost useless. In practice, scientists constantly assess how much confidence they have in different hypotheses. Popper describes this by asking how many 'severe tests' (tests which could falsify the hypothesis) a hypothesis has survived. The term 'consensus science' may be understood in exactly these terms - when a hypothesis has survived many severe tests, and many alternative hypotheses have failed those tests, then the result among scientists in the field approaches consensus. (All this can be said more precisely in Bayesian probability terms, but I think in practice the social nature of scientific consensus is probably more important most of the time. Hence we are talking about a study on the views of scientists.)
       Moderator Response: Well said, thanks.
91314. Ken Lambert at 22:57 PM on 23 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Vague #88 Please expand on the role of rare earths in Wind and Solar collectors??
91315. Kooiti Masuda at 22:47 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       The article of Doran and Zimmerman (2009), mentioned by MarkR above (#20 presently), should be taken as the source of the claim "97 out of 100 [active researchers in the field] agree that the climate is changing and that we are causing it". Anderegg et al. cited it. Anderegg et al. derived a similar number by some different statistics as well, but that might not be a fair sample of active climate scientists. Doran's article was also dicussed by Jeff Masters at Weather Underground blog.
91316. Gilles at 22:24 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       So in my opinion, it would be highly desirable to precise what is not enough understood to justify keeping on doing research
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial]Try reading the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report, it is full of discussion of what is uncertain and in need of further research. The job has already been done, perhaps you ought to read more and post less, at least until you have researched possible answers to your questions (the WG1 report is an excellent place to look for answers).
91317. Gilles at 22:22 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       a remark on this :" If such claims were credible it would be unusual as the divisive nature of scientists would prevent such a large consensus if there actually were grounds for division. However, the substantive point is that there is a general (if not complete) consensus" In my opinion, you defend a very delicate position where the "consensus " must be just large enough to provide evidence that things are "true", but not large enough to justify that you need to argue against "contrarians". The same is true for the whole research in climate science. You need to argue that things are really so well understood that it is unacceptable to contest them, but that we still need to pay for researchers and support climate scientists. That is the really unusual thing - usually we do research when the situation is not yet clearly understood
91318. Gilles at 22:16 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       moderator : I know that this will be soon censored, but this is kind of a private conversation : how can you honestly defend the opinion that the science is proved, if even their best defenders implicitly say the opposite ? and how can you claim that you defend honestly science , if you're not even able to let this question appear and answer it easily ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Nowhere have I sais the science is proved, in fact I explicitly said that such proof is fundamentally impossible "You can't prove a theory regarding the real world, only disprove (Popper)". Perhaps you need to read what is written in replies to your posts more carefully (on that topic, your recent comment implies that the 97% consensus is unusual, when if you read the article, it explicitly states that it is not unusual - read the last paragraph). BTW if you want to have a private discussion, email would be a better option, my email address is dikranmarsupial@gmail.com .
91319. chrisd3 at 22:11 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       @22 LazyTeen (is there another kind?): Yes. Consensus is a consequence of solid evidence and hypothesis/theory, not a proof of it. To the standard "skeptic" strawman "Consensus is not proof," part of my resposne is often something along the lines of "No, consensus isn't proof, and no one says otherwise, but it is evidence of evidence."
91320. Gilles at 21:45 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       so what do you understand from : "From my own experience, such a high proportion is quite unusual." which "experience" is he talking about ? a tautology is not "unusual" , usually ...
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] As I said, it would only be unusual if the claims against the consensus view were credible. If such claims were credible it would be unusual as the divisive nature of scientists would prevent such a large consensus if there actually were grounds for division. However, the substantive point is that there is a general (if not complete) consensus, so please move on to a discussion on the substantive issue, rather than quibbling irrelevant details.
91321. damorbel at 20:45 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #782 scaddenp you wrote:- "still waiting to hear whether you accept that experiment is way to settle the debate." Not at all sure what experiment you have in mind. Care to describe it?
       Moderator Response: [DB] The question here, which you have conspicuously avoided answering for some time now, makes it clear that the experiment design to prove your alternative world of physics is up to you. We're still waiting.
