Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 Next
Comments 91451 to 91500:
-
RSVP at 16:31 PM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
dana1981 #60 Should cloud coverage go up or down with global warming? If sea temperature overall increases, that would imply more water vapor, I assume, and I also assume more water vapor means more clouds. And more clouds means albedo goes up. Or are you going to say it is the other way around? -
protestant at 16:27 PM on 24 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
@DB for my response at #3: Those two posts of Tamino are not proving anything about AMO. He is just declaring it cannot be any cause and that's it. And he is no expert in this issue and should not be kept as such. In his AMO post he actually does several gross mistakes, which he should be aware of considering his backgrounds. I've tried to reason with him in those two posts but he just keeps deleting my comments, like he is doing to many other commenters as well. For example, removing GISS from Kaplan is nothing but [self-snip]. GISS does not use Kaplan, but Reynolds SST which has a larger trend in North Atlantic. Picking 1975 as a starting year is cherry picking since it gives the strongest trend but then again he has no explanation for what has happened before that. Secondly, like in the graph you pasted here, you are only comparing vs giss and not Hadcrut, where the latter is propably a more reliable result. Since it has not been calculated and adjusted by the modelers and which is clearly shown in how multidecadal dynamics show up. You actually cannot compare giss vs anything.
Moderator Response:[DB] "You actually cannot compare giss vs anything."
Well actually you kinda can (post here):
-
RSVP at 16:22 PM on 24 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
alan_marshall #51 Thanks for the links. In the reading, there is this implied assumption that the rich consume more fuel and the poor less, when I am sure there are many cases where it is just the other way around in part because it is precisely those with more means who can invest in improving energy efficiency. And as far as the other idea, you do explain the target, but have not addressed the consequence in terms of the comparative global energy requirements. -
Gilles at 16:16 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
WheelsOC : everybody thinks warming is real - and everybody thinks that we have probably contributed to it. The issue is not here - it is whether it's enough to conclude that we should extract much less FF than we could, or not. There are a lot of things to ascertain before reaching such a conclusion , much of them do not belong to climate science (including : how much FF can we really extract ? which wealth do they produce? what would be the real impact of warming ? how far can we replace FF?) All these issues are very far to be certain - and have nothing to do with this poll. -
Gilles at 16:11 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
MuC"But then, you've not been long on facts, citations, references, source material, etc, since you arrived here." That's true, I'm not here for that. First i'm not a climate scientist, so my goal is not to discuss climate science - I doubt very much that anybody here is competent enough to settle so complicated issues. Second , citing that X or Y wrote that he made some model or some measurement does not prove per se that it's true - it just proves that he said it. Theologies are very fond of citations, references,and so on. I'm here just to see if people who claim that they've understood everything are able to answer rather simple objections. I'm not really convinced up to now - as I said, it's your burden to convince people that you're right. I am not defending any precise claim about climate - I'm just thinking that there is still much room for debate. So if you don't convince me, I loose nothing - you just miss your goal.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The purpose of SkS is to provide a forum for discussion of climate science relating to global warming. If it is not your goal to discuss climate science, perhaps you should find another forum more suited to your goals. However, if you are not interested in discussion of climate science it is hard to see how you will ever be convinced of AGW, given that the evidence is climate science! Your attitude seems rather peculiar. -
L.J. Ryan at 16:07 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
CBDunkerson 802 "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." NONE of the listed post in 802 do I say "unable to redirect energy from a colder area to a warmer". What I do say: lower temp IR can not increase the temp of a warmer surface. You said: "How does the observed reality that EM radiation travels from the surface of a parabolic mirror to the hotter object at the mirror's focal point not disprove your various statements quoted above?" EM Radiation is reflected, not absorbed and re-radiated, therefore the dish temp is irrelevant. -
