Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 Next
Comments 92451 to 92500:
-
Marcus at 21:21 PM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"Then there is windpower, which I guess has no appreciable cost to the environment, although as its efficiency goes up, it cant possibly be any cooler in downwind vicinities." Wow, what a load of pseudo-scientific codswollop! Are you *honestly* trying to tell us that the enormous environmental degradation caused by the mining, washing &, in the case of uranium, enrichment of non-renewable fuels is a better environmental & health option than a wind turbine, hydroelectric dam or solar plant? Or what about the toxic emissions from the average coal power station-things like mercury, cadmium, radon & particulate emissions? We all *know* that all energy generation options have some negative environmental impacts, but there is clearly some energy generation options that have far worse impacts than renewable energy technologies. -
Marcus at 21:14 PM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"Generally speaking, if so called "alternatives" were so attractive, they wouldn't be alternatives" Wow, good to see you hopping on nofreewind's propaganda bandwagon RSVP. Maybe the reason they're "alternatives" is because the extraction & sale of non-renewable fuels (oil, coal & uranium) is still so lucrative to those that lobby our political representatives-especially when tax-payers continue to subsidize the costs of these enterprises. -
jyyh at 20:43 PM on 15 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
sorry my bad, that was the cumulative sum... not some index of the relation max vs. min... that's what may happen if one just glances graphs in a hurry. -
Tom Curtis at 20:36 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 @492-5, "First of all, what is “back-radiation” ? It’s the radiation emitted by the atmosphere which is incident on the earth’s surface. It is also more correctly known as downward longwave radiation – or DLR" There is nothing in that definition that depends on the original source, or penultimate source of the energy in the Downward Longwave Radiation, and with good reason. If you want to use some different concept other than DLR, then find your own term and define it clearly. Don't lazilly misuse an already defined technical term and then accuse people who are using it correctly of doing so incorrectly. Not only is it lazy, it is bound to cause confusion for other when they try to understand you; and yourself when you do the same. The very good reason why back radiation is DLR only is that, when a GHG emits IR radiation, it does not have a phycical state correlating to the penultimate source of the energy it is about to emit. It only has the energy itself. Therefore it can make no difference to the properties of that emitted radiation whether that energy was originally carried into the atmosphere by evaporation, or convetion, or IR radiaton from the ground, of from volcanic emissions, or what ever. Indeed, as most energy transfers in the astmosphere are by collision, it is doubtfull you can say sensibly of any parcel of energy what its penultimate source was. Therefore, energy carried into the atmosphere by evapotranspiration will be radiated to the surface, or to space in the exact ratios as energy carried into the atmosphere by IR radiation, or energy absorbed from SW radiation from the sun. Trying to treat it as a discrete entity after it has been carried into the atmosphere is, scientifically, gobbledy-gook. To finish, Trenberth, Khiel and Fasullo are not obfusticating by indicating some SW radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere. They are describing an indirect emperical result, and one that is more easily determined than, for example the proportion of SW light reflected from clouds, or from the surface. The method is to measure downward SWR at the Top of the Atmosphere, upward SWR at the TOA, and subtract the later from the former. You then measure downward SWR at the surface, and subtract that result from the difference; giving you the amount of SWR absorbed. (Clearly the measurements need to be made at a large number of points and times to determine a global average.) T,K, & F (2009) list a summary of such mesurements on table 2b. It is a telling indictment of your "science" that you cannot use standard definitions correctly, and have to dismiss observational results as "obfustications". -
shoyemore at 19:26 PM on 15 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
#3, owl905, As colleagues of mine often say "the data are what the data are!". At least no one can argue it shows global cooling. A slowdown in the rate of warming in the last decade (at least up to 2008) is certainly arguable, but I think that is "cold comfort" for the global coolists. -
jyyh at 19:21 PM on 15 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Thanks for this analysis, I won't go in to details now but just note that the if the 'lazy S-slope' levels out at 70 that only means the acceleration (or the speed of?, didn't read the article in detail yet...) of warming is at maximum. -
adelady at 18:37 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The moderators, plural, at this site ensure that the contributions from all of us conform to the Comments Policy... This might mean that this comment disappears along with your #495 but that doesn't matter. To comply with the policy, your statements must avoid politics, accusations of dishonesty, against anyone, and your scientific statements have to have some backing or reference to the scientific literature. You've set yourself a difficult task in trying to overturn 150 years of physics and nearly as many years of observations from glaciology, biology and the rest. But if your science is sound, you should be able to point out scientific references that support whatever limited statements you do make about your new theory. There is an agenda. "Stick to the science" best describes it. There are some exceptions but this thread isn't one of them. -
PhysSci at 18:22 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The moderator of this website has an agenda to prevent a free and open discussion on important subjects. He deletes postings that are totally relevant to the subject at hand but do not conform to his ideology or agenda.Moderator Response: Discussion of hockey sticks and the little ice age are not relevant to this thread. You have already been pointed to the appropriate threads for discussion of these topics, feel free to post your comments there.
