Recent Comments

Prev  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  Next

Comments 91551 to 91600:

91551. pbjamm at 03:12 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       JMurphy@738 "Tom Curtis, you and the others here are doing sterling work but I wonder to what end." I would like to second this Tom but let you know that it is not pointless. Not being a physicist myself I have found your explanations very easy to follow and enlightening. The lack of understanding displayed by our resident skeptics is as damaging to their cause as their math.
91552. soo doh nim at 03:07 AM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens I think that applies here.
91553. WSteven at 01:45 AM on 23 March 2011
       Teaching Climate Science
       This is an excellent video, Kevin presents and explains the evidence well.
91554. CBDunkerson at 01:44 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJRyan #715: "To proclaim star sourced energy can be increase itself by it's own reflection and/or re-radiation is a violation of the 1st law." Presumably parabolic mirrors don't exist in your reality.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Or perhaps he meant this law...
91555. les at 01:43 AM on 23 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       77 Giles "for me..." well, yes, for you. But in the real world - and even in France - 'average' is a measure that tends to the center or typical, of which mean, median and, indeed, mode are examples which apply variously in different population types. There are others. Sorry writing 'sigma' whatever and pretending your doing maths doesn't make you right. Then some waffle then 78 - oh, i see, an imaginary line. ohhh kayyyy... we ask for hard facts and analysis and we get an imaginary line. It's a good strategy because I really have no response to that.
91556. IanC at 01:37 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       Gilles@39 I think you should keep in mind that 1) not all tree ring records show divergence. It is geographically limited. 2) temperature records have been reconstructed from other proxy data as well. I found this link helpful: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
       Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked URL.
91557. grypo at 01:28 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       @Gilles This divergence talk should be in a divergence thread, but I will respond to this last comment and then let it go. No, I do not think it is very uncertain to use them as evidence for past temperature. I think specifically Briffa's proxy for estimating temperature over specific time scales is somewhat uncertain. But it doesn't matter what I think, and that's the good news. The experts are very aware of this issue and are working to come to an agreement. The bad news is that until that is done, there will considerable disagreement on how to inform the public of this uncertainty, while portraying the best possible answers to certain questions. Other than Richard Alley and the late Steven Schneider, most climate scientists aren't experts in this regard. Dendro people are dendro experts. There are certain choices made in charts that reasonable people can disagree on how to display. This is definitely the case with multiproxy reconstructions. If you want to discuss those options, please do it in a relevant thread.
91558. IanC at 01:20 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       13 HR, The reason why I feel the paper is particularly speculative is because the authors' argument is essentially this: other reconstructions of TSI disagree, and since we feel that the sun is as quiet as it can be can, the condition at MM should be similar to the present day. I don't see the authors addressing why this estimation is necessarily better than the others, nor do they address why the other reconstructions disagree. There must be some different physics that goes behind those constructs, so can those differences be ignored altogether as I think the authors are doing? But as you said, we probably have to wait to see what the conclusions are in a few years. Now to answer your question. If the theory is indeed correct, it doesn't affect our understanding of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The implication will be that the climate is more sensitive to forcing changes than we know. It will also remove any hopes that the sun will enter another MM-like phase and bring in another little ice age to counteract the effects of anthropogenic CO2. In addition, the change in the solar forcing is by no means large enough to suggest that there is some unaccounted for process going on to cause the 1900-1940 warming.
