Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Next
Comments 92201 to 92250:
-
scaddenp at 12:34 PM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
We definitely need that that "GHE violates 1st Law" argeument. So RW1, where is the flaw in equations with SoD's simple model on do-trenberth-and-kiehl-understand-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics? -
Tom Curtis at 12:33 PM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 @595, all energy "emitted" from the surface is radiative only because we do not talk about "emitting" convection, or evapo/transpiration. Not all energy flux from the surface, however, is radiative. In fact, only 80% of it is. And some of the energy flux carried by convection and evapo/transpiration makes its way to space. Do you deny that? -
Camburn at 12:30 PM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1: Please continue this discussion. You are doing an excellent job. One thing to remember in the conservation of energy is that each time a collission occurs, there is a net loss of energy to gravity. This also expends heat energy.Moderator Response: [DB] Huh? Source, please. -
Tom Curtis at 12:28 PM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 @592: Questions 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are all answered "yes". For Question 1 and 5, the answer is "No". 1) The energy absorbed at the surface is the Incoming Solar Radiation absorbed at the Surface (approx 161 w/m^2) plus the Back Radiation absorbed at the surface (approx 333 w/m^2). If you do not include both terms, the result will inevitably show an inequality of energy flows! The energy leaving the surface is the surface radiation plus the convective flux plus the evapo/transpiration flux. Again, if you don't include all three terms, you will inevitably arrive at an inequality. Saying that 239 w/m^2 becomes 396 w/m^2 is to directly assert the non-conservation of energy. Note, your claim that my caclulations do not include the incoming non-reflected solar radiation, the out going longwave radiation, and the surface radiation is simply false. All are included at their appropriate places, as can be easily checked. 5) The surface radiation is a function of temperature and emissivity, which is not 1 at any location, though very close to 1 at most. @594: The incoming and outgoing energies are both radiative. All of the energy comes from the sun, but some of it is shuffled back and forth a bit before it leaves the system. (Total energy from other sources is, I believe, significantly less than 1% of the total, and can be ignored for practical purposes.) -
Camburn at 12:27 PM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1: Please continue this discussion. You are doing an excellent job. -
RW1 at 12:25 PM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE:590), "RW1 @586, until you can identify a physical mechanism whereby CO2 or H2O molecules in the atmosphere can determine the original source of the energy they are emitting, your claim is clearly wrong. Bear in mind that the emitting molecule may not have been the molecule that originally absorbed the energy, but may have gained it after a series of collisional transfers in the atmosphere." I'm not claiming trade offs do not occur between radiative and kinetic energy in the atmosphere - they clearly do, multiple times over I'm sure. The point is the net effect of all the trade offs have to be zero, because all the energy leaving at the top of the atmosphere is radiative and all the energy emitted by the surface is radiative. -
Rob Painting at 12:20 PM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
Albatross - yes, I agree it is a concern. As you say much of Africa is subsistence, but the findings, which basically confirm some earlier research, indicate there are global implications. John D - it seems that the negative response to increased temperatures was not evident or very low in those areas where maize is more commonly grown. Don't know where you get that idea. if maize was previously thought to be tolerant of warming was there any real foundation for such opinion See Albatross' comment @ 16. Maize is a C4 plant and therefore more heat tolerant than it's C3 cousins. There's a large amount of literature on the topic. Agnostic - the study provides some hard data to back up the obvious implications of a warming world, and drought, on crop productivity. IIRC much of Africa will experiencing conditions 1 degree warmer than now in the 2030's. -
Tom Curtis at 12:07 PM on 17 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
BP @70, it turns out I did make an error. Proceeding more accurately, the Modtran model is here. The settings are: CO2 exp 1 - 375 ppm, exp 2 0 ppm CH4 1.7 ppm; Trop Ozone 28 ppb; Strat Ozone Scale 1; Ground Temperatures Offest -0.5 Hold Water Vapour "Pressure"; Water Vapour scale 1; Locality 1976 US standard atmosphere Standard Cirrus Model Sensor altitude 70 km; lookdown Except for locality, offset temperature, cloud type and CO2 concentration, these are the default settings. Ground temperature is 287.7 degrees K. With 375 ppm, the OLR (Iout)is 239.582, a close approximation to the 239.8 w/m^2 black body radiation for a temperature of 255 K. With 0 ppm CO2, the OLR is 262.818 The difference is 23.236 w/m^2. The black body radiation of 262.8 degrees represents an effective temperature of 260.9 degrees K, or a change of 6 degrees over the case with CO2. Clearly you and Lindzen are still underestimating even the no feedback case for the removal of CO2.Moderator Response: [DB] Ok, not "utter". :) -