In addition, your latest comments have been peppered with inflammatory invective. This will not be tolerated. You are a guest on this site, and as such you are expected to abide by this site's comment policy. Please try and behave like a mature adult if you want to be taken seriously. -
RSVP at 18:22 PM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
dana1981 "Most alternative energy sources do not have these external costs." Is nuclear power considered an alternative energy source? Just wondering... and you might want to also clarify if it is considered "renewable". Part two: Hydroelectric, and you might want to add a comment or two about salmon runs and other environmental effects. Then there is windpower, which I guess has no appreciable cost to the environment, although as its efficiency goes up, it cant possibly be any cooler in downwind vicinities. Generally speaking, if so called "alternatives" were so attractive, they wouldnt be alternatives. -
owl905 at 16:32 PM on 15 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Great analysis, but be prepared for the pro-pollution camp to hijack the analysis - and say it "shows" global warming just about coming to a halt. From 1980 to 1998, the jump is almost 60 maximums. Since then ... 11. Take the fitted curve away, and there's a lazy S-slope. What it needs is an energetic gopher to do the decline in minimums and tower chart it, like the US example:- http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/files/2010/01/temps_2med.jpg -
RW1 at 16:07 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
161 W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 = 239 W/m^2 post albedo at the surface. 239 W/m^2 from the Sun + 157 W/m^2 downward emitted from the atmosphere = 396 W/m^2 emitted by the surface. -
RW1 at 15:57 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
If you notice, even Trenberth is showing 169 W/m^2 emitted by the atmosphere and 70 W/m^2 passing through completely unabsorbed (40 W/m^2 through the atmosphere, 30 W/m^2 through the clouds) for 239 W/m^2 leaving. This means that of the 396 W/m^2 emitted by the surface, using Trenberth's numbers at least, 157 W/m^2 of it has to be 'back radiation' from the atmosphere. He's obfuscating this by absorbing some of the post albedo energy by the atmosphere and returning it as 'back radiation' when it's really 'forward radiation' that last originated from the Sun - not the surface. He's then returning the latent heat and thermals as 'back radiation' to come up with at total downward emitted of 333 W/m^2, which he incorrectly designates as being all 'back radiation'. It's a mess. -
RW1 at 15:32 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"Globally averaged incoming SW radiation at the Earth's surface is shown to be 184 w/m^2, of which 23 w/m^2 are relfected back to space. Total backradiation (all sky downward long wave flux) globally averaged is 333 w/m^2. Total upwelling engergy from the Earth's surface, globally averaged is 17 w/m^2 (thermals) plus 80 w/m^2 (evapotranspiration) plus 396 w/m^2 (upwelling long wave radiation), or 493 w/m^2. Downward = SW + LW = 161 + 333 = 494, the difference between them being the net absorbed. So, no contradiction of conservation of energy involved." But latent heat and thermals are kinetic (not radiative) - meaning their energy moved into the atmosphere didn't come from from surface emitted radiation. So even assuming all the latent heat and thermal energy is ultimately returned to the surface as downward emitted radiation (highly unlikely), the net effect is zero relative to surface emitted radiation. It has to be for Conservation of Energy to be met. The bottom line is only about 150 W/m^2 of the surface emitted radiation can be returned as 'back radiation'. By 'back radiation' I specifically mean radiation that last originated from surface emitted (this is a key distinction, especially since all the energy ultimately originated from the Sun). You do know that the surface emitted radiation of about 390 W/m^2 is directly due to its temperature and nothing else, right? -
Tom Curtis at 15:14 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
From Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiel (2009):
Globally averaged incoming SW radiation at the Earth's surface is shown to be 184 w/m^2, of which 23 w/m^2 are relfected back to space. Total backradiation (all sky downward long wave flux) globally averaged is 333 w/m^2. Total upwelling engergy from the Earth's surface, globally averaged is 17 w/m^2 (thermals) plus 80 w/m^2 (evapotranspiration) plus 396 w/m^2 (upwelling long wave radiation), or 493 w/m^2.
