Recent Comments

Prev  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  Next

Comments 91401 to 91450:

91401. scaddenp at 10:20 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel - still havent got a yes/no to #752. Are you prepared to have nature be the arbitrator?
91402. HumanityRules at 10:18 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       Dana, In your 'Other forcing' section you give two references neither of which actually deal with the role of ocean oscillations from what I can see (Meehl and Tett .
91403. HumanityRules at 10:13 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       27 dana1981 I still don't get it. Surely the point of the article is that you have some how accounted for the warming in this period. Is that the point? My objections are that you haven't, there are so many fudge factor and unquantified 'others' that you can make your sum add up to whateve you want. Why choose 66% for the unrealised warming, it could just as well be 33% over a 30 year period? Did you factor in equilibration for solar, I don't see that? You seem unconcerned that solar forcing may be 3X too high compared with recent estimates. You throw in fudge factors such as ocean cycles without stating magnitudes. Solar may be 0.1oC but let's fudge that up to 0.15oC with indirect effect which in other contexts you would probably dismiss as speculative. Does it matter that 0.15+0.15 does not equal the warming for this period (which maybe 0.4oC or 0.45oC)? Anybody can make numbers add up to whatever they choose to when there is so much wiggle factor. Here's my version Warming for 1910-1940 is 0.45oC (HADCRUT) CO2 contribution is 0.07 (33% of .22, equilibration) Solar contribution is 0.03 (1/3 of 1W/M2 based on newer TSI estimates) 'Other' forcing must be what's left 0.35oC Conclusion - Ocean oscillations and 'others' play the major role in climate. I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion but give yourself enough wiggle room and you can make any conclusion you want.
91404. Gilles at 10:06 AM on 23 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       adelady, I don't know what you mean by "have to". Obviously poor countries can develop only through an increase of FF consumption, despite all what is written about all marvelous possibilities to make it without them. They probably don't read enough. Les - I checked that even in English, envelopes are not always packaging letters ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_(mathematics)
91405. pbjamm at 09:34 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel@761 "In this situation radiation through the intervention of GHGs is exchanged with the higher levels of the troposphere which are below freezing. Some of the xchange might well be with deep space, but only a small part; which of course cannot easily be separated out." Would you please expand on this using some science? I can not make sense of what you are trying to explain.
91406. johnkg at 09:21 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       #754. Thanks Phil Glad that everyone's agreed on that one!
91407. damorbel at 09:07 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #760 DSL you wrote:- "Ok, then put it in a clear vacuum box and point it at the night sky. With no internal heat source, and no way to receive energy (according to your physical model), it should cool down at its rate of emission (and internal conduction) until it reaches near absolute zero" There is a comparable effect known as 'clear sky' frost; the condition when surface frost appears e.g. on car windshields, even when the air teperature is not below freezing. In this situation radiation through the intervention of GHGs is exchanged with the higher levels of the troposphere which are below freezing. Some of the xchange might well be with deep space, but only a small part; which of course cannot easily be separated out.
91408. DSL at 08:53 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Ugh, LJ -- not the alleged solar cooker evidence. It is proof of nothing. The reflective surface focuses incoming radiation. That radiation could be coming from the atmosphere. Your argument is that we can't differentiate between radiative transfer and conduction/convective transfer. In other words, why doesn't the solar cooker cool to near absolute zero when pointed at the open night sky? Something must be heating it. (expected response) Ok, then put it in a clear vacuum box and point it at the night sky. With no internal heat source, and no way to receive energy (according to your physical model), it should cool down at its rate of emission (and internal conduction) until it reaches near absolute zero. I'll wager that it won't, though. I'll wager that it cools more slowly, because even if we warmed it up to 50C before we put it in the box it's still receiving infrared radiation from the atmosphere. Photons can't choose their paths.