91559. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:19 AM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       “... the natural carbon cycle is in balance ...” „Natural carbon sinks absorb more than natural carbon sources emit, and human emissions upset that balance. That's why humans are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years.” ... there's no indisputable evidence ..., ... and it is not so simple. In nature, this model is dominated: model of an oscillating - Lotka–Volterra equation Imagine that in the atmosphere from natural sources (imbalance - as a result of global warming - between sources and the sinks CO2 - the excess of sources over sinks) in the pre industrial era (exit of the LIA), 2 ppm CO2 goes unbalanced. Ie. if we assume that there was an increase of 5 ppmv natural CO2 - respiration, ocean ventilation - (hypothetical value) per annum (the beginning of the industrial era). 2 ppmv CO2 is added to the atmosphere each year as "permanent" surplus. Add to that “our” 5 ppm of CO2 emissions. In general - in all - it should be 7 ppm unbalanced surplus? Nothing could be further from the truth. Assuming that the optimum of photosynthesis in the range 400 - 600 ppm CO2, any new source of CO2 strongly reinforces - is intensifying photosynthesis. However, there is the emergence of a new source of anthropogenic CO2 in the industrial era. New source - new 5 ppmv CO2 adds to the atmosphere - is to improve conditions for photosynthesis, the biosphere. These "next" source so the biosphere reacts more positively than those earlier. These new - an additional anthropogenic source - increases of NPP is not a 3 ppmv but about 4.5 ppmv - increase bio-sinks. In other words, an increase in sources of CO2 by 10 ppmv - biosphere absorbs 7.5 ppmv increase from both sources. Without anthropogenic CO2 source is unbalanced excess of 2 ppm of CO2 + A. CO2 = 2.5 ppm. A. CO2 = 0,5 ppm ... Such a scenario is possible - we have to prove it - a fact - but it's not disinformation. The First-Order Effect of Holocene Northern Peatlands on Global Carbon Cycle Dynamics, Wang 2010.: “Holocene anthropogenic hypothesis is to claim that humans took control of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 trends thousands of years ago because of perturbations from land-use and land-cover changes [13-15]. However, without constrained magnitudes of those changes, it is still difficult to add this hypothesis into our model simulations.” Variations in temperature sensitivities of soil and microbial respiration: Implications for climate-carbon modeling, Suseela et al., 2010.: “Soil respiration is the largest flux of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, releasing more carbon than fossil fuel combustion. Since temperature affects soil respiration, on a global scale, even a small warming-induced increase in carbon dioxide emission from soils could act as a positive feedback to climate change.” Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon fractions in boreal forest soil, Karhu et al. 2010.: “Still, the temperature sensitivity is not known for the majority of the SOC, which is tens or hundreds of years old. This old fraction [14C !] is paradoxically concluded to be more, less, or equally sensitive compared to the younger fraction. Here, we present results that explain these inconsistencies. We show that the temperature sensitivity of decomposition increases remarkably from the youngest annually cycling fraction (Q10 < 2) to a decadally cycling one (Q10 = 4.2-6.9) but decreases again to a centennially cycling fraction (Q10 = 2.4-2.8) in boreal forest soil. Compared to the method used for current global estimates (temperature sensitivity of all SOC equal to that of the total heterotrophic soil respiration), the soils studied will lose 30-45% more carbon in response to climate warming during the next few decades, if there is no change in carbon input.” Already now the carbon dioxide emissions from soil are ten times higher than the emissions of fossil carbon. A Finnish research group has proved that the present standard measurements underestimate the effect of climate warming on emissions from the soil.” So much doubt about only one claim from this post ...
91560. Ken Lambert at 00:59 AM on 23 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Marcus #71 It seems that I am 'horribly' wrong all over the park Marcus. It only that were true. "It is worth noting, though, that the large, centralized nature of coal power station, as well as their reliance on a constant fuel supply that needs to be mined, does make it especially vulnerable to extreme events like these." Quite the opposite Marcus. Coal fired plant sited on mine sites find coal storage pretty easy and cheap. It is not hard to store many days supply of coal to keep the plant running in a mine shutdown. Coal fired plant sited on rail links can get coal from other mines or interstate. "Even in the absence of such events, coal power stations are horribly inflexible in their power output & lose significant amounts of generated electricity over the distances they're required to transmit over (between 10%-15% of electricity generated gets lost during Transmission & Distribution)." Quite the opposite again Marcus. Coal plant can be run up from cold in a matter of hours and spinning reserve brought on-line in minutes. Multiple generator sets are used to match load to capacity to achieve optimum efficiency and the flexibility required of base load plant. Peak demand can be handled with systems like pumped storage hydro and gas turbines. The issue of distribution losses is not related to the method of powering the generators. It is a function of voltage level and distance from major loads. The same line losses would apply to Bern's ZCA systems. "Wind Turbines also sounds horribly out of date. My reading of current technology is that most modern wind turbines are designed to operate effectively under a wide range of wind conditions-something which has allowed improvements in Capacity from barely 20% to more than 30% in the last decade. Of course, with good siting & decent storage, many of the remaining issues with wind power can be largely iron out-and eliminated completely if you also have a good source of landfill gas." The blade designs are more effective at widening the range of operating wind speeds, however they are still subject to the power output being proportional to the cube of the wind speed. Only the best sites produce 30% availability. Ideal sites are those with high steady winds near the optimum speed for the turbine. The best are very tall and at sea. Building 1000 turbines per year on land needs something like 300m each of space for a 3MW nominal unit. End on end - you would need 300km. A 3MW turbine has a 90-100m blade diameter on a 100m high tower. At a best 30% availability, one of these 3MW units will only produce an average of 1MW over a year. To replace 1 x Kogan Creek 750MW plant, one would need 750 of these turbines. They would stretch end on end for 225km. People are affected adversely by the low freguency sound pressure levels caused by the blade disturbance - not to mention the danger to the orange breasted parrot. And you still have the extra costs of storage of energy and distance from loads for such widely dispersed units. And of course you say all will be fine if you have a landfill nearby each wind farm with enough biogas (and gas turbine or engine) to smooth out the 5 knot clear winter days when you only get 3.5% of nominal power out of each unit. Hello??