Downward = SW + LW = 161 + 333 = 494, the difference between them being the net absorbed. So, no contradiction of conservation of energy involved.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
-
RW1 at 15:05 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci, "RW1, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with comments like the ones you made in 482 to 484" #484 I was guessing. #482 - are you claiming that the post albedo energy of 239 W/m^2 does NOT become about 390 W/m^2 at the surface? Are you claiming that 390/239 is NOT about 1.6? Are you claiming that this does NOT mean that it takes 390 W/m^2 at the surface to allow 239 W/m^2 to leave the planet, offsetting the 239 W/m^2 entering? If yes, please explain why in detail and then we'll discuss via give and take.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please be aware that this is not necessarily the best forum for such give and take. Much of this detail has already been the subject of numerous comments, both on this thread and climate sensitivity threads. -
RW1 at 14:56 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci, "RW1, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with comments like the ones you made in 482 to 484 ... I'm not even going to respond to a such a profound lack of understanding. You are totally excused, if you are not a scientist, but if you are, then you've got a BIG problem with basic physics ..." Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. -
RW1 at 14:55 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci, Sorry, clarification to my own #481, I meant 'back radiation'- meaning the downward emitted that last originated from the surface. -
PhysSci at 14:52 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
General Response to RW1: RW1, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with comments like the ones you made in 482 to 484 ... I'm not even going to respond to a such a profound lack of understanding. You are totally excused, if you are not a scientist, but if you are, then you've got a BIG problem with basic physics ... Thank you for participating and good luck! -
RW1 at 14:50 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci, "Forgive me, but comments like yours make me smile and really wonder what's the level of scientific expertise on this blog?... A global down-welling thermal flux of over 320 W m-2 has been extensively measured and confirmed by both satellite and surface observations for 15 years now! The actual estimates vary between 324 and 348 W m-2. This is now considered a basic information about Earth's radiation budget!!" I'm not referring to the total downward flux, but the downward amount that last originated from the surface emitted. I think you're forgetting that a good amount of incoming solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere/clouds and emitted down toward the surface. Conservation of Energy dictates that the downward emitted amount that last originated from the surface cannot be 300+ W/m^2. If you are claiming this is so, show me the power in = power out calculations that prove it. -
PhysSci at 14:38 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Response to RW1 @ 481: Forgive me, but comments like yours make me smile and really wonder what's the level of scientific expertise on this blog?... A global down-welling thermal flux of over 320 W m-2 has been extensively measured and confirmed by both satellite and surface observations for 15 years now! The actual estimates vary between 324 and 348 W m-2. This is now considered a basic information about Earth's radiation budget!! Here are some references (in chronological order) to help you update your knowledge base on this: Rossow, W. B. and Zhang, Y.C. 1995. Calculation of surface and top of atmosphere radiative fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP data sets, 2, Validation and first results, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 1167–1197. Trenberth, K. E. 1997. Using atmospheric budgets as a constraint on surface fluxes. J. Climate, 10, 2796–2809. Gupta, S. K., Ritchey, N. A., Wilber, A. C., and Whitlock, C. A. 1999. A Climatology of Surface Radiation Budget Derived from Satellite Data, J. Climate, 12, 2691–2710. Pavlakis, K. G., D. Hatzidimitriou, C. Matsoukas, E. Drakakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, and I. Vardavas. 2003. Ten-year global distribution of downwelling longwave radiation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 3:5099-5137. Trenberth, K.E., J.T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl. 2009. Earth’s global energy budget. BAMS, March:311-323 Also, look at the NASA's Surface Radiation Budget (SRB) project page, where you can get global maps of LW and solar fluxes on a monthly basis for 24 years, where you'll clearly see that LW fluxes at the surface exceed incoming SW fluxes by a large margin: http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/las/servlets/dataset?catitem=21 -
Chris Colose at 14:36 PM on 15 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
No one denies that there are many factors which are very difficult to simulate in simple models, and it's far more constructive to discuss these issues and their relevance, rather than just labeling it as an issue. For the snowball problem, inherent uncertainties in estimating parameters for a number of factors are problematic(especially the lapse rate, which is very shallow on the winter hemisphere of a snowball due to the inhibition of convection, which in turn eliminates the prospect of a very strong greenhouse effect, other factors include surface albedo, clouds, and boundary layer dynamics). Different models and the sensitivity to different parameters are discussed in a number of papers on snowball Earth already, as well as Ray P et al's coming review paper. Isolating the impact of paramters on initiation/deglaciation is one purpose of the Snowball model intercomparison project (SNOWMIP). GCM's are also prone to physical uncertainties, though assumptions one needs to make will at least lie closer to the fundamental underlying physics That some of the most powerful computers in the world can get into a snowball however, and rather easily, suggests that no robust barriers to the initiation of such a state exist. -