Vague at 15:57 PM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Ken #89 My research was done a week or two ago and I'm afraid I don't have any links saved. When I get home I'll try and pull up some of the sites for you. All turbines and electric motors require permanent magnets. Rare earth magnets are really the only ones that can do the job as magnets made by other means are not at all permanent, less efficient and need to be replaced periodically at great cost. The recall the figure of 28,000 tons a year for Neodymium production was based on 2008 figures, but in a graph the production had pretty much smoothed out. China suspending the export of its rare earths is easy to find with a search. Would it be worth me writing all of this up as a blog (with references) and posting a link? -
L.J. Ryan at 15:40 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
DSL 800 "Do I have this right?" I'm not sure I understand your entire concept. "But, of course, all atmospheric layers do radiate, and some of this radiation is absorbed by warmer surfaces and warmer atmospheric layers."---To what end. The warmer layers/surface does not get warmer do to this absorption. "Here's the key, though: the current temperature of any atmospheric layer or material within the system is that specific temperature because the atmosphere is already adding its radiated energy. The system is dynamic. if we take away the atmosphere, the surface eventually (quickly) reaches a lower equilibrium temperature. "---Again, I'm not sure I understand...but the lower temperature atmosphere can not increase the temp. of warmer surface. I don't agree with core of your last paragraph. Lower temp IR can not increase the temp. of a warmer surface. -
L.J. Ryan at 14:55 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR 811 Without addressing the specifics of your post 804, which I will get later this evening or tomorrow, muoncounter 808 made no reference "IR emissivity". Therefore, I stand by 810.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Note the use of the words 'real planet;' this is specifically about solar input and how a planet with a greenhouse atmosphere responds. Don't bother replying if you are going to haggle over this nonsense; especially since you claim the right to define 'blackbody' however it suits you. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan - "If emissivity decreases, the "real planet" will absorb less solar flux. " Incorrect - please read my post here, and recognize that input power is not affected by the greenhouse gases and their resulting IR emissivity. You have so far ignored my post. The real world climate receives band-limited solar energy unaffected by IR emissivity, hence a fixed input power. Output power (which must, at dynamic equilibrium, match input power) is determined by IR emissivity and the dependent variable, temperature. Please respond or acknowledge. -
WheelsOC at 14:21 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Sorry, lost track of my point at the end there. The point is this: direct polling in which scientists get to "vote," reviews of the published literature, statements by scientific bodies, they all converge on the same answer. Yes, they think it's real and yes, they think it's really us. Having all these different lines of evidence telling you the same thing is generally a sign of robustness. -
WheelsOC at 14:15 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
@Ken Lambert: 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. Doran et al. surveyed 10,000 earth scientists, more than 3,000 of whom responded (a very large sample size). Of the respondents, 90% agreed that the climate is changing for the warmer and 82% agreed that human activity is a significant contributor to this state of affairs. That's far better than a 51% simple majority. Furthermore, the more relevant a scientist's knowledge was to climate issues, the more likely they were to agree with the AGW proposition, to the point that once expert climate scientists were questioned they returned 97% affirmative. Polling the experts about a knowledge claim is far more relevant than polling the general populace; likewise, polling climate experts about climate questions is far more informative than polling scientists who may not have any overlap with climate research. l. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? ... Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered "risen“ to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject oi climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen“ to question l and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. So it would seem your 51% criteria is more than satisfied. Good to know, isn't it? Beyond direct polling, we also have statements from leading national and international bodies of science that are pretty universal in declaring AGW real. Furthermore, by trawling the scientific literature on climate we can safely say that if there are any who have strong disagreement with the consensus, they simply aren't publishing in peer-reviewed venues about their disagreement and therefore have stopped participating in the machinery of science. That would be puzzling (for a scientist), but not unprecedented. For example, Roy Spencer has basically withdrawn from peer-reviewed because he didn't like people rejecting his erroneous work, so he chooses to aim lower on the totem pole and only publish in refereed Letters journals at most, and un-peer-reviewed popular press books/blogs as a general case. The weaknesses of this go-it-alone approach become apparent when other people with some mathematical expertise get to sanity-check his climate model and find it fatally flawed. If he had looked for criticism and feedback from qualified people before going to press with it, things might have been different all around. -