91409. MarkR at 08:32 AM on 23 March 2011
       Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
       #4 perseus: feel free to check my maths (please?! :P ), I did it by dividing the luminosity by the speed of light, since power/c = force for light. Then turning into pressure by dividing by the area. I assumed the radiation would be absorbed, I suppose it could be reflected and you'd have to multiply it. Iirc, luminosity grows as approximately M^4 but it's a long time since I did astrophysics! In that case some massive stars (50 times solar mass, say) would have significant radiation pressure at some levels.
91410. dana1981 at 08:29 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       

       "at equilibrium, this CO2 change [from 1900 to 1940] would be expected to cause a 0.22°C increase in the average global surface air temperature."

       Due to the ocean lag and other anthropogenic effects, "the best estimate of the anthropogenic contribution to the 1910-1940 warming is approximately 0.1 to 0.15°C". By 1960 it's 0.15 to 0.2°C, or roughly half of the 0.3°C average surface warming. I'd call 50% significant.
91411. les at 08:16 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       mods - I really do think that damorbel, and particularly 755 & 757 violates the comments policy. Although not exactly an ad hominem attack, it is an attack on the work of many, many physicists through the ages. On behalf of those upon who's shoulders most of us stand - bun on who's feet damorbel seems to be stepping, I pray you, make it stop!
91412. L.J. Ryan at 08:09 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       CBDunkerson750 You said: "In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality." Focusing a large radiative input to a specific point is NOT what proponents argue. Redirecting radiation is not a point of contention. I say cold atmosphere radiation can not shorten terrestrial radiation, GHG proponents say otherwise. Google solar cooker. The principal works by redirecting and focusing, from a large hot area, radiation to a small target area. When facing the sun (hot),the focal area (the small area) gets very hot. When facing away from the sun (the cold atmosphere) the focal area (small area) gets cold. So the small target area looses energy via the large area to the cold atmosphere. See this process (unlike the magic box) abides the 2nd law, Hot to Cold. The atmospheric LW does NOT accumulate within the target area. The target area looses energy to the radiating atmosphere. GHG physics concludes conversely.
91413. damorbel at 08:05 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #756 muoncounter That's exactly what #755 explains. In #750 CBD writes :- "In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality." No amount of redirecting, refocussing adding together etc.,etc., of photons can increase their energy: warmer the Earth's surface may well be but it is not a radiation effect*. *It is actually a gravity effect.
91414. Rob Honeycutt at 08:03 AM on 23 March 2011
       CO2 has been higher in the past
       Jay Cadbury... (Continued from the Preventing Misinformation thread.) Models tell us very little about whether we can survive if we heat the planet back up to the levels of 65 mya. Models only tell us about the climate. Survival is going to have to do with the ability of species other than ourselves to adapt to such a dramatic and rapid change in climate. Paleoclimate records tell us far more about how species deal with rapid climate change. And there you don't find such pretty pictures of how well living things adapt to change. Yes, we are a very adaptable species. We are probably the most adaptable mammalian species there is, though probably less adaptable than many species of insects. So, is that the world you want to bequeath to your grandchildren and great-grandchildren? Us and the insects? Again, not a pretty picture. But don't worry. There's nothing we can do that nature won't fix in, say, another 20 million years. A mere blink of the eye, as they say.
91415. Chris Colose at 08:02 AM on 23 March 2011
       Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
       perseus, In our sun, gas pressure is much more important, but radiation pressure can become significant in much larger stars.
91416. Gilles at 08:01 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       I'm sorry dana but I don't understand. Figure 1 shows no statistical anthropogenic warming between 1900 and 1940, but you say that a significant percentage of that small warming is anthropogenic ? I can't get your point . Which percentage and why is it "significant" ?
91417. Rob Honeycutt at 07:55 AM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       Cadbury... I'm moving the conversation over to CO2 was higher in the past where you can read a response to your comment here.
91418. muoncounter at 07:48 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Ryan I have read the entire thread, in case you've missed the numerous references to comments from November and December. You apparently have also missed the point about 'at the same frequency'; IR photons have considerably less energy than visible light photons. CBD's point here is quite valid, with or without the parabolic geometry (which is a mere artifact of your solar cooker analogy). You've not proved anything with it, except how much you are willing to argue for the sake of argument.
