Recent Comments

Prev  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  1844  1845  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  Next

Comments 92251 to 92300:

92251. trunkmonkey at 18:04 PM on 17 March 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       299.PPS. Berner is alledging here that he has some knowledge that there was a lot of silicate (read rhyolitic and granitic)well drained upland rock for the giant Gymnosperms (tree ferns) to sink their roots into 370 Ma. He goes on to alledge that he has somehow tested this in modern soils. Assuming for the moment he is correct, this might explain the decent into a glacial epoch, but not the climb out.
92252. scaddenp at 17:57 PM on 17 March 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       I'm unfamiliar with paper you are trying to cite. Thanks to colleague who are interested in PETM and want to use my hydrocarbon maturation model to examine sedimentary basin feedback, I have suddenly had to come to speed on PETM. The models I was referring to are GCM-type models used in PMIP. See Ch 6 of WG1 for access to the enormous literature on this. I would readily agree that the relative contributions of various carbon sources and sinks are still uncertain. However, the climatic response response is well captured. The main takeaways though are: 1/ carbon-cycle feedbacks in the SHORT term (1000's of years) amplify the effects (positive and negative) of other climate forcings. 2/ The CO2/CH4-feedback in the glacial cycle is from ordinary organic carbon. 3/ The CO2 in the atmosphere today is from fossil fuel sources. 2 and 3 are evidenced from carbon isotope data. Carbon-cycle feedbacks are slow. Most AR4 models ignored them as irrelevant for next 100 years. If this is incorrect, then warming would be worse.
92253. ribwoods at 17:43 PM on 17 March 2011
       Positive feedback means runaway warming
       I think the distinction between gain < 1 (no runaway even though feedback is positive) and gain > 1 should be explicitly stated early in the article. Climatology's use of "positive" (gain could be either > 1 or < 1) in regard to feedback is not the same as electronics's use of "positive feedback" (gain strictly > 1), IIUC. _That_ is why "positive feedback" has such a strong connotation of "runaway" for many newcomers to climate science. I think you need to jump on this early and explicitly in any discussion of "runaway", in order to cut down on misunderstandings. Don't bury the significance of _gain_ halfway down the article at the end of a paragraph ("and call the gain factor g").
92254. Tom Curtis at 17:33 PM on 17 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Gilles @173:

       Let me just observe that I don't know any website maintained by scientists and devoted to criticize the arguments of creationism or astrologists.

       TalkOrigins

       Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology. The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

       The Panda's Thumb

       About “The Panda’s Thumb” is many things… First, it is an example of jury-rigged evolutionary adaptation made famous by the late Stephen Jay Gould in an essay of the same name. Second, it is the legendary virtual bar serving the community of the legendary virtual University of Ediacara somewhere in the Ediacaran hills of southern Australia, growing out of the lore of the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. And now it is a weblog giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of “The Panda’s Thumb”.