91561. CBDunkerson at 00:55 AM on 23 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       What struck me most about Thompson's article was how markedly the 'answers' he reported having received varied from my own mental responses; Q: What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2? A: About 0.04%. Q: Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media? A: Yes. Several times per year as a percentage, daily as 'parts per million'... which anyone who knows how to divide can convert into a percentage. (390 / 1,000,000 = 0.039%) Q: What percentage of the CO2 is man-made? A: About 30% (i.e. (390 - 280) / 390 = 0.28) Q: What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce? A: A little over 1% per year currently. Maybe 2% of the accumulated total increase thus far. Q: Is CO2 a pollutant? A: Depends on the location and concentration... just like anything else. Currently atmospheric CO2 is a global pollutant. Q: Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect? A: Sure... Tyndall measurements 1850s, lunar IR measurements at different latitudes, countless temperature and CO2 correlations in the instrumental and proxy records, the Earth not being a giant frozen ball of ice, et cetera. The sad thing is that he can only get away with such nonsense because the (wrong) responses he reports having received are plausible. If people were educated on the issue then charlatans like this would be unable to gain any traction. Sadly too much of the population goes out of the way to 'educate' themselves with pure fiction. The good news is that children in schools, who will eventually be in a position to do something about it, are instead taught reality... though I know in the U.S. there are increasingly strident efforts ongoing to change that.
91562. adelady at 00:51 AM on 23 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       And I just saw this item about Bangladesh on a discussion elsewhere. Very encouraging.
91563. siglerj at 00:50 AM on 23 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       Earth Hour, candles and carbon http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candles-and-carbon/ Candles being apart of the cycle doesn't mean it is a better option.
91564. Gilles at 00:50 AM on 23 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       PS death line is not the Korea curve, but an imaginary upper straight line above all curves - for the record, I expect that with the exhaustion of conventional FF and the continuous rise of extraction cost, economic growth will end and all the curves you're seeing will soon have a turn backwards and go back to the origin ... we'll see !
91565. Gilles at 00:46 AM on 23 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       les : for me , median is the value of the variable splitting the sample in two equal halves - that's the french "mediane" at least. It's not usually computed as an "average" (= weighted sum of all values , Sigma(Pi.Yi)/Sigma(Pi)) - I don't think there is a way to express the median as a weighted average, but I may ignore that. concerning the relationship between GDP and FF consumption, it is true that , on average, the coefficient tends to improve , for a simple reason : evolution of techniques allows a continuously better use of energy (it is very rare that people replace a good technique by a bad one, after all !). So I never stated that the coefficient was constant throughout the history. But I argue (like on the other thread) that a) improvement doesn't go to zero FF energy b) improvement doesn't result in a decreasing energy consumption for a given wealth, but in increasing the wealth for a given energy consumption (the energy consumption per capita in the world has stayed fairly constant since the 80's, a remarkable feature not explained by economists to my knowledge - which is proving in my sense how poorly they understand these issues).
91566. Alexandre at 00:37 AM on 23 March 2011
       Teaching Climate Science
       OR that was an illustration of denialism: Claim something without even knowing what your talking about. Don't check reality, even if it's shown to you. Repeat ad nauseam.
91567. Gilles at 00:29 AM on 23 March 2011
       The True Cost of Coal Power
       and if you try to convince me that we can improve the use of oil and other FF, it's useless. I'm already convinced. This doesn't change the fact that a) improvement cannot go to zero (same with food) b) once improvements are done, there is no real reason (and no moral justification) to prevent much poorer people to use the spared fuels (yes, there are much poorer people than australian in the world !) c) and there is also no precise reason to stop extracting FF as long as we can't suppress totally them. b) and c) imply logically that improvements will lead to more wealth produced with the same amount of FF and not same wealth produced with less FF - which is exactly what you can read on the graphs.
91568. Tom Curtis at 00:24 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       JMurphy, that might be a suitable solution. Fortunately, though, it is out of my hands to determine if a more robust response is appropriate.
91569. Tom Curtis at 00:22 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       les @737, in PR it is often quantity, not quality that counts. What is more, damorbel and LJRyan seem to repeatedly make claims that anyone who knows the theory behind the GHE or Thermodynamics can clearly see to be false, but which are plausible enough to pass muster with those having only a casual acquaintance with either. They are exactly the sort of contributions likely generate uncertainty in the uninformed.