91322. Marcus at 20:35 PM on 23 March 2011
       The True Cost of Coal Power
       BTW, Gilles, your data regarding Germany's per capita CO2 emissions is almost 4 years old. Back in 1991-before they embarked on their renewable energy & energy efficiency program, their emissions were 12t per capita-so a 3.4t per capita reduction in the space of 15 years-with no apparent harm to GDP growth (per capita GDP of around $41,000). The US, btw, that has double the CO2 emissions (per capita) of Germany has a per capita GDP of only $47,000. Denmark, Sweden & Norway also have significantly lower per capita emissions than the US, yet their per capita GDP is *higher* than the US ($55,000, $49,000 & $88,000 respectively). The UK & France have *also* reduced their CO2 emissions-by around 1t per capita from 1991 levels-& they also have very good per capita GDP ($36,000 & $39,000 respectively) really kind of puts paid to the whole Fossil Fuel use=greater wealth argument. Anyway, like I said, I'll now leave you to dwell in your fantasy land. Just please stop spamming your fantasy around this site *unless* you have some kind of solid proof to back it up.
91323. LazyTeenager at 20:18 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       It's a standard climate skeptic debating point to express contempt for a "consensus of climate scientists". My standard answer to this is that it is not just a consensus of points of view. It is much stronger than that. It is really a "consensus of evidence".
91324. Gilles at 20:09 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       19 Philippe : maybe you can give a constructive opinion of why a 97 % agreement is considered as "unusual" , for a proven theory ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You can't prove a theory regarding the real world, only disprove (Popper), so your question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Taking that into account, the question becomes "why is a 97% agreement considered as "unusual" for a generally accepted theory?" then the question is merely a tautology posed as a question. As the article suggests, scientists pick holes in theories for a living, so 97% consensus would be unusual if the generally accepted view didn't have good support from the theory, experiment and observation. Thus the 97% consensus would be unusual only if the skeptic objections were as solid as presented on e.g. skeptic blogs. In my view, it isn't unsual.
91325. scaddenp at 20:00 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel - still waiting to hear whether you accept that experiment is way to settle the debate. Sounds like you only want to talk, not find anything out.
91326. MarkR at 19:41 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       rhjames: check the link you were first given! The 97% was originally from a small sub-section of those polled by Doran & Zimmerman for a 2009 paper. Anderegg, 2011 found about the same figure using different methodology, as explained in the post.
91327. Philippe Chantreau at 19:27 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       Gilles complains of a question too vague and ends his post with an accusation that is even more so, although what he hints at is the usual stuff. Yes, Gilles, you may offer an explanation. None of the word salad above qualifies as such.
91328. Gilles at 18:56 PM on 23 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "One of those options is to choose, really choose, to 'develop' at a rate that can be supported by renewables only. It might be slower than you or I might prefer, but it is still development. " why do you think it would be slower, after all, if the capacities are the same ? the only thing to do is to built power plants, after all. What limits the rate of annual growth of electricity production, following you ? and how do you explain that "far better " solutions aren't adopted by anybody , and that they absolutely refuse to sign anything constraining their absolute CO2 production (which is usually considered as "understandable" in international discussions)? BTW, chinese politicians do not seem to have a strong aversion against renewable hydroelectricity. So why don't they produce everything with renewable energies, if they accept water? do you think there is a strange mental disease leading to like electrons from water and to dislike electrons from wind and sun ?
91329. Gilles at 18:30 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       so : " 97 out of 100 agree that the climate is changing and that we are causing it." May I offer an explanation of this "quite unusual " proportion? that the question is so vague that it is difficult to say "no". What is "changing" ? climate ? well I do not know anybody who lived 30 years ago in tropical, temperate, or Arctic zones and who has changed the name of its climatic zone ! The north of France is always rather cool and rainy and Mediterranée is always a marvelous see. So "climate" in the original meaning hasn't changed for anybody - scientists may have thought that "average surface temperature " has changed - but that cannot be contested. It has changed, that is only intrumental measurements. And that we "are causing" it ? well may be - there must be some anthropic changes. Even big dams change climatic conditions (although not enough to change the overall qualification , as I said). Deforestation, change of land use, urbanization all change the local precipitations and temperature. And of course CO2 is contributing. So it is almost impossible to answer "no, we aren't changing anything". But the given explanations are somewhat strange : "From my own experience, such a high proportion is quite unusual. ... So how come that 97 % of the experts agree that the current warming is not natural but a consequence of burning fossil fuels? First, it is because all our data show that the global mean temperature is increasing, that the glaciers and the arctic ice are melting and therefore sea levels are rising." So the question is about the cause of the change, and the justification is "because it is observed"? I don't really understand the relevance of the explanation. "Second, we know that burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Nowadays we know how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere by using it as our global garbage bin for fossil fuel. All our climate observations show a global increase in temperature. This increase is consistent with the well established properties of CO2." another strange formulation : we explain that 97 % (an "unusual proportion" ) of scientists do agree by the fact that the increase is "consistent" with ? (notwithstanding the fact that the main issue is that of retroaction, not the primary IR absorption?) Well it is not "unusual" that a very large majority of scientists accept theories : special or even general relativity, quantum mechanics, and biological evolution is probably accepted by a still larger proportion of scientists. So why does the post qualify this proportion as "unusual"? probably because the given reason ("consistent with") is usually considered as "weak evidence" and not "definitive proof". The "unusual" thing is that so many scientist agree on so weak evidence (not simply that "so many scientists agree").if they were definitive proof of the purely anthropogenic evidence, this would not be unusual : this would be normal. But the post does not really offer an explanation of why. May I offer an explanation : that other things than scientific considerations interfere with the answer.