       Just two (and two of the best) of many sites where scientists discuss, analyse and otherwise pull to shreds the arguments of creationists, geocentrists and flat earthers such as, for example, Dr Roy Spencer, that rather well known (to us) Intelligent Design Creationist. The ranks of the creationists include a very large number of qualified scientists. So, by the standard you are defending, there is after all a scientific debate about creationism, and evolution; and indeed, even a scientific debate about geocentrism. Alternatively, some scientists allow dogma to rule their minds, and generate pseudoscience in defense of the dogma they cannot let go of. Let me tell you, as a veteran of the creation/evolution debate, AGW deniers show all the intellectual rigour I have come to know and love from creationists. Right down to that old favourite argument of creationsists: X is a scientist; X is a creationist; Therefore There is a scientific debate about creationism.
92255. johnd at 17:00 PM on 17 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       Rob Painting at 15:29 PM, I take it that you have by now digested the two quotes from the study that I drew your attention to. Would you like to confirm that and perhaps comment on how you interpret them, perhaps after you have studied the relevant maps. It would help tremendously if you selected the appropriate maps that are relevant to the points made. The map showing the trial sites is irrelevant to the findings of the study, if you understand the objectives involved for the selection of the trial sites, then you will understand why that is so. Please study the maps I have provided below, then perhaps their relevance will become apparent. Map (a) shows the average growing season temperatures allowing the areas above and below 23°C to be identified, and hence those areas that tend to gain from additional warming and those that tend to decline with warming. Map (d) shows the current maize growing areas as various shades of green according to the % of land utilised for maize. Note the heavily shaded area in the vicinity of Johannesburg and the next most heavily shaded area in southern Nigeria. Map (e), apparently you have overlooked it, as it shows the present growing areas where yields will vary, up and down, shaded according to the degree of variation. You should note the positive or zero shading in relation to the two areas I mentioned. Map (b) with it's prominent shadings of deep red, shadings that are absent from map (e) show that the greatest impact on maize yields will occur where maize is not currently grown, though that hardly needs to be said does it?
92256. dana1981 at 16:58 PM on 17 March 2011
       Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
       Heh thanks Alexandre. It went okay :-)
92257. Gilles at 16:57 PM on 17 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       JMurphy : I am a scientist, so I presume I have some ability to distinguish between a scientific discussion (e.g. discussing reconstruction methods, numerical models, role of spatio-temporal chaos, retroaction loops) and silly arguments. I admit that non-scientists are less able to do that, and must rely more on authority arguments ( = we MUST trust scientists !). Let me just observe that I don't know any website maintained by scientists and devoted to criticize the arguments of creationism or astrologists. They just laugh or try to generally educate people, but there is no DISCUSSION of them - for a simple reason, there is no "scientific" assertion of creationists, as long as i can see. Obviously this site is discussing scientifically arguments. that's enough for me to call it a scientific debate - you're indeed the best proof that the debate does exist.
       Moderator Response: [Muoncounter] You are ill-informed - see the National Center for Science Education, run by scientists specifically for the purpose of criticizing the arguments of creationists in their cloak of intelligent design. They produce an excellent list of discussion points; however existence of such a discussion hardly legitimizes one side of the debate. If you write 2+2=5 and you are corrected, your 'side' of that brief debate is not given status via correction.
92258. WheelsOC at 16:19 PM on 17 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       No, I mean clicking on the Roman numerals in the article itself tries to direct me to a Skeptical Science Forum (with a *thread.php* in the url and everything), that I'm apparently not allowed to access. Also the links pointing towards notes iii and vi are not actually links in the article body. It's the same when I visit the Intermediate Rebuttal version of this post, I'm afraid.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Should be all fixed. HTML anchors were all hosed, corrupting links. Had to rebuild the whole post. The Intermediate Rebuttal I'll have to kick up to John to fix.
92259. adelady at 16:18 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom@612. I'm saving that one. Your physics explanations are always good, but this one has bells, bows, balloons and buzzers. Outstanding.
92260. trunkmonkey at 16:12 PM on 17 March 2011
       Models are unreliable
       299. CO2 Lags PS. Sorry, everything went wanky when I tried to paste the Berner citation. I think it is in Breeker anyway. I wanted to cite a specific example. Berner, in the failed citation, makes the grand arm waving statement " A large Devonian drop in CO2 was brought about primarily by the acceleration of silicate rock weathering by the development of deeply rooteds plants in well drained upland soils."
92261. trunkmonkey at 16:08 PM on 17 March 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Your Honor, I swear I was going to pull this back to temperature precedence, but at your guidance I will move my post script to "models", even though they may be non sequitur there
92262. WheelsOC at 15:48 PM on 17 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       I get so caught up in dealing with climate denier nonsense that it often slips my mind to work in an explanation of ocean acidification, but it's clear that I can't afford to let this issue slip away any longer. Thanks for the straightforward article. Couple of things, though. 1) When I follow the note links, I'm directed to a forum I can't access instead of the footnotes on this page. 2) Someone once got all pedantic and insisted that "ocean acidification" was a misnomer because oceanographers referred specifically to alkalinity, not pH, when talking about acidity of the seas; I remember from college chemistry that the two measures are not interchangeable. I take it that the "alkalinity only" thing is not really a hard-and-fast rule? All the public messages I've seen on CO2 and ocean acidification referred to pH rather than alkalinity.