91570. Gilles at 00:22 AM on 23 March 2011
       The True Cost of Coal Power
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita German people produce 9.6 tCO2/yr/capita, whereas French produce only 6. Of course it is easier to improve when you're very bad at the beginning. Even Denmark produces 9.2 (and bad chinese people only 4.9). The only methods that have proved to be efficient to reduce (in some measure) CO2 production are hydroelectricity and nuclear power, that's it. All the rest is totally unable to power a modern country, despite everything you can read.
91571. CBDunkerson at 00:15 AM on 23 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       ranyl, as Bern explains, there is no mechanism for carbon sinks to respond directly to CO2 emissions from human industry. The absorption rate of natural carbon sinks is instead driven by the total atmospheric CO2 level. Think of it as an osmotic process... the higher the imbalance between atmospheric and (for instance) oceanic carbon concentration the faster the net transfer of carbon between the two. As the two approach equilibrium the transfer rate slows. It gets complicated in this case because the carbon content of the ocean surface is currently much higher than that of the deep ocean... we have been adding carbon to the atmosphere, and thus indirectly to the ocean, more quickly than it can disperse throughout the total volume of ocean water. Thus, if emissions were to stop we would first hit an equilibrium between atmospheric and ocean surface carbon and then very slowly drift towards a lower equilibrium point as the ocean surface concentration (and hence atmospheric concentration) decreased as the carbon disperses through deeper water. In short, the carbon we have emitted thus far locks us into to atmospheric CO2 levels higher than the previously semi-stable level of about 280 ppm for tens of thousands of years... but if we stopped emitting we would see a significant drop in atmospheric levels in the short term followed by a long slow decline. It is the level at the start of the slow decline which we need to worry about as that will be what we are 'stuck with' on timescales long enough for all feedbacks to come into play.
91572. Gilles at 00:13 AM on 23 March 2011
       Teaching Climate Science
       Figure 2 is not garbage. It's just illustrative of computer scientist's world. Simulate something. Change a parameter. You build another world. No idea if it is real or not - and no way to check it. Don't mind.
       Moderator Response: Your comment belongs on the thread "Models are unreliable."
91573. Gilles at 00:04 AM on 23 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       grypo : but do you agree that if the proxies cannot reproduce the most recent warming, it is very uncertain to use them as evidence that they weren't similar warm periods 1000 years ago, if error bars are large ? for me, it's a rather simple conclusion based on usual scientific method - it is just an unreliable indicator, period. I can't understand why it would have become precisely unreliable just when you're measuring a new effect - that's undoubtedly a worrying issue.
91574. JMurphy at 00:02 AM on 23 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis, you and the others here are doing sterling work but I wonder to what end. This has become like a thread that involves Poptech : circular and pointless. As you say, it is creating an illusion of some sort of debate, which is incomprehensible to the vast majority of people who understand that the greenhouse effect does not break any physical laws. Perhaps it is time to ask and demand answers to certain basic, and on-topic questions, from the so-called skeptics, with anything else being deleted as off-topic and time-wasting ? They would scream censorship, no doubt, but I believe the rest of us would welcome the decline in time-wasting nonsense - as I'm sure you would welcome the ability to concentrate on other matters !
91575. adelady at 23:59 PM on 22 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       The Sahel reference I omitted earler. Sorry
91576. adelady at 23:56 PM on 22 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       Wood is not a fossil material, it's part of the carbon cycle, as are dung and candle wicks and waxes. We know it's a bad idea to burn wood and dung in badly designed stoves. There are 2 options. One is to provide high quality stoves which burn more efficiently and thus produce less soot. This has the double advantage of reducing the lung cancer rate in countries where women who cook in unventilated homes over smoky stoves die unnecessarily early, painful deaths from lung diseases. The other option is to also provide better stoves, but with 'better' fuels. Unfortunately, most such programs tend to be expensive both for the providers and for the people who have to, some time or another, start paying the full price of that fuel. I suspect wider use of programs like the Sahel approach of growing smallish trees within crops allows production of fuel, both for home use and for sale, as well as improving cropping. The right kind of wood also provides building and fencing materials. Teaching those who don't yet have the skill about drying wood for best burning results and better placement and design of cooking stoves can take care of the rest of the problem.
91577. siglerj at 23:42 PM on 22 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       How do you measure the effects of non industrialized nations where the people burn fecal matter, candles and wood for heat and light energy? Does it actually make sense to wood that has no pollution prevention vs using a light from a monitored fossil fuel technology? Should the light user pay for carbon damages while a wood burner user does not and also contributes to soot and other pollution?