91419. damorbel at 07:45 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Just to make one thing clear. Photons from a 'hot' (5780K) source like the Sun can be refocussed at any distance (if the mirror is big enough) to recreate the surface temperature (5780K) of the source, but no higher. No amount of refocussing etc., etc., of photons from a cold (255K) source, like the upper troposphere, can produce a temperature higher than 255K... anywhere. It's the photons you see, they don't have enough energy. They may have all the power (W/m^2) you can imagine* but no amount of refocussing, adding together, accummulating in reflecting cavities etc., etc. will raise their energy. Or, in other words, increase the temperature of.... anything. That is what the 2nd law is all about. It why quantum theory holds sway. And why the 'GH' effect is not a radiation effect... from... GH gases. * Power is not energy. Power is W(atts); energy is J(oules). A surface emitting power has two options it can emit relatively few 'hot' photons to get power 'P'. Or it can emit a large number of low energy photons to get the same power 'P'. There is a lot of grief on this thread cause by contributors not distinguishing between power balance and energy balance by defining both as 'W/m^2', that is a mistake.
91420. BBP at 07:40 AM on 23 March 2011
       Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
       In the interest of keeping a high standard here, I think I need to point out that why a star becomes a red giant is an unsettled question. "Despite all the investigation into the subject, the question has yet to receive an answer that is satisfyingly simple and sufficiently rigourous. There is still no consensus on why stars become red giants." (Stancliffe et. al. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.0406v1.pdf) I also think that showing ishochrones and/or evolutionary tracks would be more helpful than an HR diagram
91421. RSVP at 07:05 AM on 23 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       alan marshall 38 And when we should have this "Climate Protection Agency", I suppose it is up to them to best decide how fast or how slow climate needs to change, since there will always be some target. Or will they take climate back to how it was in 1850?
91422. dana1981 at 07:04 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       I also don't know why you're referencing the 1999 'hockey stick'. I provided a link to more up-to-date reconstructions in Comment #30.
91423. adelady at 07:03 AM on 23 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       rsvp @45. Only if it was chlorine. Other methods don't have quite the same impact, though they do have some.
91424. dana1981 at 07:01 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       Gilles, the "hockey stick" shows a ~0.4°C temperature increase from 1900 to 1940, and ~0.3°C increase from 1900 to 1970, just like the instrumental temperature record. As I have said several times, a significant percentage of that small warming is anthropogenic. I hope this is the last time I have to say it.
91425. keithpickering at 07:01 AM on 23 March 2011
       Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
       OK, one reference I found is Guinan & Ribas 2002, ASP Conference series 269, 85, available here. The luminosity function (fig. 2) appears to be an exact match to the 7% per billion years log function (which isn't too much different from Gough's linear function). The equation would be L(t) = L(t₀) [e^{ln(.93)(t-t₀)}] ... where age t is expressed in Gyr.
91426. RSVP at 06:57 AM on 23 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       villabolo #37 about that white shirt... Was originally white by dumping used bleach into the environment, which externalizes costs as well, or is this not so?
91427. adelady at 06:54 AM on 23 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "b) improvement doesn't result in a decreasing energy consumption for a given wealth, but in increasing the wealth for a given energy consumption" But that doesn't have to be from fossil materials, does it? This item about Bangladesh tells us people can just skip right over the fossil powered step. Once they've made a bit more money with the system they've got, they'll be buying a bigger and better version of that. They won't sit down and wait for government or big business to build a centralised fossil burning power station.
91428. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:49 AM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       Well I will say this website is far more fair and honest than realclimate or ( -snip- ). @Rob It is a possibility that we cannot return to the GAT of 65 mya but I argue that since humans are the most adaptable species ever to exist, and since animals were present 65 mya, we can survive in this type of climate. My problem with your argument is that there just isn't anyway to test it. In my opinion, the only way to test such a hypothesis would be to find a planet similar to earth's, with people on that has a co2 concentration of 560ppm. Of course it is a fool's dream so we have to use models. And I'm not saying that this is bad and models shouldn't be used, only that models are only models.