       Moderator Response: [DB] If you're referring to the last source note, the URL was truncated. Here's the full URL: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/climate_change/climate_change_and_the_great_barrier_reef/what_is_coral_bleaching. I'll look into fixing the original post at top as soon as I can (the linked references in the main body appear to be gremlined).
92263. RW1 at 15:45 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis (RE: 599), "And some of the energy flux carried by convection and evapo/transpiration makes its way to space. Do you deny that?" Let me try to explain this a little better. Yes, some of the kinetic energy flux into the atmosphere from the surface by thermals and latent heat can end up being radiated out to space. However, if this occurs, it also must result in an equal amount of energy less being returned to the surface. If less energy is returned to the surface than the amount of energy that left the surface, the surface will cool. As a result, the cooler surface will radiate an equal amount less than the amount radiated out to space from latent heat and thermals. Thus, the net effect of latent heat and thermals on the radiative budget is zero, as Conservation of Energy dictates, because all the energy leaving at the top of the atmosphere is radiative.
92264. trunkmonkey at 15:45 PM on 17 March 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       299. PS. Sorry, everything went wanky when I tried to paste the Berner citation. I think it is in Breeker anyway. I wanted to cite a specific example. Berner, in the failed citation, makes the grand arm waving statement " A large Devonian drop in CO2 was brought about primarily by the acceleration of silicate rock weathering by the development of deeply rooteds plants in well drained upland soils."
92265. Rob Painting at 15:29 PM on 17 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       John D - The maps provided in the study identify such areas as well as the % of land utilised for growing maize, it's a simple matter to then correlate the two. Still no idea what you're referring to. Here are the trial and weather station sites: And the area currently growing maize. John D - With regards to the matter of tolerance to warming. Warming is a very subjective term, do they mean, plus 5°C, 10°C, 20°C, 30°C ? It appears you haven't even read the study. Please do so, and then maybe some rational discussion can ensue.
92266. trunkmonkey at 15:14 PM on 17 March 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       299. "I believe that the clear signal that temperature lead CO2 in these data is an extremely important clue that is not adequately explained by Milankovitch." And what is the basis of your belief? Certainly not published science. How come models using known physics have little problem with such data? I have read most of the threads on this website and I have not seen many citations. I presume the models you refer to are GEOCARB and GEOCARBSULF (see Berner@"I believe that the clear signal that temperature lead CO2 in these data is an extremely important clue that is not adequately explained by Milankovitch." And what is the basis of your belief? Certainly not published science. How come models using known physics have little problem with such data? I have read most of the threads on this website and I have not seen many citations. I presume the models you refer to are GEOCARB and GEOCARBSULF. A good synopsis can be found at Breeker et al 2010. If I may be permitted to incorporate herein by reference all of his citations, it will save me a lot of trouble. A philosophical question: can a computer model with postulated imputs that successfully match a known phenomenon, but which has never successfully predicted anything, ever be considered to be more than a correlation, or indeed a logic exercise?
       Moderator Response: See the Argument "Models are unreliable." And post further comments about that topic over there, not here, please.
92267. Tom Curtis at 14:49 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Camburn @604: 1) First and most importantly, the action of a force on an object never consumes energy. It only ever changes its form, and its location. This concept is actually very hard to grasp for most people because it is counter intuitive based on our everyday experience. In our everyday experience, a body in motion will come to rest unless an external force acts on it. This is the experience fairly well captured by Aristotle's laws of motion, but it is an illusion based on not taking into account the effects of friction and air resistance. In space (or by careful experiment) we can see that Newton's laws reign supreme, and that: a) A body at rest or in a state of steady motion will remain at rest or in a state of steady motion unless an external force acts on it; b) Force equals mass by acceleration; and c) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if we consider a gas molecule heading towards space. Gravity indeed acts on it, and it decelerates, losing energy in the process. But gravity equally, and oppositely acts on the Earth at the same time, accelerating it so that it has more energy. In fact, it gains exactly as much energy as the molecule loses. If we follow the path of the molecule under gravity, and ignore all the other collisions (which cancel out in effect), eventually the molecule will collide with Earth, resulting in another exchange of energy that cancels out the exchanges that took place under gravity. (To tell this story completely accurately, I would need to include gravitational potential energy, which shows up in General Relativity as very small changes in mass; but this is just a comment on a blog so you'll have to settle with the short and dirty version). Anyway, gravity does play a crucial role in the atmosphere. It is because of gravity that the atmosphere is dense near the surface, and thin away from the surface. A secondary consequence of this is that molecules move rapidly (the gas is warm) near the surface and slowly (the gas is cool) away from it; and it is possible to predict those temperature relationships using Newtons theory of gravity. But it does not result in a loss of energy, because all forces only result in the exchange of energy, never its loss. 2) Heat that is generated by friction is just kinetic the energy of the molecules that make up the substance being warmed as they vibrate in position; or in the case of a gas, move around in their container. But because that heat is just the motion of those small particles, the small particles themselves do not lose energy to friction. 3) The molecules in a gas do need to have significant kinetic energy to stay aloft. That is the energy of motion that they have because of the temperature of the gas. If the gas cools, they slow down, and will eventually not be able to escape the surface (which will mean the gas has condensed as a liquid or solid). However, they have this energy, the do not need to expend energy because any forces just rearrange the energy, not dissipate it. Further, they do not have frictional energy losses. The do lose energy by the radiation of IR gases, which needs to be replaced directly or indirectly from the sun - but for practical purposes they do not lose energy over and above that.