logicman at 12:07 PM on 17 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
deyanaus: thanks for the links. If you go to Ferdi Rizkiyanto's site and click on the image you get to download a much bigger jpg. The image is clearly marked as copyright of Ferdi Rizkiyanto. However, Ferdi has most generously licenced this image under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported terms. Links: Ferdi Rizkiyanto Portfolio http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ -
RW1 at 12:01 PM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 587), I should also add: Do you agree that all of the 239 W/m^2 entering the system is radiative? Do you agree that because the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own, 239 W/m^2 of the 396 W/m^2 at the surface has to come from from the 239 W/m^2 entering at the top of the atmosphere? -
Camburn at 11:47 AM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
The parimiters of this study do not provide the required details to do a credible analysis. I will leave it at that. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:31 AM on 17 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Shoyemore, thanks for the reply. I think the approach of counting discrete events (ratio of record high over record lows) in a time series is valid, expected values are going to be higher according to your curve and you made a prediction that can be tested. But the way I look at the data prediction is simply that more events is better than fewer for making higher confidence predictions. Let's say there are 20 temperature measurement stations in New England and we count that the number of new monthly record maximums for 2010 is 50 per year and rising according to some fitted curve. Now let's say we just used one station, Boston, and counted 2 new monthly record maxes for 2010. Pick a different station away from the ocean, say Hartford, and there are 3 new monthly record maxes for 2010. Both are similar to the 50 new records for a total of 20 stations, but quite different from each other. The curve might be different for those 2 stations. None of the numbers are invalid, however a better statistical confidence is possible with from the 50 events per year, 20 station data versus 2 or 3 events per year for one station -
Daniel Bailey at 11:29 AM on 17 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Prediction: The "skeptics" will be peeved by this one. So keep 'em comin'! The Yooper -
Riduna at 11:16 AM on 17 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Not just striking but conceptually brilliant! -
Protector at 11:12 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis @ 590: Yes, this is exactly what I meant as you articulated it in the first paragraph of #590. Also, your reply to RW1 is right on! -
Riduna at 11:11 AM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
So, what does this article tell us that we did not already know? To those who are concerned with the broader topic of food security in a warming world with a population expected to exceed 9 billion within 40 years – not much. To those who wonder what impact SLR and salt water flooding of river delta’s and low-lying fertile coastal plains will have on food production – even less. To those worried about the already failing adequacy of freshwater for agriculture in the face of diminishing mountain snow and glaciers – nothing useful. Academic research, publication of papers and debate thereon is undeniably important and is to be encouraged. However sometimes those efforts do seem rather specialised and esoteric in a world facing some very serious, relatively short-term problems, arising from the broader effects of AGW on food production. A dissertation on the effects on maize yield grown where temperature exceeds 30C by 1degree-day is important but does it deal with future real world conditions where average global temperature may rise by 2C by mid-century? -
RW1 at 11:07 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 587), "2) At the Surface: Absorbed Solar Radiation + Absorbed Back Radiation ~= Thermals + Evapo/transpiration + Surface Radiation <=> 161 + (10.6 + 48.8 + 50.1 + 222.6) ~= 17 + 80 + 396 <=> 493.1 ~= 493" There is 239 W/m^2 of post albedo coming in, 239 leaving at the top of the atmosphere, and 396 W/m^2 at the surface. Your energy flow calculations do not adhere to this; thus, Conservation of Energy is not being met. You don't seem to understand this, so I'll break it down into a series of separate questions and we'll go from there: 1. Do you agree that 239 W/m^2 of post albedo enters the system and ultimately becomes 396 W/m^2 at the surface? 2. Do you agree that the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own? 3. Do you agree that 239 W/m^2 is leaving the system at the top of the atmosphere and all of this is radiative? 4. Do you agree that all of the 396 W/m^2 emitted by the surface is radiative? 5. Do you agree that the 396 W/m^2 emitted by the surface is a result of its temperature and nothing else? 6. Do you agree that latent heat and thermals are kinetic energy (non radiative) moved into the atmosphere from the surface? 4. Do you agree that because latent heat and thermals are kinetic, their energy moved into the atmosphere is in addition to or independent of surface emitted radiation? -
RickG at 11:02 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ryan @ 589
Specifically, what is it that you guys don't understand about this diagram? You are trying to make it into something that it is not.