91330. damorbel at 18:21 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #780 it has :- "an average temperature of about 279K, an average taken over the entire planet - summer and winter; pole to pole." And of course, 'day and night'.
91331. LazyTeenager at 18:15 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       rhjames at 5:18 reckons -------- You mentioned retired engineers and physicists. Perhaps they are the ones who have time to go into detail, and make informed judgments, rather than follow the popular trend. -------- The overall position of this demographic is not known. However the noisy ones commenting in climate skeptic blogs follow a pattern: 1. Claims that "I am smart and climate scientists are stupid" 2. Followed by some comment proving they are incompetent in their own technical field.
91332. damorbel at 18:00 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re 769 RW1damorbel (RE: 755), ""And why the 'GH' effect is not a radiation effect... from... GH gases." OK, then what is the primary mechanism for the greenhouse effect?" Since the GHE is an explained as a radiation effect t "No amount of refocussing ...... Or, in other words, increase the temperature of.... anything. That is what the 2nd law is all about." #Responding you say:- "The second law primarily states that heat can only flow from warm to cold - not the other way around." Yes However, you say also:- ".. the rate the incoming energy can leave the system from the surface is slower than the rate it is coming into the surface." Most GHE explanations say that this 'slowing' is because of a warming effect on the surface by radiation from GH gases in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is colder than the surface any radiation from it will not warm the surface because its photons do not have the energy to do this. What does happen is, photons from the surface, having more energy than photons in the upper atmosphere warm it, the heat thus transferred upwards is re-radiated (by GHGs) into deep space, keeping them cool. Do you agree? Then you write:- "The effect in principle is not much different than the interior of a car heating up inside on cold day from sitting out in the Sun. The Sun's energy is mostly transparent through the windows. It's then absorbed and re-radiated by the interior car components. The rate at which the energy is entering the interior is faster than the rate the re-radiated energy can leave the interior; therefore, the interior has to heat up." What you say doesn't just apply to a car, it is the same for a greenhouse or any surface exposed directly to the Sun's output. It's well known that, in a desert, the Sun can heat a surface well above 100C, enough to fry an egg. But even the arguments for the GH effect agree that it is the average temperature that is inportant, so they account for this by saying the Sun's output (the solar constant ) is not the measured 1370W/m^2 (@5780K if they include the temperature of the photons) but 342.5W/m^2 this latter would give an average temperature of about 279K, an average taken over the entire planet - summer and winter; pole to pole. Further you have:- "Ultimately, when the rate of energy entering something is faster than rate it can leave, the something has to heat up. That's the GHE." Couldn't agree more. Are you able to say at what temperature this would stop, if at all? The only beef I have with the arguments for the existance of the GHE is that it is not supported by well established thermal physics, like focussing photons increases their energy, simply not true. If it were true mirrors would change the colour of light when they reflect it; now that would be strange!
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "The only beef I have with the arguments for the existance of the GHE is that it is not supported by well established thermal physics"

       Then you haven't been paying attention, clearly. Read the whole post, starting at the beginning. The comments too, if necessary.

91333. Gilles at 17:50 PM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       "This post is a rebuttal to the "skeptic" myth that the pre-1940 warming was purely natural, and as large as the current warming, thus the current warming could also be natural. The article refuted all three of these points." I think that what people like Humanityrules and myself try to tell you is that presenting a possible, unproved, combination of explanation is not a rebuttal and doesn't refute other possible combinations. Before excluding possibilities, you must have solid evidence to exclude them - which is not the case here.