92268. RW1 at 14:02 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis (RE: 599), "RW1 @595, all energy "emitted" from the surface is radiative only because we do not talk about "emitting" convection, or evapo/transpiration." OK, this is the crux. Is 396 W/m^2 radiated from the surface or not? "Not all energy flux from the surface, however, is radiative. In fact, only 80% of it is." Agreed. "And some of the energy flux carried by convection and evapo/transpiration makes its way to space. Do you deny that?" No. As I said, trade offs do occur but an equal and opposite amount less is then returned to the surface. Less energy returned to the surface than what initially left in kinetic form will cool the surface, which reduces the amount of emitted radiation by an equal and opposite amount.
92269. Camburn at 13:54 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Philippe@607: Now you are understanding why I didn't understand. I was trying to explain his reasoning, which I did a poor job at doing. His lectures etc on that still tickle my brain tho. I know there is something there that I didn't understand.
92270. Philippe Chantreau at 13:48 PM on 17 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       andthorne "the ice is growing astronomically at the South Pole and prior to the BP breech it had been growing for two years in the Arctic." This is complete nonsense, as any cursory look at either Cryosphere Today or NSIDC will demonstrate. As for the rest of your post, I'll say in chorus: uh?
92271. Riduna at 13:47 PM on 17 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       Dr Gretchen Hoffman (UCSB) warned of this problem in 2009 when she described pteropods (Thecosomata) as “chips of the sea” because they were so widely consumed by fish on which larger fish preyed and on which, ultimately, a billion humans depended for protein. Alan Marshall’s article is a good reminder of the dangers posed by ocean acidification. Frankly, I am somewhat shocked by acidification expected over the rest of this century (Fig. 1) If it develops, the gloomy prognosis in my article “No Chips, No Fish” (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8934) will indeed be realised with disastrous effects on marine habitat and human diet. That outcome is exacerbated by the fishing industry’s penchant for over-fishing and destroying marine habitat. An example of this is the Newfoundland cod fishery, over fished until 1992 when no cod appeared. Cod did not return. The Canadian government closed the fishery. Nineteen years later, cod have still not returned in quantity, 40,000 jobs have been lost and a valuable food source has been destroyed. The prime threat of ocean acidification is the loss of plankton and other calcifying animals, creating a break in the food chain and loss of habitat, particularly that provided by coral reefs. Some argue that fish-farming can replace the effects of open water species depletion and that there is nothing to worry about. Anyone who has studied the extent of fish farms and the inputs required or their operating cost knows that this is wishful thinking. Clearly, if we do not stop CO2 emissions and overfishing, our days of dining on fish and chips will be numbered and a dish once considered the preserve of the working class because of its affordability will become a rarity enjoyed by the rich. Frankly, the prognosis is not good. scaddenp @ 4 I think what andthorne is referring to is the possibility of methane released by melting clathrates creating anoxic conditions resulting in loss of marine species. My view is that marine species will be long gone before that occurs.
92272. Charlie A at 13:47 PM on 17 March 2011
       Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
       #36 Shoyemore "Figure 2 is the cusum plot, with expected centering and expected symmetry about 0. This is actually what happens 1880 to 1940s, giving rise to the suspicion that what was going on back then was natural variation. " Is the cumsum plot below what you would get for the 1920-1945 period, with 1925 cumsum set to zero? I'm pretty sure it is. What does your analysis tell us about that period? Natural variation or not? I'm trying to understand the basis of your concluding that recent warming is anything other than a continuation of the warming seen in the rest of the instrumental record.
92273. RW1 at 13:42 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis (RE: 597), "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." OK yes, temperature and emissivity, which for all practical purposes is 1 because the surface is a near perfect black body radiator.
92274. RW1 at 13:38 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis (RE: 597), "Saying that 239 w/m^2 becomes 396 w/m^2 is to directly assert the non-conservation of energy." How do you figure? I said the 239 W/m^2 entering the system becomes 396 W/m^2 at the surface. The amount leaving is still 239 W/m^2. Power in = power out = Conservation of Energy.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed unclosed html tag.
92275. johnd at 13:37 PM on 17 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       Rob Painting at 12:20 PM, re "Don't know where you get that idea." Firstly from this comment in the introduction of the paper, "Roughly 65% of present maize-growing areas in Africa would experience yield losses for 1°C of warming under optimal rain-fed management, with 100% of areas harmed by warming under drought conditions." More specifically from this - "For optimal management, at present, maize growing below ~23°C in average growing-season temperature tends to gain from warming, owing to positive effects of GDD8,30, whereas yields of maize grown in areas above this baseline temperature tend to decline with warming." The maps provided in the study identify such areas as well as the % of land utilised for growing maize, it's a simple matter to then correlate the two. With regards to the matter of tolerance to warming. Warming is a very subjective term, do they mean, plus 5°C, 10°C, 20°C, 30°C ? What data is there that identifies the exact degree of warming that it was thought to be able to tolerate, or was it all based on anecdotal stories?