-
Berényi Péter at 10:46 AM on 17 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
OK, 195 K is -78°C. Still, it is much lower than global effective temperature in the 18-22.5 THz range. -
Tom Curtis at 10:40 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Protector @582, I could have stated (3) better, but it should do for current discussion. More accurately, the GHG concentration determines the altitude of the effective radiation. The need to balance incoming solar radiation with outgoing longwave radiation then determines the temperature at that altitude, which then governs the temperature at the surface by means of the lapse rate. DB, thanks, but I do not have entire confidence in myself. I try though. RW1 @586, until you can identify a physical mechanism whereby CO2 or H2O molecules in the atmosphere can determine the original source of the energy they are emitting, your claim is clearly wrong. Bear in mind that the emitting molecule may not have been the molecule that originally absorbed the energy, but may have gained it after a series of collisional transfers in the atmosphere.Moderator Response: Your first paragraph of this comment helped me a lot. -
JMurphy at 10:39 AM on 17 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Gilles, the 'debate' is between Creationism and Evolution, so that should convince you that not everything is settled - as it seems to have done with regard to AGW. Details are unimportant : the debate is all, apparently. As for global warming, please read these threads : The Big Picture Newcomers Start Here They should give you many assertions concerning global warming.Moderator Response: [DB] I appreciate your talents and determination, but hopefully by now you realize what you're dealing with. -
L.J. Ryan at 10:38 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RickG @ 580 "And again, the diagram is about the distribution of energy, not temperature. " Rick in what form can one quantify the "loose" atmospheric energy? As you say, it is not temperature, so how do you know is there...can it be measured? Measured of course, not based on temperature. And by what means is the atmospheric energy stored? -
Berényi Péter at 10:37 AM on 17 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
#69 Tom Curtis at 05:39 AM on 17 March, 2011 The result was to increase OLR by 27 watts Impossible. You did something terribly wrong. The flux emitted by a black body between 18 THz and 22.5 THz (wavenumber 600 cm-1 & 750 cm-1) at 255 K is 39 W/m2. If current abundance of CO2 would decrease it by 27 W/m2, effective temperature of the photospehere in this frequency range would be 195 K (-102°C), which is way below any temperature ever observed in terrestrial atmosphere. -
Protector at 10:35 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 @ 586: I think it was Tom Curtis, who made a comment earlier that it's difficult and probably physically not sound to try separating IR fluxes like that, because we are dealing here with absorption/re-emission NOT reflection of radiation. From what I've read elsewhere, these two processes are physically quite different ... But maybe the other experts would not agree. -
deyanaus at 10:34 AM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
I'm a bit disheartened by the overall quality of comments, but hey just in case anyone is genuinely interested, here is a link to a similar study done recently for wheat in the conditions of NW Turkey. -
Tom Curtis at 10:32 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 @583: 1) At the TOA: Incoming Solar Radiation ~= Outgoing Longwave Radiation + Reflected Solar Radiation <=> 341 ~= (40 + (6.4 + 29.2 + 29.9 + 133.4)) + 102 <=> 341 ~= 340.9 Check! 2) At the Surface: Absorbed Solar Radiation + Absorbed Back Radiation ~= Thermals + Evapo/transpiration + Surface Radiation <=> 161 + (10.6 + 48.8 + 50.1 + 222.6) ~= 17 + 80 + 396 <=> 493.1 ~= 493 Check! 3) For the atmosphere: Solar Absorbed by Atmosphere + Thermals + Evapo/transpiration + (Surface Radiation - Atmospheric Window) ~= Back Radiation + OLR emitted by atmosphere including clouds ~= 78 + 17 + 80 + (396 - 40) = (10.6 + 48.8 + 50.1 + 222.6) + (6.4 + 29.2 + 29.9 + 133.4) <=> 531 ~= 531 Check! All units in w/m^2. Slight errors introduced by rounding, and a slight inequality exists because the Earth is accumulating energy. Other than that, it all adds up if you make sure to use the correct figures. -
deyanaus at 10:26 AM on 17 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
The author is apparently Ferdi Rizkiyanto, an Indonesian (according to this site). His blog is here. -
johnd at 10:20 AM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