91578. les at 23:21 PM on 22 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       736 - Tom Curtis "First, are they amongst the PR consultants which are known to be paid by some firms to create a haze of spurious disputation around sites that explain the truth about global warming?" Come on, get serious - no one would pay good money for contributions like those, surely!
91579. les at 23:17 PM on 22 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       75 Giles "And I am not saying that the difference between median and average is obscure to me. I say that your argument is obscure, because it has been never stated by Summers that the important distinction was between average and median, and you didn't gave any support for that." but the difference is clearly obscure to you. median is an average, as is mean. Just how hard is that? The Summers link is a pretty high powered economist, I've no doubt that the difference isn't obscure to him - but, as I pointed out, it was a casual interview... and as such an easy target to someone who can only argue by sniping. Anyway, clearly you're following the general point as you've presented some data(!) - which I assume shows GDP and oil consumption averaged by taking the total and dividing it by the population - which is the mean - just so as it's not obscure ;) So, a nice graph showing that US and EU-27's increase in GDP is absolutely not correlated in any way shape or form to rate of oil consumption. And South Koreas fell out of correlation at 2 g/day. Further, so far as South Korea did ever follow a correlation curve, as did/does India and China - they are different curves... That shows that could be taken to show that any causal affect that might exist at some time is substantially under-determined by just considering oil consumption (otherwise the curves would be the same); all in all this shows that oil consumption is a week factor of production. So, that's a fail on point 1/ in my post 72. Now, for obscure arguments... your "death line" - I presume you mean the curve following South Korea, more or less? The line China seems to break? Is that it? If that is what you mean by "death line", then that's a fail for point 2/ in post 72. Of course, the other side of the argument (2/) on the table is that there are no substitutes (sorry, another technical ecnomics term) ... and that's clearly not demonstrated in your post... but I'll wait... I have faith in you. Anyway, well done on having a go at presenting data - I hope all those who said you couldn't do it are feeling shame right now!
91580. Tom Curtis at 22:51 PM on 22 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       scaddenp @727, it is quite obvious from the way they discuss the topic that neither LJRyan nor Damorbel are interested in resolving the issues being contested here. Rather their intent appears to be to prolong discussion to create the appearance of rational dispute. It is a sham, of course, because their responses to arguments are neither rational, nor responsive. Instead there strategy appears to be merely to deflect and distract from core issues. This raises three issues. First, are they amongst the PR consultants which are known to be paid by some firms to create a haze of spurious disputation around sites that explain the truth about global warming? Second, how should site administrators respond to such evidently troll like behaviour given that they know that at least some such behaviour is paid for verbiage rather than reflecting genuine opinions? And third, as participators at a site, should we ignore their responses given that we recognise that their disputation is strategic rather than genuine? My answer to the third question is that it is better to not leave their responses unanswered, at least until they have exposed themselves as the empty shams they undeniably are.
91581. grypo at 22:33 PM on 22 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       @Giles #37 to your question, "how do you prove they were reliable before 1900 ?" This is getting somewhat off-topic, but still has something to do with temperature. But when discussing 'proof' in an uncertain science, it is much more reasonable to use terms like 'degrees of certainty' or 'confidence'. There is no way to 'prove' that tree rings are exact matches for temperature, but the degree of confidence is given to dendro-proxies by how well they match up with other proxies. Does that mean that the entire sequence is definitely correct for that particular Briffa proxy? No. That is why you see the larger error bars around the warm periods. I found this review paper to be helpful in understanding the issues surrounding divergence.
91582. Tom Curtis at 22:33 PM on 22 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel @726: Response to 613: As very clearly shown in 676, the radiant energy transfers are isomorphic with the radiant energy transfers in the third model of 676. The third model is an actual example of the GHE. Because of the isomorphism of energy transfers, it follows that the model of 613 is a model of the third model of 613, and hence a model of the greenhouse effect. It is good to see you endorsing LJRyan's answer at 619, however. He claims there that A=B. It follows that as C + D = B (by definition of half mirrored) and C = D (by definition of half mirrored) that C =/= B and hence C =/= A. But C = A by definition of equilibrium. So on LJR (and your) analysis of the box, C both equals and does not equal A. A contradiction that clearly proves your analysis to be false. Re your response to 677, that the lid of the box could not in fact be developed in life (as I mentioned) is irrelevant in what is after all an ideal thought experiment. A work around in real life could easily be developed using a laser. Why then are you concentrating on trivia?