RW1 at 14:15 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci, "Why do variations in global temperature over the past 27 years correlate much better with observed changes in cloud albedo than with those in GH gases?" My guess is because the temperatures are tied mostly to the available energy in the system (i.e. the amount of post albedo energy from the Sun), rather than GHG concentrations or atmospheric opacity. -
scaddenp at 14:13 PM on 15 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
Okay, I jumped too quick on that one. However, how robust is the development towards snowball. Given increasing albedo, decreasing water vapour, that heat balance is going south for all values of parameterizations that seem reasonable. The interesting question is whether its complete snowball or there is enough tropical heat generating water vapour to be partially ice-free. Ask another, if had snowball, (100% ice cover), no water vapour (and thus no cloud), is there enough heat to create significant water vapour? This is at least an easily scenario to model. If this leads to a melt, then CO2 free atmosphere can be confidently stated as leading to only partial snowball. -
RW1 at 14:10 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci, BTW, I agree that Conservation of Energy is the biggest Achilles heel of the entire CO2/AGW theory but not for the reasons you claim. -
RW1 at 13:59 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci (RE: 459), "As I said in my previous posting, the lower troposphere contains more energy than supplied by the Sun. Where is that energy coming from?" It's coming back from the atmosphere. The rate at which the energy is coming in from the Sun is faster than the rate at which it's able to leave to planet. In essence it takes 1.6 W/m^2 at the surface to allow each 1 W/m^2 to leave the planet, offsetting each 1 W/m^2 entering the system from the Sun. (390 W/m^2 at the surface divided by 239 W/m^2 from the Sun = 1.6). -
RW1 at 13:51 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci (RE: 458), "If the GH effect were due to absorption and re-emission of IR energy by greenhouse gases ultimately traceable to solar input as claimed by the current theory, then how is it possible that the down-welling thermal flux exceeds the total solar input by 44% (343/239 = 1.44)." This is not correct. The downward emitted flux is only about 150 W/m^2. The surface on average emits about 390 W/m^2. About 90 W/m^2 passes through unabsorbed and goes straight out to space. About 300 W/m^2 is absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere, of which half goes up and half goes down (150 W/m^2 up and 150 W/m^2 down). -
TimTheToolMan at 13:37 PM on 15 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
"The gross parameters of energy balance dont depend on any parameterizations" In what sense? Of course they do in any sense we care about unless you're trying to obfuscate by indirectly noting the fact the sun hasn't changed. "Which parameterizations do you think are so critical as to make this impossible?" In general...all of them. Clouds. Precipitation. Any parameters concerning the movement of energy from the equator to the poles. You name it, they'll be significantly wrong on the way to any "end point" and therefore may contain surprises that have considerable impact on that "end point" Your way of thinking assumes snowball earth is inevitable and therefore the path to that point is pretty much irrelevent. At the end of the day, its not a scientific result having used models to determine the earth's climate response to CO2 removal, its just an interesting play with the models given the assumptions upon which they've been built. -
scaddenp at 13:20 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I hope the answer is still YES to my actual question not your rephrasing of it. ie "do you also accept the principle that your claims must account for empirical results? Ie if the textbook interpretation of thermodynamics accounts for observation results and yours do not, then perhaps the textbook is correct and you need to do more reading? " You have untold empirical mountains to climb and excuse my extreme skepticism until that is presented. My money is on you not being able to get published given what you said to date. -
Marcus at 13:19 PM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"Albatross : as a scientist, I cannot support any attitude of contempt of science. My criticisms about climate science are precisely issued when I find that it becomes less scientific - mixing up probabilities and certitudes, underestimating uncertainties, doing undue extrapolation, cherry picking data without a global view of realities, confusing numerical simulations and experimental evidence - all these things aren't for me good science." Well as a scientist myself, Gilles, I've yet to see any evidence that climate scientists have ever been guilty of the things you accuse them of-in spite of numerous attempts by contrarians to impugn their reputation. The Contrarians, by contrast, have a long history of misrepresenting the science to advance their own political agenda. Sorry, Gilles, but your attempts to pass yourself off as neutral on this issue just aren't backed up by your comments to date. -
