Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 Next
Comments 91501 to 91550:
-
muoncounter at 07:48 AM on 23 March 20112nd 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. -
damorbel at 07:45 AM on 23 March 20112nd 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. -
BBP at 07:40 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding 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 -
RSVP at 07:05 AM on 23 March 2011The 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? -
dana1981 at 07:04 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-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. -
adelady at 07:03 AM on 23 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
rsvp @45. Only if it was chlorine. Other methods don't have quite the same impact, though they do have some. -
dana1981 at 07:01 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-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. -
keithpickering at 07:01 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding 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) [eln(.93)(t-t0)] ... where age t is expressed in Gyr. -
RSVP at 06:57 AM on 23 March 2011The 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? -
adelady at 06:54 AM on 23 March 2011Those 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. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:49 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing 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. -
Phil at 06:46 AM on 23 March 20112nd 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. -
les at 06:45 AM on 23 March 2011Those 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. -
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). -
scaddenp at 06:43 AM on 23 March 2011The 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. -
L.J. Ryan at 06:35 AM on 23 March 20112nd 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. -
scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 23 March 2011The 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. -
scaddenp at 06:28 AM on 23 March 2011Teaching 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. -
scaddenp at 06:20 AM on 23 March 20112nd 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? -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:13 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing 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. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:05 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing 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." -
Gilles at 06:02 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-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 ?
-
CBDunkerson at 06:01 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding 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. :] -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:54 AM on 23 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
Gilles... You might want to look at figure 3 here. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:50 AM on 23 March 20112nd 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. -
dana1981 at 05:47 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-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. -
dana1981 at 05:46 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing 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. -
CBDunkerson at 05:45 AM on 23 March 20112nd 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. -
IanC at 05:43 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-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. -
johnd at 05:41 AM on 23 March 2011Zero 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. -
Gilles at 05:37 AM on 23 March 2011The 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. -
L.J. Ryan at 05:24 AM on 23 March 20112nd 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. -
ranyl at 05:23 AM on 23 March 2011Zero 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. -
L.J. Ryan at 05:07 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
muoncounter 747 "Are you suggesting that successive absorption and re-emission of photons at the same frequency increases energy?" That's my point...it can't. Go back and read the entire thread. -
les at 05:06 AM on 23 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Gilles - the average Englishman knows that when you're in a hole, stop digging. One technical question ... is that an imaginary envelope? For writing to your imaginary friends? But wait! Now I'm to imagine a triangle! I don't think so either -
CBDunkerson at 05:01 AM on 23 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
ranyl #77, "But how much of a drop will there be before equilibrium is reached" That is the question and I don't pretend to know the answer. The Lowe paper finds that we would reach equilibrium with very little reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels, but itself notes several other studies which suggested more significant drops. Whether we will see significant carbon release from long term environmental sinks (e.g. permafrost, mathane clathrates) is still an open question. Obviously that could be very bad... potentially keeping GHG levels elevated regardless of whether we cut back/eliminate emissions from industry. There is definitely a great deal of cause for concern, but we can't pin down the effects of current levels and plausible reduction scenarios any more precisely than somewhere between 'somewhat inconvenient' and 'massively destructive'. Of course, if we don't bother reducing emissions at all that'll be another story. -
muoncounter at 05:00 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#743: "If I specify ... 1 photon per second, A single photon will transverse the box and/or absorbed and re-radiated countless times within a second...so why no increase in energy?" Are you suggesting that successive absorption and re-emission of photons at the same frequency increases energy? In what way? If you have this figured out, congratulations, you better get a plane ticket to Stockholm. -
perseus at 04:52 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
Thanks Mark It seems as if Astronomy is not completely immune from myths either! There is a short discussion of the subject here Radiation pressure in stars -
keithpickering at 04:49 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
I note that Gough's equation is linear; I have seen (somewhere) literature that graphs the time dependency relationship as logarithmic at ~ 7% per billion years. I'll see if I can find it, if nobody else knows. -
CBDunkerson at 04:49 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, 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. Your claim that this violates the 1st law of thermodynamics is thus obviously false. No 'extra' energy is being created... already existing energy is being concentrated within an area and thereby causing higher temperatures in that area. Ditto with the nonsense about the 2nd law of thermodynamics... the EMR flows just fine from the cold surface of the mirror to the much hotter focal point. If the greenhouse effect violates either of these laws of thermodynamics then so do parabolic mirrors... yet both keep on working despite illogical beliefs that they cannot. -
Gilles at 04:37 AM on 23 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
OK ,let say that I don't know exactly what the precise semantic field of "average " in english. So your claim is that the 600 000 000th richest chinese guy to day is much poorer than the 40 000 000th american in 1890 ? that's an interesting idea - but how can you (or Summers) know that ? if you want use it as a "serious" argument to say anything about energy and economy, you should have at least a vague idea of how to be sure of that ? and i said "imaginary" in the sense of that it doesn't correspond to an actual line drawn on the graphics - it's just an envelope. If you complete the graphics with the history of other countries, it will fill some kind of broad triangle. Now is your claim that there is no issue in imagining that this triangle will move indefinitely towards the high end of the y-axis? I don't think so. For me, that's just an illustration of human hubris. -