91583. Gilles at 22:29 PM on 22 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Yes, oil consumption has been definitely necessary to increase the wealth of american people by a factor 6 since 1900. There is a definite "death line" of oil consumption below which no modern industrial country can go for a given GDP - just for obvious reasons of needs of transportation. For instance here where the "dead zone" is the upper left corner. I agree that may be US could improve a lot their oil use. But note that despite their might, they burn "only" 25 % percent of the oil, so improving by a factor 2 would only result in a 12.5 % gain for the planet - which could be (actually *will* be) easily swallowed by all emerging countries. And I am not saying that the difference between median and average is obscure to me. I say that your argument is obscure, because it has been never stated by Summers that the important distinction was between average and median, and you didn't gave any support for that.
91584. damorbel at 22:26 PM on 22 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #730 Tom Curtis you wrote:- "But the issue of an internal heat source or sink is extraneous to his discussion, and your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as "not having an internal heat source or sink" is false." Sorry but I must point out that an object with an internal heat source can never be in thermal equilibrium because it will always have a temperature gradient of some sort inside it. Further you wrote (1):- "two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other if an only if, when heat can pass freely between them" This is not a requirement. If 'heat can pass freely' they will reach the same temperature (the only condition for equilibrium) at the fastest rate possible. And (2):- "As noted in the definition below, when two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they are at the same temperature" Which appears to contradict (1)and agree with (2) Emissivity is an intrinsic property of the material, it is not a direct function of its temperature. Emissivity can only change if the basic structure changes e.g. diamond has an emissivity different from graphite. You wrote:- "The Earth and the Sun are, of course, not at the same temperature. Therefore the special application of Kirchoff's Law you appeal to does not apply" The Earth absorbs the energy from the Sun that is not reflected by the albedo 'a' , this absorbed heat is radiated by the Earth with an emissivity e = 1 - a (a is the albedo) that is Kirchhoff's law. The law applies because the average temperature of the planet is not changing, it is in equilibrium with the radiation from the Sun. You wrote:- "I am... happy to concede that were the Earth heated to the same temperature as the Sun, the green house effect would not warm the surface" At the Earth, the Sun's radiation density is reduced according to the inverse square law, but the photons it intercepts still have the same energy as when they were emitted, it is just that they are spread over a larger area. If they are re-concentrated e.g. focussed by a mirror, the resultant image can, if it is only losing heat by radiation, reach the same temperature as the Sun. (It can't do this at the Earth's surface because the atmosphere absorbs some of the Sun's energy).
91585. Gilles at 22:12 PM on 22 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       "So come on, Gilles, stop your hand waving & tell us-what's causing this rapid warming if solar forcings are in decline?" Why do you think I should know the answer? believing we should answer any question at any moment is a religious attitude (religions explain also everything !) , not a scientific one. Can you answer the question of what has caused the rapid warming between 1900 and 1940, compared to previous epochs?
91586. Gilles at 22:09 PM on 22 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       Marcus : "2nd, we already know that proxies which rely on dendrochronology have proven very unreliable post-1960" I see that the "hockey stick" of proxy reconstruction is pretty well defined before 1960 - so just forget about the post-1960 data, and please give me an answer to my simple (again) question : if the shape of proxy reconstruction before 1960 is "reliable" , was it mainly controlled by anthropogenic influence or by natural ones? there is a second question : if proxies have "prove to be very unreliable" post-1960, how do you prove they were reliable before 1900 ? concerning the " *much* faster rate of warming in the period of 1980-2010 as compared to the period of 1910-1940", it is not by repeating it constantly that it will become true : I still do not know any field of science where two measurements (as precise as they may be) giving a slope of respectively 0.12 and 0.17 °C/decade would be qualified as "very different". We're talking of an approximate indicator (the average surface temperature has *no* clear physical meaning in any equation of physics) of a highly complex and non linear system with ill-known cycles , not of a precise measurement of fine structure constant by high accuracy laboratory measurements. and the 0.12 °C /decade was also "much higher" than the previous centuries, if I believe in "very reliable" proxies before 1900. So how do you explain this "much higher value" of 1900-1940 slope with respect to the previous time intervals ?
91587. Tom Curtis at 21:14 PM on 22 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       First, my preceding post should be read as a response to 725, not 724. LJRyan @724, 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. This does not change the fact that the addition of a cooler object resulted in greater heat in a warmer object that it would have had without the cooler object! Your attempts to distract us from this fact will not work, and nor will we forget that they represent a complete refutation of your claim in 715 the presence of a cooler object cannot result in increased warmth in a warmer object.