91334. Gilles at 17:44 PM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       dana it seems that you distort somewhat the numbers. If the warming rate is 1.3°C /century during the 1910-1940 period, this makes a total 0.4 °C. Fig 1 shows that anthropogenic influence is estimated to be around 0.1 °C, and Fig 5 shows around 0.2 °C for natural forcings (BTW in Fig 4, I think the text should be corrected, it says " Simlar to the anthropogenic contribution, the best estimate of the anthropogenic contribution to the 1910-1940 warming in Meehl (2004) is approximately 0.1 to 0.15°C " - you meant probably solar forcings) for natural forcing. You don't plot the sum of the two, but I guess you have some difficulties to explain the whole variation. And there is absolutely nothing that explains naturally the break around 1940 - nothing changes up to the Agung explosion in 1963. So the whole picture looks much more like a approximate estimate of largely unknown contributions : "expected to be 0.22 °C but due to ocean lag and other anthropogenic effects it should be between 0.1 and 0.15 ° C" : well may be but that's very far from a precise theory ! why wouldn't ocean lags and other anthropogenic effects wouldn't limit rather the warming to 0.05 ° C , leaving 0.15 °C unexplained ? can you prove that it is impossible ? this is by no way an exclusion of the other possibilities , which is the real criterion of validity of a scientific theory. What you're offering here is a possible combination of influences, neither of them being precisely determined - and this combination doesn't fit very precisely the shape of the curve. You may find me too critical, that it is impossible that scientists would try to disguise the uncertainties and be dishonest. Then tell me, who said : "The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. " doesn't it prove that you can indeed reproduce data with wrong models ?
91335. Philippe Chantreau at 17:41 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Nonsense and more obfuscation. Your accusation would be somewhat insulting if I cared the least about your opinion. If you want to debate atmospheric physics that are obvious to all researchers in the field, you should take it to the peer-reviewed litterature. I'll be very curious to see how your first paper looks like. What you are trying to argue about is no more a matter of debate than protein encoding by DNA. I have seen nothing of value for any kind of debate in the tediousness with which you have drowned this thread.
91336. nigelj at 17:22 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       Normal # 1 The main claim your link makes is that theres been no warming over the last 15 years. The data you provide is for 9 years, is selective and deceptive, and shows a slight warming trend anyway. Some of it also looks fraudulent to me but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt there, but appreciate Im very, very sharp. Since you seem determined to quote nonsense, I wont bother furthur.
91337. SME at 16:42 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       This is a call for more rigour in "case making": 1. The term "consensus science" is an oxymoron - at least if you do your science a la Popper. If you DON'T do your science a la Popper then by all means feel free to add whatever terms you wish to what you call "Science". "Real" Science ONLY deals with trying to know more by attempting to disprove what we think we already know. Holy huddles don't count. New advances in any discipline almost invariably come from outside the self congratulatory back slapping in-crowd. 2. It may well be that Dr Stemler does a good job in his broadcast of addressing the issues raised. I hope to listen but time does not yet allow. BUT the short piece above does a very poor job of making a good case, which is a shame - all material on such an important matter that is intended to sway the less or un convinced should be carefully thought out. Otherwise you are just preaching to the choir, or taunting the lions (as I am probably doing here :-).) 1. The paragraph above starting "First ..." is neutral with respect to the point being argued, and so essentially pointless. 2. The paragraph starting "nowadays" is questioned by vanishingly few of any persuasion and is not germane to making the desired point. 3. The paragraph starting "Second ..." is close to information free as the issue for a very large majority of all persuasions is not the well understood basic thermal behaviour of gases but the magnitude of the multiplying factors caused by feedbacks - "forcing" in the jargon of the day. There are other secondary factors which merit discussion, but if the pertinence of an argument to the above points is not made clear in a summary, then others than the choir may wonder if it's going to be worth listening to he podcast. Russell McMahon apptechnz@gmail.com
91338. L.J. Ryan at 16:23 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Philippe Chantreau "Most readers who are unfamiliar with the physics would only take away the impression that this is a matter of debate and their perception of the whole process might be totally confused. Obfuscation is not useful to anyone" Said otherwise: Quick kill the debate! Uncomfortable points of contention must not be seen! Back tomorrow, if this thread is still open.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Despite handwaving implications to the contrary, the existence and length of this thread is mute testimony to the tolerance of non-physical points of contention. On-topic comments constructed to comply with the Comments Policy go unmoderated, as the vast majority of readership here at Skeptical Science can attest.