Bern at 13:07 PM on 15 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Thank you for an interesting article - Figure 2 certainly tells a story! As does Figure 3, actually - while it certainly hasn't been cooling since 1998, the rate of warming has certainly slowed down. In fact, it looks to me like a warming trend that is modulated by other oscillations. What this means is that if it doesn't start to cool shortly (and not many climate scientists are expecting that), we'll probably see the warm phase of that oscillation kick in, and the warming rate will meet or exceed rates during the 80s and 90s. Another couple of decades of that rate of warming will put us well into uncharted territory, w.r.t. global temperatures. It will make it a lot more difficult to deny that global warming is a serious problem, though being a few decades down the track, it will also be considerably more difficult to fix the problem. I'd love to perform a similar analysis done on individual station records around the world, but that would require access to all the data from all the stations, and a lot more time than I can spare! -
adelady at 13:02 PM on 15 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
OK, I've read through this twice now. I don't have the skills, but I would happily supply as much coffee, pizza, scones or biccies as demanded by someone who does while they do a bit more work on this. It looks like a candidate (which could very well not pan out as I naively expect) for one of those barely hidden human fingerprint indicators. The jump in average atmospheric temperature the first half of 20thC is always 'explained' as due to variations in solar and volcanic activity. This looks very much as though someone was lifting the trampoline under the obvious jumping so that, when particular causes for the jumps dissipated, we were left with a new baseline rather than the one we started with. Someone's name might just start with 'C'. Though much of that C would likely have come by way of releases from soil during the extended period of worst farming practices ever known to man rather than from industrial releases. -
PhysSci at 11:48 AM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
adelady @ 477: Sorry for the missing word in that sentence. What I meant was "(Note that IPCC is no longer using the hockey-stick graph)" .. The problem of perception in scientific inquiry is a psychological issue and a topic of another discussion ...Moderator Response: Your change in phrasing doesn't make your claim correct. You have been pointed to the Skeptical Science thread where your claim is rebutted, and where you must post any further comments on that particular topic. -
PhysSci at 11:42 AM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
scaddenp @ 474: The short answer to your question is YES - my new theory fully accounts for known observational results AND is in full compliance with standard thermodynamics theory, which is not the case with the current GH concept as I explained in #458. It also perfectly predicts the observed temperatures on hard-surface planets in the solar system! This is actually one of the main strengths of the new theory ... Ladies & Gents, I will be leaving you now for a while, since I've got work to do and have already stirred enough the pot for couple days ... Keep thinking about this discussion in an open-minded way and wait till my paper is published ... We will continue the discussion then. Good luck to all of you! -
Marcus at 11:37 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Come on Rob, we all know nofreewind is just spreading anti-renewable propaganda. I actually checked his claims about wind farm size, & its just plain wrong. According to specs I've seen, a single turbine has a rated output of 7MW & a capacity factor of 36%-which means a *real* output of about 2.5MW per turbine. This means you'd only need 1,000 turbines to replace a 2500MW nuclear power station. Also, unlike a nuclear power station, the land occupied by those 1,000 turbines can still be used for other purposes-something the anti-renewable crowd usually choose to forget. Also, if the wind-farms were built with storage mechanisms in place (like a Vanadium Redox Battery), you'd practically *double* the capacity factor (close to 70%), which means you'd only 500 turbines to replace his 2500MW nuclear reactor-& without the waste & safety issues. As to current cost of renewable energy & electric vehicles, nofreewind seems to be deliberately ignorant of the fact that *all* new technologies come at a heightened cost, but that cost comes down with increased uptake & economies of scale. He might be surprised to learn that the first commercial coal power stations produced power at a price of around $3/kw-h-in today's money-hardly a bargain price. Also, the very first petrol-powered cars were far from cheap in today's money, & were really only owned by the rich. Of course, nofreewind's comments deliberately ignore the fact that the *lifetime* cost of electric vehicles is significantly less than petrol-powered vehicles, due to lower fuel & maintenance costs. Still, I'm very impressed by how many misrepresentations he manages to squeeze into a single post. -
adelady at 11:35 AM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"(Note that IPCC is longer using the hockey-stick graph)." You may have to add a few pages to your monograph to elaborate on your claims about this aspect of the science. It will be a lot of pages in fact. Lotta hockey sticks here -