91588. Tom Curtis at 21:04 PM on 22 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJRyan @724, again you are changing the details of the experiment to avoid refutation. I very carefully specified, "Suppose you have an electrical stove ...". The reason for that is very simple, while the colour of a gas flame is fairly constant with temperature, the colour of an electrical heating element above a certain temperature is not. Therefore, you can see on the electrical element as you cannot see on the gas flame the effects of changes of temperature. Reverting then, to the original specification, if you have a pot full of water on an electrical element which is on, and glowing a dull red; and then you remove the pot, the element will become warmer, and glow a brighter red as a result. Inverting the pot over the element will reduce convective heat transfer, but by so small an amount that the heat difference from simply removing the full pot is unlikely to be detectable by eye.
91589. Marcus at 21:00 PM on 22 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       "Really a stunning statement , in my sense : I do not any field of science where this would be qualified as a "pretty stark difference" given the number of different factors that can interfere and the complexity of the system - usually the qualitative difference are measured by a number of sigma above the natural variability (Signal to Noise ratio)." Its not a stunning statement at all, Gilles, only to people like yourself who refuse to accept the link between GHG's & Global Warming. Funny how Signal to Noise ratio never stops Denialists like yourself from claiming cooling trends over time periods as short as 3-5 years (even when plotting the data shows no such thing). In each case, I'm relying on over 400 data points (about 420 months) to draw my graph-that does a huge amount to reduce the signal to noise ratio-& what we're clearly left with is a *much* faster rate of warming in the period of 1980-2010 as compared to the period of 1910-1940, in *spite* of a lack of an obvious forcing for the 1980-2010 warming period (in fact, solar forcings are declining during that period). So come on, Gilles, stop your hand waving & tell us-what's causing this rapid warming if solar forcings are in decline?
91590. Marcus at 20:54 PM on 22 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       "in other words : do the proxies show something unusual associated with the anthropogenic component, or not ?" A few things Gilles-first of all, proxies don't cover nearly as much of the planet's surface as direct measurement of temperature does-so that automatically makes direct measurement preferable over proxies. 2nd, we already know that proxies which rely on dendrochronology have proven very unreliable post-1960, due to drought conditions in many of the proxy sites causing a reduction in tree-ring size that makes it look like cooling-so again, this makes direct temperature measurements more reliable than proxies, & direct temperature measurements show a *massive* increase in the rate of global temperature rise.
91591. Marcus at 20:46 PM on 22 March 2011
       The True Cost of Coal Power
       "well, that's different in France : peak consumption is during cold and dark evenings in winter - because thanks to cheap nuclear electricity , many people have electrical heating. Unfortunatly no sun and not always wind at this time. Worst, nuclear plant cannot respond quickly to spikes, so we must start again thermal plants." Yet your neighbours, Germany, have made very successful inroads in the use of PV's, solar hot water systems & passive solar heating-not to mention Wind Power-so your claims don't really don't stack up. Also, Coal Power stations don't respond well to spikes in demand either-as the frequent brown-outs & load shedding during Australian Summers can attest. As much as you try & spin it, Gilles, with the proper implementation of new & upcoming storage technologies most nations could swap entirely to a mix of renewable energy sources-be it bio-gas, tidal, solar, wind or osmotic,just for starters-within the next 20 years or so.
91592. monkeyorchid at 20:39 PM on 22 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       For me, one of the most remarkable claims in the document was: "If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster" This indicates clearly that [--snip--] have given up refuting climate science directly, and are openly trying to destroy public trust instead. We all knew that this was what they were about, but this sentence contains a rare admission of guilt.
91593. les at 20:38 PM on 22 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       73 Gilles "wealth could be produced without energy" where did I say that? I did say "oil consumption increase is necessary for wealth"... Please cite me correctly ;) But really... Do you not understand the concept of factors of production? And, for pittys sake! You refer to a sophisticated concept like the gini coefficient - but think that the difference between "average" and "median" is obscure - while claiming to understand it?!?!? really? anyway, looking forward to moving things on via post 72... with facts, evidence and references please.
91594. Marcus at 20:36 PM on 22 March 2011
       The True Cost of Coal Power
       "It doesn't mean at all that FF can be suppressed without harm - despite all fairy tales you're reading." The only one reading fairy tales here, Gilles, is *you*. If that graph you supplied is the best you can do to "prove" the correlation between fossil fuel use & Wealth, then you're really clutching at straws. According to that graph, GDP grew by more than 20 times, whilst total energy demand increased by barely 4 fold-not really a great correlation to begin with. When you consider that the share of that energy which derives from coal or oil has *fallen* over that time period, then your correlation becomes even weaker still. I've shown examples of nations whose energy use/$ GDP has risen over the last 30 years, without any real improvement in total GDP over that period, & I've likewise shown a number of nations which have increased their total GDP, whilst significantly reducing the energy intensity of their economy *and* the share of energy derived from coal or oil. So I'd argue that I have more proof of the *lack* of a correlation than you have proof of a correlation. Even if you *could* prove a correlation for the past, it would certainly not hold true that *future* wealth creation depends on fossil fuel consumption-no matter *what* your fairy tales tell you.