MarkR at 04:23 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
1 perseus: quick estimate would be that the outward force from the Sun's luminosity is 1.3 x 1018 N or 0.2 Pa pressure at the surface. At the surface of the core, about 0.2 solar radius out, it would therefore be about 5 Pa. Looks pretty weak to me, considering Earth's atmosphere with Earth's gravity is about 100 kPa at the surface. Of course, perhaps I calc'd it wrong, but I think it's effectively ignorable. -
ranyl at 04:20 AM on 23 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Hi CDB and BERN, Yes agree and did have a misconception of the lag involved to equilibrium and why I felt that there wouldn't be much of immediate a drop of CO2 even if all emissions stop and must still say not convinced there will be as many of models make many questionable assumptions especially about the terrestrial sinks. But how much of a drop will there be before equilibrium is reached as the sinks do seem to be falling and every other time the globe warms CO2 overall is released? Also there is all the frozen lands to thaw and release CO2 and when past equilibrium point the CO2 put acutely into the sinks over the last 100years or so will be released before CO2 falls further.. So even we stopped today, 390ppm, where is the equilibrium point, if 75% overall equilibrium removal is right that is about 335ppm, but that takes several 100years to acheive meaning we'll still be above 350ppm until 2100 and that is presuming no decline in the sinks which is unlikely as world still warms for 1000's years, meaning the oceans warm, permafrost melts etc...450ppm and we'll still be the high 300'slow 400's by 2100, as it will take 25 years to get to 450ppm at the present rate. And do agree entirely that having zedro emissions for activities is essential, however also feel that to get to safe levels a large draw down of CO2 is necessary, even at 350ppm the pliocene is calling eventually but to avoid 2C by 2100 we need to be at most 350ppm by then. We are 40ppm above 350ppm already and the chance of stopping emissions abruptly about the same as a snowball in a hot place, so what do we plan for? >2C or below and isn't even 1.5C going to be a major task of adaptation considering what is already happening? There really is no carbon budget, the debt is already in the bank, however to adapt we need to make the smallest extra withdrawal we can, so how much is that? 400ppm peak? That is 5 years away!!!!! -
Gilles at 04:16 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
sorry all, but I was not talking about divergence, it was only a side remark. I am not talking about post-1960 points. Forget the sixties and later, imagine that we're discussing in 1960. I'm just asking if the pre-1960 rise, visible in proxy reconstructions, is mainly natural, or anthropogenic. -
perseus at 04:01 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
Chris Is the pressure exerted by the outward radiation flow in a main sequence star significant in holding it up against gravity? The text above suggest that it can be approximated as being a ball of gas with hydrostatic pressure only. -
IanC at 03:50 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
34 Arkadiusz, 1) Your scenario is impossible unless the biosphere sink somehow distinguishes natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2. 2) It appears the hypothesis mentioned there is that human had an impact on the carbon cycle long before the burning of fossil fuel through land use changes. I am not surprised that it is not well constrained, and I fail to see how the fact that the anthropogenic impact 1000's years ago has anything to do with the present warming which began 100 years ago. 3) Regarding those two soil studies, the take home message is that the human impact on the CO2 cycle maybe worse than previously thought, not that human is not contributing significantly to global warming. -
L.J. Ryan at 03:49 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
CBDunkerson 741, moderator No CB, I believe light can be focused and directed. Are you suggesting the cold atmosphere is a parabolic dish...reflecting focused LW to the earths surface? Way to stay objective moderator.Moderator Response: [DB] As one who has experienced this thread in all its 700+ comment glory, keeping one's objectivity mandates a sense of humor. Like keeping an open mind also mandates one to not let one's brains fall out. If you've taken offense at my sense of humor, I apologize. -
L.J. Ryan at 03:46 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 732 733 The nonsense of your electric stove analogy is profound. To imply a lid over a pot of near boiling water demonstrates atmosphere forcing, or to refute heat energy flows spontaneously from hot to cold is obfuscation at that least and outright igno....well you seem very intelligent, just wrong. You came to realize however, "the "lid forcing" is due to reduced heat loss due to convection and latent heat transfer. There-fore-making the lid transparent to IR, a very small source of heat loss in the situation, will make virtually no difference." And the lid temperature is NOT relevant The larger pot inverted over the burner, bright red or dull red, should get hotter via re-radiation. Should get much hotter via re-radiation IF GHG theory physics is correct. Or since the burner represents a constant source of light (maybe a beam) shouldn't the pot contain 4x the light entering the pot. Can a pot be a box? Any interested readers should reference the thread starting @676 Any interested readers should also note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:45 AM on 23 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Gilles @ 12... Can you please explain what the motivation would be for a scientist to produce work that has no relationship or bearing on the world around him/her? No scientist is ever going to advance their career by producing work that has absolutely no relationship to the real world. If you spend any time at all listening to these guys or reading their research you find they all say that models are not perfect. They are continually improving the models. But the models create a strong approximation of the climate system. And they have DO have many ways to test how reliable the models are. -
L.J. Ryan at 03:41 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 731 You said: " "In that case, after sufficient time for light to transit the box three times, and with a constant light source providing beam (A), then the box will have the following equalities." A single photon does not qualify as either a "beam" or a "constant light source". By reducing the case to that of a single photon, you are quite clearly trying to avoid discussing the model as specified. Any interested readers should note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits. That should come as no surprise - I certainly would not want to discuss my case on its merits if I held your purported beliefs. " Establishing constraints is not avoiding the discussion. Since a "beam" is not scientifically defined, and furthermore "light source providing beam" suggests visible light, I'm trying to establish a specific minimum for your box to work as supposed. If I specify, as you suggested (698) 1 photon per second, A single photon will transverse the box and/or absorbed and re-radiated countless times within a second...so why no increase in energy? I will ask again. Is there a minimum energy for your box? Any interested readers should note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits.
Prev 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 Next