       Moderator Response: You must comment on the appropriate threads. See my moderator response on your previous comment, for instructions on how to find those. Regarding models, see "Models Are Unreliable." Further off-topic comments will be deleted from this thread.
91429. Phil at 06:46 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       What is disputed...a cold atmosphere warms the warmer earth. No-one believes the cold atmosphere warms the warmer earth. The Greenhouse effect slows the rate at which heat escapes from the earth. Period.
91430. les at 06:45 AM on 23 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       ... I realize that that first sentence looks like I think I've dug my self into a hole. That was poorly put. It was meant to be advice to Gilles... redundant, I know; as he's clearly off digging himself into other holes else where.
91431. e at 06:43 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       Gilles, >the shape is perfectly natural and can be produced only by natural variability There is no such thing as a "natural shape". The shape does not tell us whether it is natural or not. That can only be obtained via understanding of the underlying physics and forcings that are involved. That is precisely what the scientific literature does (and what this post discusses).
91432. scaddenp at 06:43 AM on 23 March 2011
       The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
       "It doesn't say much about the origin of ground warming." only if you don't accept conservation of energy. Come on, you agree with one result of radiative physics but disagree with another based on exactly the same physics.
91433. L.J. Ryan at 06:35 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       CBDunkerson750 You said: "In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality." Focusing a large radiative input to a specific point is NOT what proponents argue. Redirecting radiation is not a point of contention. What is disputed...a cold atmosphere warms the warmer earth. Google solar cooker. The principal works by redirecting radiation, (from a large area) to a small focal area. When facing the sun, the focal area (the small area) gets hot. When facing away from the sun the focal area (small area) gets cold. How can this be? Maybe you should understand what you proclaim to know.
91434. scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 23 March 2011
       The True Cost of Coal Power
       "despite everything you can read." So once again you are making an unsubstantiated assertion and at the same time admitting that this assertion flies in the face of what has been written. Right.
91435. scaddenp at 06:28 AM on 23 March 2011
       Teaching Climate Science
       Gilles - fig 2 is normal science. You create a model for reality, you test it by calculating results and comparing to reality. What method would YOU propose for looking at how much temperature would change based on natural forcing only? Create another identical earth - or use your best computer model for earth? This normal science in every field I am used to.
91436. scaddenp at 06:20 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - I didnt describe any experiment. I proposed that an experiment be designed such that normal understanding of physics and your understanding would calculate a different result. This is normal way to test scientific arguments. I asked if the experiment didn't go your way, whether you would be prepared to abandon your view and read the textbook. (ie, behave like a scientist). Got a yes/no? In fact, have you got an experiment that you think validates your views over mainstream physics?
91437. Rob Honeycutt at 06:13 AM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       Cadbury @ post that might not be deleted... You merely need to look at the radiative forcing related to enhanced GHG concentrations and you will clearly see why they are going to do something. If you are under the assumption that we can take the planet where we currently exist, have evolved, have developed agriculture and large complex human society... take that and raise the global temperature back to where it was 65 mya and actually survive... then you are clearly a denier of the first order.
91438. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:05 AM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       @IanC I fail to see how anthropogenic emissions are going to do anything when they are well below historical averages of atmospheric co2. Additionally, I fail to see how there are going to be climate catastrophes with a GAT of 12C versus the GAT of the past 600 million years, which is 22C. Please explain yourself.
       Moderator Response: Peruse the Arguments list, where among the many relevant posts you will find "It's Not Bad." You can also type It's Not Bad into the Search field at the top left of this page. Also "It's Not Urgent," "CO2 Is Not a Pollutant," "CO2 Was Higher in the Past," and "CO2 Was Higher in the Late Ordovician."