alan_marshall at 14:08 PM on 24 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
RSVP @ 49: and in this way give the rich the break they deserve? You have the consequences of market-based pricing of carbon back to front. In economic terms, it would benefit the poor, while in environmental terms, it would benefit everyone. Both the Cap and Dividend solution (which caps CO2e production), and the Tax and Dividend solution (which taxes CO2e consumption), put a dollar value on each tonne of CO2 equivalent. Both solutions are capable of being implemented as either national or global systems. If implemented globally, there will be a net transfer of wealth to the developing countries because of their much lower per capita emissions. To those who object to this, I answer that if we really believe in equal rights, this is natural justice. It does not mean our living standards would fall, but it would see hundreds of millions in the developing world lifted out of poverty. In relation to your other remark, when I said we need to extract the bulk of CO2 emitted since 1750, I was thinking of a target ultimately of about 320 ppm, the level we had around 1965. -
L.J. Ryan at 14:07 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
muoncounter 808 "So let's stop talking about theoreticals; what happens when the emissivity of a real planet decreases?" If emissivity decreases, the "real planet" will absorb less solar flux. "By your statement, if solar input remains the same and emissivity decreases, temperature must increase." Input would not remain the same (see above). Lower input results in a lower temp. NOT an increase. -
getricks at 14:01 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
i cant see a link or any real reference to the poll this claims to quote...i have googled and cant find it, plenty of reports about it but where is it...please help mr moderator,,cant quote you if it cant be backed up -
BBP at 13:47 PM on 24 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
tfolkerts, Actually, the sun was cooler in the past, and will continue getting warmer until it starts to leave the Main Sequence. For example, see fig.3 in Vandenberg et al. (http://www.astro.uu.se/~bg/Boundary.pdf) - this isn't the best reference for this purpose, but it does show a good example of a solar evolutionary track -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:18 PM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
cloa513 The satellite measurements have been correlated against Radiosonde data as scaddenp linked to. In addition the technology is based on extremely well understood radiative physics and is based on a very simple signal from a single molecule. Taking muoncounter's point about seismic testing, that is based on validation against known rock profiles when it was first developed and laboratory studies of the vibrational properties of different rocks. A situation very similar to this although, to extend the analogy, here we are only dealing with 1 'rock' type - Oxygen molecules. -
Ken Lambert at 13:18 PM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Marcus #82 "Seriously, Ken, I think you need to read a little more widely than the brochures handed out by WMC, BHP & Rio-Tinto. " My prior reply was deleted by moderators, but the above ad hominem would seem a clear breach of the comments policy. Your points are unsupported by johnd and scaddenup who correctly agree with my comments about the storage of coal and load matching capability of coal fired plant. I was a commissioning engineer on a large coal fired C&F plant over 25 years ago, and although engaged in an unrelated industry since then - one does not forget the basics. Wind farms take vastly more space for the same output than a coal plant and mine. You tell me how much space you will need for 750 x 3MW wind turbines which would equate to 1 x Kogan Creek. And by the way - Kogan Creek would produce 750 x 24 x 365 x 0.9 = 5,913,000 MWhr of energy in a year at 90% availability. Your 3MW wind turbine at 30% availability will produce 3 x 24 x 365 x 0.3 = 7884 MWhr. 5913000/7884 = 750. 750 Turbines required. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:10 PM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
NewYorkJ @2 The Fu and Zou analyses are available through the links above although I am not sure they are updated every single month. I suspect that they are available because they are produced by sections of NOAA - NCDC & NESDIS - and providing data is part of NOAA's remit. V&G are University based and probably don't have funding for an on-going program. -
muoncounter at 12:50 PM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Hasn't such calibration/validation been done, notably by Tamino?