Rob Painting at 09:00 AM, whilst I understand the purpose of the trials which is reflected in the majority of trial sites being in areas where maize is less commonly grown, it seems that the negative response to increased temperatures was not evident or very low in those areas where maize is more commonly grown. The two main areas seem to be are the region in the vicinity of Johannesburg and southern Nigeria which interestingly have different average growing temperatures with southern Nigeria at about 25°C being about 5°C higher than the main area near Johannesburg. If the findings of the study were applicable to those areas, then the yields of those crops in southern Nigeria must be only a small % of those around Johannesburg If it is not rational for technology to fix everything, is it rational to expect that maize should like temperatures over 30°C when, whilst it is grown in a wide range of conditions, the area where the greatest % of land is utilised for maize in Africa is in a more temperate zone? Also, if maize was previously thought to be tolerant of warming, was there any real foundation for such opinion, and if so on what was it based? -
adelady at 10:18 AM on 17 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Excellent, John. Some people are really clever. I wish I'd thought of such a simple illustration - how to link heat-> melt-> sea level rise. And have it attractive enough for people to look at it long enough for the image and its message to stick. -
Gilles at 10:18 AM on 17 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
JMurphy : I am not working with analogies. Each issue is to be examined separately. Do you have a precise assertion concerning creationism that you would try to convince me about ? do you have a precise assertion concerning global warming that you would try to convince me about ? I will examine each one seriously and I will tell you what I'm thinking of them. I never said that the existence of a peer-reviewed journal was a proof of veracity - me. "Well, one more try... Gilles, when you say that you are unable to make the determination yourself, but these people say X, that is a style of argument called an appeal to authority, whether you recognise it or not." No it's not, because I not claiming that something is true because somebody said it. I said some issues are open. That's different. " a) That's not true; Jim Hansen has proposed a phased-in carbon tax that would provide the mechanism to wean us off of fossil fuels without causing a crash." May be Hansen is a magician. I suggest him to teach chinese people how to develop without coal. b) "It's irrelevant; it's not really the climate scientists primary responsibility to say how we should reduce FF use. Their primary responsibility is to determine if there is a serious problem, and the consensus is 'yes', there is." I think there is a serious problem with car crashes , which kill a million people a year. It's scientifically proved - actually very easy to prove. Nobody contests it ! no contrarians, no denialist, for sure it's true. So i deduce that we should immediately ban all cars and stop making them. Do you agree ? what does Jim Hansen think of it ?Moderator Response: [DB] This has strayed far enough off-topic. -
RW1 at 10:14 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Protector (RE: 585), "I mean total down-welling long-wave radiation ..." It has to be separated, because what is determining the GHE and surface temperatures is precisely the amount of surface emitted that is coming back from the atmosphere. -
Albatross at 10:11 AM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
Rob @15, It is worrying that a C4 crop (i.e., maize) does not fare well under high temperatures, b/c C4 vegetation has (up until now at least) tended to cope quite well with high temperatures. It also struck me in their Figure 3, that the Sahel region (an important crop producing region) is also expected to suffer yield losses under higher temperatures. Also, AFAIK, maize is also a staple crop in Africa. People also tend to forget that much of the farming in Africa is subsistence-type farming, and thus much more at the whim of heat, drought and flood. As an aside, apparently Canola also does not like temperatures above 30 C. From a paper by Kutcher et al. (2010, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology): "Iterative Chi square analysis and iterative principal components analysis both showed that the beginning of July, which coincides with the early part of the flowering period of the crop in SK [Saskatchewan, Canada], was the critical time in which high temperatures (>30 C) and low precipitation led to yield loss." -