91595. Gilles at 20:28 PM on 22 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Les :Well, I thought that Summers' citation was introduced by you because it was important to state that wealth could be produced without energy , taking old american people as an example. I just said it was untrue - old american weren't richer than current chinese one , for their energetic consumption. Now you seem to use some obscure distinction between median and average (well I know the difference, but I don't think it's relevant here). Introducing a strong variation in average/median ratio should translate to a strong difference in repartition of wealth, measured for instance by the Gini coefficient . I don't have time right now to look at data concerning America in 1890 - I'm not sure it is that different. I didn't say that heating and low cost commodities produce "no" wealth, I said "not much". Please cite me correctly.
91596. Tom Curtis at 20:24 PM on 22 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJRyan @723, actually I did not specify a rate. What I did specify was that, "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.
       Moderator Response: [DB] It has been noted. :)
91597. Paul D at 20:21 PM on 22 March 2011
       Teaching Climate Science
       Bern, your comment about being unable to distinguish between a robo-troll and a real person is amusing :-)
91598. les at 20:21 PM on 22 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       69 Gilles - OK, two proper claims. 1/ wealth is globally well correlated with energy use Correlation - as the old adage goes - is not causation. Never the less, I think - as I said above - that most people (and in this place it's hardly credible what people will nit-pick and snipe at!) would agree that energy is a factor of production. So, correlation isn't the important issue: the question is how significant a factor is it compared with, e.g., education, communications, various technologies, processes etc. etc. (and before you say it, of course these use energy, but then energy production uses most of these). 2/ a minimum amount of FF is necessary to insure cheap and available energy throughout the world I would have agreed that a minimum amount of petrochemical produce have no substitutes in site - but the assertion that there are no substitutes for FF down to some number. I'm not sure from your word - are you saying that 70% of energy must, of necessity, be FF based? Why?
91599. Tom Curtis at 20:18 PM on 22 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel @720:

       "Yes indeed. And so did Gustav Kirchhoff writing in 1862. From that he concluded that the temperature of a body black or or otherwise, is not affected by its emissivity as long as it has no internal heat source (or heat sink) i.e. it is in thermal equilibrium. This is the basis of his argument that emissivity and absorptivity are the same for any given body."

       Kirchoff certainly relied on the fact that when to bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium, altering their emissivity cannot change the temperature of either (for doing so would violate the 2nd law of dynamics). From this he then proved that emissivity = absorptivity at every wavelength for every thing. But the issue of an internal heat source or sink is extraneous to his discussion, and your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as "not having an internal heat source or sink" is false. On the contrary, two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other if an only if, when heat can pass freely between them, neither loses heat nor gains it. As noted in the definition below, when two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they are at the same temperature:

       thermal equilibrium The condition under which two substances in physical contact with each other exchange no heat energy. Two substances in thermal equilibrium are said to be at the same temperature.

       It follows that if they are not at equal temperature, they are not in thermodynamic equilibrium; and if not in thermodynamic equilibrium, Kirchoff's Law does not forbid a change in emissivity resulting in a change of temperature for one or the other. The Earth and the Sun are, of course, not at the same temperature. Therefore the special application of Kirchoff's Law you appeal to does not apply. I am, of course, very happy to concede that were the Earth heated to the same temperature as the Sun, the green house effect would not warm the surface (and likewise if the Sun was cooled to the same temperature as the Earth).

       The meaning of this is clear, the size of the albedo has no affect on the temperature of the Earth, the position of climatologists, that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is lowered by 33K from 288K to 255K has no scientific basis.

       Having rewritten the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium to give yourself the semblance of an argument, you now do the same with the theory you are contesting. Climatologists claim that the equilibrium temperature of the Earth would be approximately 278 degrees K without albedo or greenhouse effects. Because ice and clouds raise the Earth's albedo at wavelengths at which it absorbs light from the sun, but not at wavelengths where it itself radiates, that cools it by about 23 degrees. Because GHG lower the Earth's effective emissivity at wavelengths where it radiates but not at those where it receives light from the sun, that raises the Earth's effective temperature by about 33 degrees.
91600. johnd at 20:11 PM on 22 March 2011
       Preventing Misinformation
       h pierce at 18:38 PM, this paper may be of interest to you. Mechanisms for synoptic variations of atmospheric CO2

Prev  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  Next