-
scaddenp at 12:40 PM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
I think he means that remote sensing must be calibrated or at least be validated against other measurement techniques. However, TLT isnt a measurement of surface temperature but, (like all MSU measurements), an average for a broad layer in the atmosphere. Validation then has to be done by comparison with radiosonde data. You might like to try here for starters. -
tjfolkerts at 12:38 PM on 24 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
In the past, the luminosity was less -- with a smaller diameter but a higher temperature. I was wondering what affect the change in temperature might make. While the overall energy would have been less in the past, the proportions in various bands would be different. Specifically, the proportion of IR would be less while the proportion of UV would be higher. In fact, I can easily imagine that the net amount of UV (and perhaps even visible) light would have have actually been greater from a dimmer yet hotter sun. This in turn would affect where within the atmosphere energy was absorbed. (It should be relatively easy to calculate the energy distributions, but I don't have numbers handy for the predicted temperature change over the last few billion years.) -
L.J. Ryan at 12:23 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
muoncounter 799 "Now that's a radical change of heart, as you specifically described earth's blackbody temperature here. And you've totally ignored the complete defenestration of your argument by KR (#773-775) and CBD (#785)." If you did not understand the context, sorry. Earth blackbody temperature, is a generally (I think) accepted naming convention for earths blackbody temperature equivalent. -
NewYorkJ at 12:14 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
"Regardless, the infamous 97% figure does not represent and should not be construed to represent the entire scientific community. " It's not claimed to be a representation of the "entire scientific community". You might want to read the opening paragraph of this post for starters. -
muoncounter at 11:59 AM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJR: "As long as the emissivity remains constant, i.e. remains a blackbody, the temperature remains unchanged." So let's stop talking about theoreticals; what happens when the emissivity of a real planet decreases? By your statement, if solar input remains the same and emissivity decreases, temperature must increase. Or do you now wish to change that as well? -
muoncounter at 11:36 AM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
cloa: "Any remote sensing professional in Petroleum knows that such remote measurements aren't worth anything ... " What are you talking about? The petroleum exploration industry is fully dependent on 'remote sensing;' millions are spent based on measurement at a distance - its called seismic profiling. But, here is correlation between surface and satellite temperature measures, all showing very similar trends. -
Harry Seaward at 11:31 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
My apologies: I am new here and did not mean to infer that I wrote what I posted. I should have posted as a link but was not sure how. I am on a different computer now and do not have my references, but will supply them tomorrow. Regardless, the infamous 97% figure does not represent and should not be construed to represent the entire scientific community.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Good practice is to check your sources carefully, rather than repeat what you may have seen in the blogosphere. Google scholar is a better place to look for source material; scholarly publications trump opinion-based histrionics. Here, you repeat a claim made on behalf of 'the entire scientific community' -- do you have any facts to back that up? -
muoncounter at 11:30 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Gilles: "I'm not doing science with polls." You're not doing science at all, especially when you state that tripe cribbed wholesale from deniersville is "a good piece of science." But then, you've not been long on facts, citations, references, source material, etc, since you arrived here. Earn some credibility by engaging in fact-based argument and refraining from opinion. -
cloa513 at 11:13 AM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Where is the cross-correlation with real measurements? Any remote sensing professional in Petroleum knows that such remote measurements aren't worth anything with real measurements to compare it to. -
scaddenp at 11:09 AM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Doesnt seem an unreasonable number. A number of rare earth elements are routinely used in making magnets. Just remember that "rare earths" mostly aren't that rare. -
Bern at 10:56 AM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Ken, Some of the most efficient & powerful wind turbines use rare-earth permanent magnets in their generators, which can generally be made smaller & lighter that way (an important property for something you're sticking in a nacelle 100+ metres off the ground!) I've seen statements here & elsewhere that it takes a tonne of rare earth elements to make one wind turbine, but I don't know how accurate that information is - my quick searching failed to turn up any such details. -
L.J. Ryan at 10:19 AM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Philippe Chantreau 797 "I am talking about a spherical blackbody receiving solar radiation at a constant rate in w/sq m, in the solar spectrum. If, by any means, that blackbody's ability to radiate energy out is impaired, what will happen to its temperature?" As long as the emissivity remains constant, i.e. remains a blackbody, the temperature remains unchanged. Got it Philippe. The spherical blackbody temperature will remain the same. -
scaddenp at 10:10 AM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e, damorbel is consistently and repeatedly avoiding the question as to whether he will even philosophically accept the idea of an experiment as the way to settle a question. (asked here. This to me implies someone only interested in arguing with no intent to resolve anything, perhaps even a paid troll; or someone who prefers a faith-based position. I suggest there is no point discussing with him at all. -