       You have yet to demonstrate the physical-ness of your position, as other participants have pointed out to you several times.

91339. johnd at 16:08 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       KR at 15:33 PM,re "I will note that some circulatory patterns, such as the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), do appear to be settling into one state as a result of climate change." What causes you to arrive at that conclusion, particularly with regards to the IOD, but also generally for those other systems that apparently appear to be settling into one state?
91340. Vague at 16:03 PM on 23 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       I think that this as a fantastic idea and I am right behind it. I do however need one last bit of convincing that it is possible. A final tick of approval for the plan if you will. Where are you going to get the raw materials, more specifically the rare earths. For every MW of wind electricity generated you require 1 ton of Neodymium. 90% of this mineral is mined in China and due to its advanced renewable energy projects they are not sharing anymore. Australia mine no neodymium until the mines at Mt Weld and Nolans bore are up to speed. Even then they will not produce enough. The whole world produces about 28,000 tons of this element a year (hence the term rare earth I guess). We would need a significant portion of the worlds supply to achieve these targets and even then there is the not sharing anymore issue. That is just one element. Add to the list Lanthanum and Yttrium and a host of others used in solar and reflective glass and electricity storage. Should we be fighting against the Greens and fast tracking rare earth mining project? Will we have enough?
91341. MattJ at 15:50 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       To say Tyndale's "pioneering work eventually inspired physicists to develop the theory of quantum mechanics" sounds like quite the overstatement. His name is not even mentioned in any of the short works I have read on the history of QM. Other than that, this podcast looks quite good.
91342. IanC at 15:43 PM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       57+58HR, Thank you for the link, but the first link is to the Schrijver et al paper, not the review you mentioned. I have no problem with the downward revision of short term TSI variability because it is small to begin with. The variation in TSI through a 11 year cycle is about 1W/m^2 (at least we can say this with some certainty), which translates to about 0.1 degrees of change, so I think whether the difference from MM to current is 1w/m^2 or 0.1 w/m^2 is essentially immaterial in the grand scheme of things, simply because 1w/m^2 is small compared to the error bars, not only for the temperature record but compared to the uncertainties in the other forcing factors. Putting it in perspective, the projected increase in temperature is anywhere from 2 to 4 degrees over the next century. How significant will 0.1 degrees change due to the revision be? The sun plays an important role in our climate when the orbital changes causes 1% to 10% change in the TSI, if the 10 fold correction happens here then yes there is a need to rethink the whole picture. regarding the AMO. I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the paper. Then again the gap between the observed and forcing account for is about 0.1 or 0.2 ignoring solar.
91343. Steven Sullivan at 15:39 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       If rhjhames was following climate science literature closely at all, he'd already know about Anderegg et al., it made quite a splash last year. I'm a scientist (biologist) who follows climate matters and I read about it, and even downloaded and read it. If he wanted to get close to the original data he'd have done that too. So I question how closely he's actually following the literature, and I wonder what kind of scientist he is.
91344. Philippe Chantreau at 15:37 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       John and moderators, I agree. Despite DSL's point (valid to an extent), I can not see how allowing the same obfuscation again and again adds anything. Most readers who are unfamiliar with the physics would only take away the impression that this is a matter of debate and their perception of the whole process might be totally confused. Obfuscation is not useful to anyone.
91345. h pierce at 15:37 PM on 23 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       ( - numerous rantings violating the Comments Policy en masse snipped- )
       Moderator Response: [DB] Posting on this site is a privilege, not a right. Future postings such as this one may have that privilege rescinded. Be advised.