Protector at 10:04 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 @ 584: I mean total down-welling long-wave radiation ... -
RW1 at 09:50 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Protector (RE: 582), "1) Back radiation has a marginal influence on surface temperature due to the effect of convection;" If by 'back radiation' you mean downward emitted radiation that last originated from the surface emitted, then NO. -
RW1 at 09:46 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 559), "the total IR radiation from the atmosphere to space is 199 w/m^2. Of that, 6.4 w/m^2 will have been transported to the atmosphere by thermals, 29.2 would have been absorbed SW radiation, and 29.9 would have been carried into the atmosphere by convection." Let's run these numbers and see if they work: If 40 W/m^2 passes through the atmosphere, that leaves 199 W/m^2 emitted by the atmosphere, yes. 199 W/m^2 - 36.3 W/m^2 (6.4 + 29.9) emitted out to space from thermals and evaporation = 162.7 W/m^2. That leaves an additional 162.7 W/m^2 to be emitted. If you assume 29.2 W/m^2 (37.4%) is emitted directly from the 78 W/m^2 of the energy the atmosphere absorbs from the Sun, that leaves 133.5 W/m^2 that must come from surface emitted IR. It also means 48.8 W/m^2 (out of 78 W/m^2) total is radiated down to the surface. 161 W/m^2 is absorbed directly by the surface. 396 W/m^2 - 133.5 emitted to space = 262.5 W/m^2 emitted down to the surface. 161 W/m^2 + 262.5 W/m^2 + 48.8 W/m^2 + 60.7 W/m^2 = 533 W/m^2 (396 W/m^2 required). These numbers don't work. -
Chris G at 09:37 AM on 17 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Well, one more try... Gilles, when you say that you are unable to make the determination yourself, but these people say X, that is a style of argument called an appeal to authority, whether you recognise it or not. "so why don't you stop using ANY fossil fuel just tomorrow ? " And, that style of argument is called a strawman. No one is claiming that we should cease all fossil fuel use immediately; so, whatever point you are trying to make is moot. "The vast majority of authorities don't have any idea how to stop FF without an immediate economic crash, and nobody even think of that ." a) That's not true; Jim Hansen has proposed a phased-in carbon tax that would provide the mechanism to wean us off of fossil fuels without causing a crash. b) It's irrelevant; it's not really the climate scientists primary responsibility to say how we should reduce FF use. Their primary responsibility is to determine if there is a serious problem, and the consensus is 'yes', there is. Before you start an argument about the consensus, you should come to grips with the idea that the consensus came to exist as a result of the research, not the other way around. I'm neither a scientist, nor a policy maker; so, it isn't my job to answer your last question. It is the job of the policy makers deal with what the scientists are telling them about the nature of the problem, and that is what this group is trying hard not to do. They just want to ignore it. Not find it wrong, just ignore it. -
MattJ at 09:16 AM on 17 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
There is one passage from this long article that I think is particularly valuable, something we can use as our basic message as we focus public attention on this issue. That is: "These and creatures like them are at the base of an ocean food chain, and they are already seriously damaged. If they are lost, it is not just biodiversity we are losing, but our food supply as well." That people will understand, that underlines how important this really is. -
carbonfootnotes at 09:02 AM on 17 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
Great post, overlooked issue. On my way to watch the vid now. Thanks. -
Rob Painting at 09:00 AM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
SNRatioThere are too many parameters which I think are not properly controlled here. Adaptations in genetics, growing techniques etc may to some extent mitigate
The whole purpose of the trials was to identify varieties of maize that were robust i.e.selecting those genes which would better suit the harsh African conditions. Despite this a consistent response was found; maize don't like temperatures over 30°C. I don't think it's rational to expect the "technology fairy" to fix everything. -
Protector at 08:59 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