92276. Philippe Chantreau at 13:35 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Sorry Camburn, it still makes no sense. You say "Gravity is a force." Then you say "That energy is absorbed by gravity." So energy is absorbed by a force. Please elaborate on the physical process there, I'm at a loss.
92277. L.J. Ryan at 13:34 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       RickG @ 591 "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." I'm not trying to make this diagram into anything. I question the basis by which the energy is stored in the atmosphere...if not temperature. So I ask again how do you know is there...can it be measured? And by what means is the atmospheric energy stored?
92278. RW1 at 13:31 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis (RE:597), "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)." OK, here is my question then to you: If you agree that the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own, and 78 W/m^2 of the 239 W/m^2 (239 - 161 = 78) entering the system never reaches the surface, then where is the 333 W/m^2 of back radiation coming from if 239 W/m^2 is also leaving the system? 40 + 78 + 121 = 239 W/m^2 leaving. 396 W/m^2 - 239 W/m^2 = 157 W/m^2 emitted down to the surface. 161 + 157 = 318 W/m^2 at the surface (396 W/m^2 required). Also, 157 W/m^2 + 97 W/m^2 = 254 W/m^2 (333 W/m^2 required).
92279. Camburn at 13:18 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom C@602: 1. Conservation of energy. Gravity is a force. Everything in our atmosphere/earth sphere is affected by gravity. It consumes energy. Without it, we would all float etc. Yes, kinetic energy is kinetic energy. But even kinetic is the result of heat and can be converted to heat. Friction is an example. When two molecules, even tho of minisucle weight, collide, energy is not only transferred, it is expended because they do not bond, rather they collide and go a different direction and they will go in a different direction at a slightly slower speed. That energy is absorbed by gravity. Even our atmosphere, while of atomic weights, requires an expenditure of energy to stay aloft. This energy comes from the sun as I know of no other source. A physics prof was trying to get this into my mind in college. Not sure I ever really totally grasped what he was trying to show, but rattling my old cobwebs I am trying to understand it still. It gets back to including all energy in any equation talking about energy. Maybe he was all wet, but the older I get the more I think he understood something quit clearly that I didn't.
92280. scaddenp at 13:02 PM on 17 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       You might like to read Realclimate on methane eg here and and especially here. Climate looks grim but lets understand the real reasons.
92281. scaddenp at 12:58 PM on 17 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       This reads like science fiction. Can you please substantiate: "Carbon dioxide saturate water in our polar area will contribute to global cooling." Huh? "ice is growing astronomically at the South Pole" it is? The reason for overall decline in artic ice than was?? If its methane driven, then why dont we see it? (Noting the fossil methane has no C14 whereas biogenic does). If anything oil/gas production has reduced fossil methane in atmosphere by reduction in natural losses (but of course our burning of fuel massively increases CO2). "methane emmissions which are the main culprit in global warming" They are? Where is your data to support that? (Try IPCC WG1 for actual contributions of each GHG).
92282. Philippe Chantreau at 12:57 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       A loss of energy to gravity???!!??? What in the world is that?
92283. Albatross at 12:51 PM on 17 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       For those who are critiquing the paper without apparently having read it (and it is linked to), the authors outline the rationale for their research: "New approaches are needed to accelerate understanding of climate impacts on crop yields, particularly in tropical regions. Past studies have relied mainly on crop-simulation models or statistical analyses based on reported harvest data, each with considerable uncertainties and limited applicability to tropical systems. However, a wealth of historical crop-trial data exists in the tropics that has been previously untapped for climate research. Using a data set of more than 20,000 historical maize trials in Africa, combined with daily weather data, we show a nonlinear relationship between warming and yields."
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html tag.
92284. andthorne at 12:43 PM on 17 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       Good job. But there is another reason to worry. Carbon dioxide saturate water in our polar area will contribute to global cooling. That is why the ice is growing astronomically at the South Pole and prior to the BP breech it had been growing for two years in the Arctic. The BP methane, in the main, stayed in the northern hemisphere until in reached the Arctic, then it dives and goes to the South Pole and it oxidize along the way ending up at CO 2 It takes 22 degrees F to freeze carbon saturated water and the Souith Pole can get it there. Once frozen it is then 60 times stronger than regular ice. The north pole with the aid of hydrate cold seeps can also. We are between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea. The heat is killing our oceans and speeding up hydrate dissociation, and therefore methane emmissions which are the main culprit in global warming, because they release heat to the water tht used to hold them when they transverse the solid to gaseous state, but my theory is that it is global cooling that will win in the end, unless we can get the oil and gas industry out of our seas, which is needed but is highly unlikely to happe. Yes I agree the planet is dying and doing so very quickly. My theory is it is also shaking apart from hydrate action as well. I have read discussion between hydrate specialist and Japanese scientists discussing hydrates in the trench where the earthquake split the earth open almost five years ago. Andrea Silverthorne
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] For the 2nd time tonight I have to say: Huh?