PhysSci at 11:22 AM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis @ 471: It appears to me that you are confusing the mechanisms responsibly for a planetary average temperature with those determining with the average temperature distribution across a planet. These two types of mechanisms are very different. Let me explain: The average near-surface temperature on a planet is a linear function of the total internal energy in the lower atmosphere. Therefore, that temperature can only be changed by increasing or decreasing the total internal energy. Winds, thermal inertia, axial rotational speed and other heat-transfer mechanisms on the surface of a planet only serve to redistribute that total energy, but do not change its overall amount. As a result these mechanisms can only affect the degree of uniformity of the equilibrium temperature field, but cannot change the planetary mean temperature. This follows from the law of conservation of energy (First Law of thermodynamics), for any change of average temperature requires a net change in total internal energy. I'm working as fast as I can to complete my manuscript and submit it for publication. But it takes time to explain in a clear yet bullet-proof way the new concept, simply because there has been at least one whole generation of scientists indoctrinated into the wrong paradigm. The situation is analogous to that described in this legend, where American Indians could not see at first Columbus's ships on the horizon, because they had no mental concept of what a sail ship is. It wasn't until the local shaman explained to them the new 'event' in terms they could understand that they were able to see the ships (I think this legend was portrayed in the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know"). In other words, what we believe in and are accustomed to (i.e. our worldview) determines to large extend our ability to see or not certain things. In no way am I implying that I'm the 'shaman' here and everybody else represents the 'unenlightened Indians'! The new concept I'm presenting in the paper is actually quite simple (since it's rooted in physical principles that are 150 years old). BUT it does require a shift in perception in order to fully grasp it. That is in part why it constitutes a new paradigm... :) NO, I'm not planning to submit it to E&E, although this journal has published a number of articles that have brought some important valid points to the climate debate. I can bring up a similar objection with respect to Nature as well, since that journal has published the hockey-stick temperature paper by Michael Mann & Co in 1998, which has been since discredited for its [snipped] statistical analysis both in the peer-reviewed literature and at Congressional hearings (Note that IPCC is longer using the hockey-stick graph).Moderator Response: Your claims about the hockey stick are incorrect. Regarding your claim that the hockey stick has been discredited, see the Argument "Hockey stick is broken." Regarding your claim that the IPCC is no longer using the hockey stick graph, you can see the hockey stick just by looking in the 2007 IPCC report itself! -
Gilles at 11:19 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Albatross : as a scientist, I cannot support any attitude of contempt of science. My criticisms about climate science are precisely issued when I find that it becomes less scientific - mixing up probabilities and certitudes, underestimating uncertainties, doing undue extrapolation, cherry picking data without a global view of realities, confusing numerical simulations and experimental evidence - all these things aren't for me good science. "And Gilles, the world continues to consume about 78 million barrels of oil a day, and CO2 continues to increase at the upper range of the SRES scenarios (surely you do not deny that reality)." maybe, but it doesn't mean anything sensible. SRES scenario have no predictive power, they are not based on known and validated laws, they have no associated probability - it is just some set of possible histories, which may all be quite unlikely. So actually you compare reality with nothing like a model. Most SRES scenarios were already wrong when they were published, because the fuel consumption in the 90's was already greater than their prediction. Now, does the fact that production exceeds NOW a scenario mean that it will ever exceed it? certainly not. Local growth at the beginning of the century doesn't mean anything about the date of the peak production, and the subsequent decrease, nor the integral of FF burnt in the century. So it doesn't mean than the ultimate amount of FF will reach that of most scenarios. " Regarding the myth that we cannot increase CO2 to 560 ppm, you and those making that claim are sadly wrong and out of touch with reality. There are mountains of coal for us to burn through, under BAU we will reach 560 ppm and then some. " actually 560 may be reachable in the far future - I don't think that it will be a catastrophe either. " If you are concerned about declining FFs and the devastation of "industrial civilization", then you should be first in line encouraging the regulation and reduction of GHG emissions, energy conservation and efficiency etc.. Your position here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but I've come to expect contradictory and incoherent reasoning from "skeptics" and contrarians."" where did you see that my position was that we shouldn't encourage the reduction of FF consumption, and better energy conservation and efficiency ? -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:05 AM on 15 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
RickG @ 61... We could all note that the fertile crescent (where agriculture first started) is no longer so fertile. -
scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Actually most of the answers to what you are questioning can be found in IPCC WG1. I wonder if you have read it? -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:27 AM on 15 March 2011It's the sun
TIS... As to me being stuck on the anomaly, well, everyone is stuck on the anomaly because that is how you see the trend. The trend and related mechanisms driving the trend are what it's all about (Alfie). -
scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci - as others are pointing out, there is in fact quite a divergence from how textbooks interpret the laws of thermodynamics. Textbook thermodynamics find GHE in perfect concordance for a start. I will aware you do not believe this, so I ask again, if the textbook interpretation of thermodynamics accounts for observation results and yours do not, then perhaps the textbook is correct and you need to do more reading? Eg. theory has no problem in making quite good estimate of planetary temperature from TSI, albedo - and GHG. Easily within a degree for moon, mars, venus, earth etc. Your theory has to be able to do the same. As to your question above, click on Arguments and look them up. If you dont find the answer satisfying, then comment on the answer in that particular thread. Back your assertions with papers and data. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:24 AM on 15 March 2011It's the sun
TIS... You are still failing to explain how this could possibly explain the warming trend. My next question is, why do you think even Spencer and Christy present their data as anomaly? -
Bibliovermis at 10:23 AM on 15 March 2011It's the sun
TIS, How is an unchanging cycle relevant to the trend? Plants require atmospheric CO2 for production of food, i.e. photosynthesis. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 09:33 AM on 15 March 2011It's the sun
Rob(807) I am not ignoring the trend, I am trying to get to the relevance, but you are still stuck on anomaly. Tom(808), It isn't irrelevant and it has nothing to do with that guy who I have not heard of before, but I will take a look since you linked. Muon(809), Thank you for discussing. If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, how would an identical Earth be different without CO2 in the atmosphere (plants breathe O2 so even plant coverage is identical). The geography of the Earth would force the same type of temperature cycle that the Earth currently experiences. NH winter would cause the Earth average to be colder and the NH summer would cause it to be warmer. The greater effect would be in the winter when there was less water vapor in the atmosphere. So the Earth would be colder by some value. The summer would have a lesser effect because there would be more water vapor that would compensate for the lack of CO2. The Earth would still not behave like a blackbody (i.e. there would still be a GHE) because there would still be convection and latent heat transfer to the atmosphere that would keep the atmosphere warmer than 254K. So the anomaly difference from normal earth would be greater cooling in the winter, but less of a difference in the summers, but still cooler. I am sure we won't agree on the magnitude, but even if the winter difference was 5 °C, then the summer difference would be less than 5 °C. If the summers were 2.5 °C cooler, then on average the Earth would be 3.5-4°C cooler than now. One helping factor would be a cooler Earth would need less energy because it would radiate away less energy. In this case boundaries of response can be established by looked at the seasonal temperature and atmospheric behavior. Would you agree that the summer effect would be lesser than the winter effect? -
dana1981 at 09:09 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
RSVP #140 - by "external costs", Rob is referring to their impacts on the climate (and other impacts on public and environmental health). Most alternative energy sources do not have these external costs. There are no emissions from wind, solar, geothermal, etc. energy production (other than with their construction). -
Tom Curtis at 09:07 AM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
PhysSci @472, I have never been one to trust all seeing oracles, particularly when the will not let us look behind the curtain. As you do not want to discuss your theories here, you have nothing to contribute. Come back when you have satisfied yourself that no-one will accept your theories for publication; and are therefore prepared to actually talk about them. -
muoncounter at 09:04 AM on 15 March 2011It's the sun
TIS: "why the entire hemisphere reacts more strongly than the SH." This is, of course, an entirely different question, one that leads to Arctic amplification. Yes, the geography of the hemispheres produces different thermal responses. One might suspect that it also has something to do with the fact that there is a very large ice cube down there in the basement. I looked again at TOA insolation figures: on an annual basis, the southern hemisphere actually 'receives' ~2% more than the northern. Hardly a significant difference. "over the next three months that will increase to ~16°C while the energy the Earth gets from the sun will decrease" Yes, that's been going on for a very long time. To what point? -
The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
ClimateWatcher - There was a very interesting article in last month's Scientific American, A Shifting Band of Rain. Sorry that this is just the abstract, I haven't found a full free-access copy. The band of tropical rain just north of the equator is shifting further north, now 3°N to 10°N, the furthest in that direction in at least 1200 years. Another 5°N movement is possible by 2100, drying out farmland from Central America to the southwestern US with multi-year droughts. "What basis do you have for believing precipitation zones will change significantly? Then of those significant changes, what evidence do you have of the portion of changes that would be not just adverse, but more adverse than the benefits that such a change would convey?" First - based on observations, and second, how is this beneficial?Moderator Response:[DB] KR, an openly available copy of the Sachs & Myhrvold 2011 study can be found here.