adelady at 09:43 AM on 24 March 2011CO2 has been higher in the past
Don@49, you're pretty right. But ..... The devastating consequences we foresee relate to our experience of the world. Our grandchildren''s grandchildren will have a different - horrifying to us - experience of the world. They will have more knowledge than we do and, unfortunately, direct evidence of the wrongs that must be righted. They won't be able to recreate our congenial world. Certainly not in their own lifetimes. But they will be able to gain satisfaction from doing things that they know will benefit their own grandchildren's grandchildren. Staring into this abyss can make us weep. It can also galvanise us into determination that we should, must, will do whatever we can to speed our own societies onto a better path. Fatalism and depression are not good options. Geo engineering is, in fact, the thing that must be done some time or other to extract, absorb, sequester the accumulated geological release of carbon. Tree planting and similar bio-engineering of the carbon cycle in the surface and atmosphere won't be enough - but they must also be done thoroughly, extensively, permanently. Me? I'm pretty sure that the greedy will find a way to make some cash out of both bio and geo-engineering once they realise societies want it done and are willing to pay for it. The greedy, like the poor, are always with us. But their activities don't =always= have to be damaging. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel Please clarify the point you made here: "If a photon is absorbed by a surface, the surface gains the energy that was contained in the photon (by conservation of energy)". - This would only be true if the surface were at 0K i.e. it is not itself radiating." The question does not ask whether the energy absorption is balanced out by emissions, just whether an absorbed photon leads to an energy gain. Are you saying that it does not for an object above 0K? If not, what happens to the energy of the photon? Where did it go? As for how the energy is emitted, keep in mind the Stefan-Boltzman Law. The amount of energy radiated is dependent on the temperature of the material, not whether it has absorbed an extra photon recently. That means if the surface is constantly emitting and absorbing photons, and we increase the number of photons being absorbed, the only way for the surface to emit that extra energy is to get warmer. Do you agree with this? If not, what happens to the energy? How can the extra energy be emitted without the object getting warmer (again keeping in mind Stefan-Boltzmann)? If it isn't emitted, and it doesn't raise the temperature, what happens to this energy? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan - "Do you agree?" No. The theoretic black body work (including Kirchoff) is based upon a "white light" excitation, equal across all frequencies, absorption and emission by the black body based upon the absorption/emission spectra. The climate, on the other hand, is driven by a band-limited solar input which does not match the thermal emissive spectra, is not greatly affected by greenhouse gases, and hence represents a fixed input, not a match to the thermal spectra at all. And, as I stated earlier, given a fixed input power, and a need to radiate that (or change internal energy and hence temperature), emissivity and temperature have an inverse relationship. As effective emissivity of the planet goes down, temperature goes up. Asserting that the Earth follows "white light" illumination with interdependent absorption/emission is a complete mistake. It's a fixed input power outside the GHG affected thermal spectra, which is sufficient to radiate the incoming 240 W/m^2. And the black body temperature required to radiate that power is a lower limit on the temperature of a gray body of lesser emissivity. -
adelady at 09:15 AM on 24 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
"They"? 'They' seem to consist of China and India if I read the rest of your #88 correctly. I didn't have either of them in mind when I based my comment on Grameen Bank driven activities in Bangladesh. I was thinking more along the lines of Bangladesh and a dozen or more other countries in Africa and Asia with very large proportions of their population still at or near subsistence farming levels. "Capacities are the same..." The gradualism arises because of the lack of capital, including that required for grid infrastructure. The mere fact that the Bangladeshi example is financed by the Grameen Bank is a pretty good indicator that we're talking very, very small amounts of capital. It's not possible to buy or use a tiny fractional part of a centralised FF or hydro power plant and build it up piece by piece to a larger, wider power supply network. The much vaunted centralised power plants can't do that, they're all or nothing propositions. And the associated grid is built from large power stations outward whereas this Bangladeshi arrangement is about independence and freedom from reliance on such a centralised arrangement. Interconnectedness can follow rather than precede or prevent access to power supplies. Many countries are too poor to build enough centralised power stations, and certainly to instal the extensive grid needed to reach everyone in the further reaches of the countryside. Why should development of such communities, villages and towns passively wait for delivery of power they can't currently afford to buy anyway? Far better to build from the bottom up. Building local wealth and education from surplus income earned through judicious use of a small power supply, thereby allowing quicker eventual participation in the larger economy, looks like a winner to me. -
actually thoughtful at 08:59 AM on 24 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
RSVP: "So it looks like this whole focus on CO2 is pointless." Come again? CO2 is one of the main culprits of climate change. It is a stand in for the other gases, as they are minor, or in the case of methane, break down to CO2 anyways. Not sure where you are going there. Also, a cap and dividend is actually a tax cut for the poor because everyone spends the same at the pump, but it is a much higher percentage of a poor person's income. If it is kept completely neutral (ie dollar for dollar) - it has no impact whatsoever, other than providing the missing price information in a painless way. Twas a smart Republican who thought that up. -