       I know your words are English but collectively they do not parse.

92285. Tom Curtis at 12:42 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Camburn @598, the atmosphere does not cause the Earth to accelerate in space, so there is no loss of energy to gravity. In fact, the paths of all molecules are accelerated to towards the surface, but because the atmosphere is evenly distributed over the Earth (to a reasonable approximation), the Earth is accelerated in all directions equally by this interaction, and hence not accelerated at all. The energy gained by gravitational acceleration of particles in the atmosphere is returned by elastic collisions at the surface. Further, collisions do not expend heat energy. You are assuming the statistical properties of a group of molecules must also be the properties of individual particles. The energy involved in the collision of particles is the kinetic energy of the particles, plus their individual rotational and vibrational energies. Collisions can result in the redistribution of energy amongst the particles, and the rotational/vibrational states, and can result in the emission of IR radiation. But there is no "heat energy" as a distinct property from the kinetic energy, and rotational/vibrational energy of the particles; and sum of the energies of the particles (including photons) involved is always conserved.
92286. scaddenp at 12:36 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       each time a collission occurs, there is a net loss of energy to gravity What?? gravity gains energy? I dont understand this comment at all.
92287. scaddenp at 12:34 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd 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?
92288. Tom Curtis at 12:33 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd 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?
92289. Camburn at 12:30 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd 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.
92290. Tom Curtis at 12:28 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd 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.)
92291. Camburn at 12:27 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       RW1: Please continue this discussion. You are doing an excellent job.
92292. RW1 at 12:25 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd 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.
92293. Rob Painting at 12:20 PM on 17 March 2011
       Maize 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.
92294. Tom Curtis at 12:07 PM on 17 March 2011
       What 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". :)
92295. logicman at 12:07 PM on 17 March 2011
       One 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/
92296. RW1 at 12:01 PM on 17 March 2011
       2nd 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?
92297. Camburn at 11:47 AM on 17 March 2011
       Maize 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.
92298. Eric (skeptic) at 11:31 AM on 17 March 2011
       Maximum 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
92299. Daniel Bailey at 11:29 AM on 17 March 2011
       One of the best climate change ads I've seen
       Prediction: The "skeptics" will be peeved by this one. So keep 'em comin'! The Yooper
92300. Riduna at 11:16 AM on 17 March 2011
       One of the best climate change ads I've seen
       Not just striking but conceptually brilliant!

Prev  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  1844  1845  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  Next