To ALL: I'd like to get the discussion back to the topic at hand, the Greenhouse Effect, if I may (since this is so fascinating!). I'm curious to know, if there is a broad consensus among this group about 3 aspects of the GH effect discussed above by Tom Curtis, damorbel, and myself. Since these revaluations were a real surprise to my level of understanding, I thought I'd make sure that the other expects support them as well: 1) Back radiation has a marginal influence on surface temperature due to the effect of convection; 2) Temperature lapse rate in the troposphere is controlled by convection through the vertical pressure gradient, and is not affected much by GH gases; 3) GH gases affect surface temperature only indirectly through controlling the temperature of the emission layer (where most IR radiation escapes to space) in the upper troposphere. Are those correct? I appreciate your input!Moderator Response: [DB] Tom Curtis has my complete and utter confidence. -
idunno at 08:50 AM on 17 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
Hi Michael, My understanding of the physics of dissolved gases and frozen chemicals such as methane clathrates at pressure is limited to say the least. I have done the PADI divemaster course, but that doesn't make me any kind of an expert. I do have a gut feeling that the temperature rise is already so great that the sea level rise would have to be in the range of 20 to 30 metres of water for the "clathrate stability zone" in the East Siberian shelf, and other locations, to be truly stable. This should perhaps be a worry to your students, to you and to Dick Cheney. As you are doubtless aware, the floating Arctic sea ice is disappearing. As this goes, the extra heat within the Arctic ocean will increasingly begin to melt the sea bed - which is composed of methane clathrates. Melt one litre of frozen water (aka ice) at surface and you get one litre of liquid water. Melt one litre of frozen water (aka methane clathrate) at the sea bed and you get only 0.8litre of liquid water. You also get 168 litres of methane. For "litre" replace "cubic kilometre" and you're dealing with the right units. If any of your students might be able to persuade me that I shouldn't be scared witless by this, I would really like to hear from them. Methane-lake level rise may precede sea level rise. Additionally, methane in sufficient concentrations is both poisonous and explosive. -
carbonfootnotes at 08:36 AM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
I literally just finished reading Lester R Brown's 'World on the edge' a few hours ago - this problem is a main theme and I recommend you check his book out. Food security is intertwined with so many issues attached from climate change, both its causes and results. -
Albatross at 08:24 AM on 17 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Gilles @167, Nice try, but you seem to have missed my closing statement @162, which read: "Giles, I am not going to continue debating with you, and [thereby] providing you a platform to perpetuate your misinformation." I'm not biting. -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:19 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damorbel, "just the reason why jet transports like to fly in the stratosphere." You should have explored this more before throwing it in the discussion as if it was fact. At mid latitudes, the average height of the troposphere is 17 km, it gets higher toward the equator, lower toward the poles. At our latitudes, transport jets fly mostly between 8 and 13 km (25 to 42000 ft pressure altitude). A number of business jets are designed to handle transonic speeds and can be comfortably flown up to 50000 ft or even higher. However, they are not true stratospheric airplanes. Even commercial transport jets operate on a relatively thin margin of safe airspeed. As air density decreases, an aircraft needs more and more speed to generate lift, edgeing close to the speed of sound. At high altitudes, the difference between stall speed and maximum speed for the aircraft's design (beyond which flight controls may become ineffective) becomes small enough to be a concern. Stratospheric flight requires specific design or the ability to go supersonic. Modern transport jets are not designed to fly in the stratosphere and pilots do not like to go higher than 45000 feet. Not only their safe airspeed range shrinks but the risks from a decompression accident increase dramatically. In a 2 men crew airplane, if one pilot leaves his station, the other must wearing the oxygen mask, and keep it until the other crewmember returns. At 40000 feet, you have about 18 seconds of useful consciousness if you're a healthy adult. There is plenty of smooth air between 15 and 25000 feet, the reason why long range transport jets fly above 30000 is fuel consumption. When there is weather generating turbulence at these kind of altitudes, it is most likely convective in nature and can extend to 55000 ft or more, you can't beat it by climbing. -