91439. Gilles at 06:02 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       right, it was only to be sure, so I go on cautiously. So you're saying that if you look at the following curve , before 1960, i.e. by hiding the post-1960 part (I could wipe off the last half century if you have no finger to do it), then, the shape is perfectly natural and can be produced only by natural variability ? is it right ?
91440. CBDunkerson at 06:01 AM on 23 March 2011
       Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
       *blink* When 'skeptics' question the increase of solar output over time I've always just said, 'look... we have alot of stars to check it against'... but this works too. :]
91441. Rob Honeycutt at 05:54 AM on 23 March 2011
       The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
       Gilles... You might want to look at figure 3 here.
91442. Philippe Chantreau at 05:50 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       For myself, Tom, I kinda like your box idea. It could be called a path lengthening device, increasing the number of photons in the system at a given time. Time is often the missing idea when considering GH effect. At equilibrium, energy in and energy out at TOA are equal. Increase IR opacity and energy out at TOA becomes less than in, until the surface temp increases to radiate enough out through the increased opacity. There is no violation of thermodynamics at all.
91443. dana1981 at 05:47 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       I'm still trying to figure out why Gilles is asking questions which are very clearly answered in the article.
91444. dana1981 at 05:46 AM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       Arkadiusz - the first paper you cite is talking about human climate effects thousands of years ago. The second paper is talking about soil carbon emissions as a feedback. There is no question that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities. To be blunt, the "doubt" about which you speak is limited to your own confusion about the subject.
91445. CBDunkerson at 05:45 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJ: "The atmosphere acts like a parabolic dish...you don't really believe that...do you?" In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality. "Hey CB, read up on solar cookers...when not cooking can be turned away from the sun, and COOL the focused contents. How can this happen...how, with intensified hot radiation form the dish atmosphere?" Congratulations... I cannot discern an argument coherent enough to refute.
91446. IanC at 05:43 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       Gilles, Figure 2d of Meehl et al 2004 will give you the answer: mostly natural, small anthropogenic contribution. The same thing cannot be said for post 1960.
91447. johnd at 05:41 AM on 23 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Ken Lambert at 00:59 AM, regarding the coal supply to power stations, there is a requirement for power stations to maintain a minimum stockpile of coal, something like at least a months supply to cover supply disruptions depending on the supply chain. The operators are not stupid and fully understand the realities of coal supply logistics in the real world, especially seasonal risks when force majeure is most likely and plan accordingly. The only sin considered greater than a power station running out of fuel is for an aircraft to do so.
91448. Gilles at 05:37 AM on 23 March 2011
       The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
       stratospheric cooling is a clear fingerprint of the rise of CO2 concentration, which is a dominant cooler in the optically thin regime (CO2 excited by collisions radiate towards empty space and the photons are no more trapped). So stratospheric cooling shows that CO2 concentration is increasing (whatever the cause), which we know anyway by direct measurements. It doesn't say much about the origin of ground warming.
91449. L.J. Ryan at 05:24 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       CBDunkerson746 "can't you see that the mechanism is the same? In both cases we have electromagnetic radiation being redirected and resulting in the area of accumulation receiving more energy than if the EMR had not been redirected there. The greenhouse effect works by redirecting 'infrared light' just as a parabolic mirror works by redirecting 'visible light'... in both cases you have concentrated a greater amount of electromagnetic radiation in a given area and thus produced a higher temperature." The atmosphere acts like a parabolic dish...you don't really believe that...do you? Hey CB, read up on solar cookers...when not cooking can be turned away from the sun, and COOL the focused contents. How can this happen...how, with intensified hot radiation form the dish atmosphere? Hint: the sky is cooler.
91450. ranyl at 05:23 AM on 23 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       "Of course, if we don't bother reducing emissions at all that'll be another story." Very true and there globally there hasn't exactly been much progress so far despite all the efforts, as all the savings have been swamped by the ever increasing demand. Not sure what it will take, but in the mean time adaptation planning (mitigation and adaptation in the wider context (adapting to be fossil fuel independent)) seems a sensible stance.

Prev  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  Next