-
RickG at 08:54 AM on 15 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
ClimateWatcher: No, my point is that there's no atrocity from a couple of degrees of warming and in fact humans flourished in such an environment. They might also have flourished in a cooler or warmer still environment, and that's even more to the insignificance of small variations. But our civilization emerged in a warmer environment. It was not danger at all! CW, the world population was a tiny fraction of what it is now and they were hunter-gathers and nomadic then. There are very few places for today's population and agricultural areas to move, especially with rising sea level. -
PhysSci at 08:53 AM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I'd like to make a clarification - I'm intentionally providing the participants in this blog with certain pieces of science facts and observations that are not normally discussed on this website (due to the blocking effect of the current paradigm), so that all of you could start thinking (critically) and evolving your understanding in a new direction. I have solid answers to all questions you have posted so far, but I do not want to discuss the details (reveal 'secrets') until my paper is published, because it does introduce a qualitatively new paradigm, which may cause an 'Aha' moment in many of you ... :-) The GH theory I present in my paper is very coherent and explains climate variations on a wide range of time scales (from decades to billions of years). For example, it readily explains observations that are problematic for the present concept such as the big swings in Earth's climate over the past billion years from 'snowball-earth' events to 'hothouses', and the giant cooling trend experienced by our planet over the past 51 million years. For those of you not familiar with paleo-climate data, the Earth surface was about 16C warmer than today 51 million years ago, and the climate was equable, i.e. with little temperature difference between equator and the poles. Current GCMs have a hell of a time simulating such an equable climate, and my theory explains it why. The global temperature has been sliding down ever since (following an irregular pattern) despite the slight increase of Sun's luminosity over this time period. So, think about the facts I presented to you as well as some other questions such as: - Where is the solid empirical evidence that CO2 has impacted Earth's climate in the past? - Why has the global temperature stopped rising over the past 10 years, and why there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years despite the continuing increase in atmospheric concentrations of 'greenhouse gas'? - Why do global observations show no increase of temperature in the tropics and higher southern latitudes over the past 30 years when greenhouse gases have increased uniformity everywhere? Satellite data show that the Southern hemisphere has not had any statistically significant warming since 1979 meaning that nearly all warming was due to temperature increases in the Northern Hemisphere. In other words, recent global warming attributed to anthropogenic activity is actually not Global. - Why had the Arctic region experienced a significant warming trend over the past 100 years while Antarctica (as a whole) shows no discernible temperature trend, or even a slight cooling in some areas? - Why do variations in global temperature over the past 27 years correlate much better with observed changes in cloud albedo than with those in GH gases? - Why do reconstructed global temperatures for the past 1000 years correlate much better with reconstructed solar magnetic activity than with CO2 concentrations? (In fact, the CO2-temperature correlation over the past 1000 years is almost zero). Wishing peace and mental clarity to all of you!Moderator Response: Everyone who responds to this, please do so either by simply and briefly pointing to the appropriate threads, or by responding on those appropriate threads and posting a comment here, pointing to there. After a short grace period, I'll start deleting off topic comments from here.
- Regarding the empirical evidence that CO2 has affected Earth's climate in the past: There are several relevant Arguments on this site. Just one is "There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature."
- Regarding your claim that the temperature has not risen for the past 10 to 15 years, see "It hasn’t warmed since 1998" and "Global warming stopped in1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????."
Prev 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 Next