JMurphy at 08:19 AM on 17 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Gilles wrote : "...Mcintyre has already made relevant criticisms that have been acknowledged by the community, and published reviewed papers (which is not the case of astrologists for astrophysicists or creationnists, to my knowledge)." It's easy to criticise but quite another thing to be taken seriously, as McIntyre knows. He may well have pointed out some problems with proxy data in MBH98 but, not being in any way an expert in anything to do with Climatology, he has not (indeed, cannot - in the same manner as you mention with regard to astrologists vis a vis astrophysics) been influential. Oddly, though, so-called skeptics seem to hold him in high regard and he has even been called here a "real statistician" - whatever that was meant to prove. If you want to see more 'debate' with regard to Evolution, how about this peer-reviewed journal - admittedly as scientifically trustworthy as Energy & Environment. Now, which hero to the so-called skeptics has published in E&E...? -
Gilles at 07:49 AM on 17 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
" I am judging you on your inability to make a consistent, coherent and fact/science-based argument, and your inability to get your facts straight. " I'm deeply sorry you think so. So may be we could compare our "facts". For instance, let us compare our scenarios. Could you please indicate me , what would be for you * the worst scenario * the "most realistic" scenario * the "best scenario" for the XXIth century, with the following estimates : - CO2 concentration in 2100 - annual CO2 production in 2100 -annual energy consumption in 2100 - annual GDP in 2100 - average temperature increase in 2100 (with respect to preindustrial value) -
RickG at 07:49 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel @ 570 The diagram is not about temperature. Its about incoming solar radiation expressed in W/m^2 and how it is distributed throughout the Earth's climate system, which is the proper unit of measure for that particular type of energy (Incoming Solar Radiation). The 2009 diagram shows slightly different numbers from your example which was published in 1997 because the data has been updated. Why would Ternberth or anyone for that matter want to use 12 year old data when more up to date data is available? And again, the diagram is about the distribution of energy, not temperature. -
Gilles at 07:34 AM on 17 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Chris G "You are using an appeal to authority, and the vast majority of the authorities are against you." I'm sorry, but you're projecting your own attitude on me. I am not appealing any authority. I am not saying these people are always right. I observe that there is a debate, and I can give you many comments even by climate scientists showing that these people have been often right. " The only efficient way to stabilize the CO2 content of the atmosphere is to quit putting more into it. " Well said ! and the only efficient way to avoid car crashes is to stop using cars, too. so why don't you stop using ANY fossil fuel just tomorrow ? " The vast majority of authorities agree that things will get catastrophically bad if BAU continues until we run out of fossil fuels. Like Yul Brynner, at some point, we will quit using fossil fuels. The sooner we do that, the less chance we have of developing a fatal condition. The current bill would delay when we quit." The vast majority of authorities don't have any idea how to stop FF without an immediate economic crash, and nobody even think of that . So please tell me : what is the reasonable minimum amount of FF you would allow per capita, and for how long ? -
Tom Curtis at 07:30 AM on 17 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel @578, you are of course correct about the stratosphere. Further, without the absorption of UV by the dissociation of O2 and O3, there would be no temperature inversion in the stratosphere. However, even without that absorption, radiation rather than convection would dominate energy transfers in the stratosphere as I have described, and for the reasons given. I had considered giving the fuller explanation, but opted for brevity. -
Gilles at 07:26 AM on 17 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
MattJ : I thought that the continuous of fossil fuels had increased our food production by several dozens, but again, we may not live in the same world ....
Prev 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Next