91346. KR at 15:33 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       Norman - That's quite a Gish Gallup; a collection of half-truths, falsehoods, and misrepresentations. Here's a repeat of what I posted on a 'skeptic' site in this regard: 1) Warming is said to be unprecedented and accelerating. It is neither. See It's not happening, Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic - We're warming pretty fast, driven by CO2, the changing levels of which are unprecedented. We're heading for a very high interglacial temperature the likes of which we haven't seen since the peak of the Holocene, if not higher. And warming is definitely accelerating. 2) Global warming is not GLOBAL. Uh, what!? Every record shows global warming. See It's not happening. This is utter bull - warming is faster in the Northern hemisphere, but it's global and it's happening. 3) Winters would grow increasingly warm. 4) The entire Northern Hemisphere would experience less snow and snowcover Globally, yes. Locally, in some regions, the relatively warmer Arctic is pushing the jet stream south, and some regions are seeing more peak snowfall. But winters are shorter, spring arrives earlier, fall stays later, and crops and flowers bloom earlier. Definitely happening. 5) Increasingly positive AO I'll let others speak to this - I hadn't heard that this was a consensus opinion. 6) Global warming may lead to a permanent or semi-permanent El Nino Again, I don't believe this was a consensus opinion. If not, both this and #5 are strawman arguments. I will note that some circulatory patterns, such as the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), do appear to be settling into one state as a result of climate change. 7) Atmosphere will warm faster than surface (because that is where the heat trapping gases are). This appears to be a variant of the "Hot spot" argument. See There's no tropospheric hot spot. Observations match models and physical predictions, although old data (poorly calibrated) may have indicated otherwise before corrections. 8) Record highs and heat waves are increasing Record high temperatures versus record lows 9) Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate See: Sea level rise is exaggerated, Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated. The ARGO floats versus older XBT data are still rather contentious, as calibration of the XBT's is, well, poor. There is ongoing work here, but so far, the data doesn't contradict predictions or theory. 10) Droughts and floods will worsen in places like Australia So far, the data appears to support this. More is needed, and in the next 10-15 years I expect that the data will reach statistical significance. It may have already; I'll leave it to others in that regard. --- So, Norman, this link of yours is not supportable as criticism of AGW. You have obviously not used the 'Search' link on this site, or you would have seen multiple replies in that regard. Why did you post this link?
91347. Philippe Chantreau at 15:28 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       I note in the link provided by Norman that D'Aleo or whomever else concocts a graph of winter temps in some region over 9 years and makes it a "trend." In another one they look at temp at the 100 to 300 mb level and label that as "mid troposphere." That's really kinda funny considering that the 100 mb level is around 53 000 ft. Some mid level that is. I spent about 30 seconds on the site to pick up these 2 screamers. Sorry Norman, I'm not a scientist but I know when someone is trying to fool me. The red flags at D'Aleo's are all over the place, so many of them that one can hardly see any data.
91348. DSL at 15:23 PM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       But Daniel, the thread has been instructive. Pretty much every kind of wiggle imaginable has been attempted. If anyone who has any doubt about GHGs and the 2nd law after reading the entirety of this thread, they should get some sleep and try it again in the morning. Or perhaps try a more thorough explanation of a pretty simple physical interaction.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Anyone with the willpower to read the entirety of this thread has a cast-iron stomach and a thing for pain. Maybe that's why I'm a mod. :)

       It should be painfully obvious by now that all that is being offered up are permutations of permutations (ad nauseum) of debunked and rebunked arguments.

91349. Bern at 15:22 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       rhjames @ 7: have a read of the article linked by the moderator in post #1. It answers your questions as to what was asked & by whom.
91350. Bern at 15:19 PM on 23 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       Further to Sphaerica's post, I'm an engineer (not yet retired, and hopefully not grumpy!). A mechanical engineer at that, so I have a fair bit of eduction in and understanding of heat transfer. I've been reading a *lot* of scientific papers & articles on climate change over the past five years or so. One thing I've noticed (which most of us on this site have noticed) is that the "it's not happening" arguments are remarkable, in the sense that there is no substantial, scientifically verifiable evidence for them. None at all. Contrast that with the view that it is happening, where you have literally gigabytes (probably terabytes, actually) of supporting data, and thousands of pages of scientific analysis that either directly confirms the human-caused global warming hypothesis, or does not contradict it in any way. That's not to say that we know everything about global warming - it's a rich field of research, with scientists learning something new every day. There are many areas of dispute as to exactly how the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases affects the planetary climate, and the nature & extent of the various feedback mechanisms. But the fundamental question as to whether CO2-driven global warming exists has long since been answered in the affirmative. Unfortunately for us, the more scientists learn, the worse it looks. :-( One last point: I have to say, I'm continually puzzled how anyone with university-level education in heat transfer can deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. But then I remind myself that some of my fellow students really struggled through, barely passing subjects on the back of rote learning with little real comprehension. That might explain some of it, perhaps.

Prev  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  Next