Don Gisselbeck at 08:59 AM on 24 March 2011CO2 has been higher in the past
Yes, "technology will save us" is a slightly higher level of speculation than "God will save us". There is still no evidence that geo engineering will save us even if it is implemented. The implementation will require funding mostly from people who have demonstrated that they would rather see civilization destroyed than suffer the slightest diminution of their wealth and power. -
damorbel at 08:48 AM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 786 Tom Curtis,point by point 1/ Yes 2/Not relevant. - The spectrum of samples plays no part in heat balsnce (Gustav Kirchhoff 1862 'Ueber das Verhälteniß zwischen dem Emissionensvermögen der Körper für Wärme und Licht'. 3/"If a photon is absorbed by a surface, the surface gains the energy that was contained in the photon (by conservation of energy)". - This would only be true if the surface were at 0K i.e. it is not itself radiating. 4/"If energy is absorbed by a surface, all else being equal, the temperature of the surface will rise, and the surface is warmed. - See 3 above. 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." - Very far from clear. Two surfaces close to each other can both be radiating very strongly but without energy transfer. Energy is only transferred if there is some difference in temperature. 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." - Yes. (But see 5/) 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." - Regards (a)'Energy' is not emitted (see the answer at 5/) - Regards (b)The surface does not get energy from the atmosphere.(see 5/.) 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." - This is very different. Now you are talking about 'The Rate of Cooling (Heating). The question of cooling (heating) rate is entirely a function of the albedo (if you take the 'rate' as a % of the temperature). The rate of temperature change (by radiation only) of any body is strongly dependent on its reflectivity, whether it has an atmosphere or not. If a body has a highly reflective surface it means there is very little material to either emit or absorb radiation, so heat transfer is minimal. 9/ -----> end. - No comment. -
dana1981 at 08:45 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
johnd - that still doesn't support RSVP's statements. For example, if the amount of cloudcover never changed, it would cause zero change in global temperatures, even though it plays a large role in the Earth's albedo. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:40 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
e @ 62... Careful using the word "denominator" around me. Last time that happened we ended up with a train wreck of a 750+ comment thread. ;-) -
Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Rob, Yeah the Anderegg results are discussed in the no consensus thread. It is telling that virtually the same result was obtained with a very different method and larger sample size (in the high expertise category). I have yet to see anything from the skeptic side with a robust denominator, much less two independent studies coming to the same result. -
johnd at 08:20 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
dana1981 at 06:54 AM, the RSVP statement is possibly based on daily observations where apart from the day night cycle, clouds are the next biggest factor in controlling the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground. Also perhaps as far as the energy budget goes, 23% of the average 340 watts per square metre total incoming solar radiation being reflected or absorbed by clouds. -
Gilles at 08:16 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
MuC : was kind of ironical. I'm not doing science with polls.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The irony is that nobody is doing science with polls. Anybody who thinks otherwise has misunderstood the point, the consensus is an indirect indication of the strength of the scientific argument (useful for those not in a position to assess the strength of the argument directly), but it isn't the scientific argument itself, or even a small part of it. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:16 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Ah, that would be Anderegg 2010. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:11 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
You can compare the results of Doran 2009 with almost any poll results and get a sense of the statistical significance of the numbers. A poll response of 1000 is very significant, especially out of such a small population. I would also venture to guess that the results are probably skewed high because a skeptical scientist is probably more likely to respond to such a questionaire. On top of that, didn't Andregg 2010 come up with very similar results using different methods? That would also suggest a robustness within the methods. -
dana1981 at 08:02 AM on 24 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Good point, Albatross. Really we're quibbling over hundredths of a degree in these comments. The main points are that there was a significant anthropogenic contribution to the early century warming, which wasn't as rapid or large as the current warming, which is almost entirely anthropogenic. -
Albatross at 08:00 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Thanks NewYorkJ @56, Lawrence Solomon is part of the group which is being sued by Dr Andrew Weaver (an eminent Canadian climate scientist) for libel. The National Post and Financial Post have a very long and sordid history of libelling climate scientists, misinforming, distorting and cherry-picking -- they simply cannot be trusted when reporting on climate science and have zero credibility. DeepClimate has more on their antics. Sad to see that Harry @51 has fallen for their misinformation. -
les at 07:58 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
So post 51 is plagiarism? Not the firstclimate [--snip--] to do that, eh?
Prev 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 Next
