Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 Next
Comments 92501 to 92550:
-
dana1981 at 04:53 AM on 16 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Rob - they could admit the climate is changing and argue that the change is natural. They'd still be wrong, but at least they wouldn't deny obvious physical reality, and it wouldn't impact their funding from the Koch brothers or Big Oil. -
ahaynes at 04:41 AM on 16 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
I voted. But I have to say, if I were affiliated with GMU I'd be uncomfortable with the reputation the university is developing (link). -
Climate_Protector at 04:23 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Does anyone here agree with PhysSci, or find any credibility in those arguments? -
Climate_Protector at 04:18 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
To Moderator - Yes, I agree with rational discussion, but what's rational about the crappy 'arguments' put forward by ( -Snip- )Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Many commenters put forth crappy arguments, but the majority comply with the Comments Policy. As previously stated, dialogue is encouraged; no attempts to steer the debate or stifle free speech will be made here as long as all parties do it peacefully and respectfully. And yes, one can plainly see which are quality arguments and which are..."less so". -
Climate_Protector at 04:08 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Thanks you! So there is a moderator after all. I totally agree with you.Moderator Response: There are several moderators in addition to our host John Cook. -
Climate_Protector at 04:06 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I've been reading through the postings on this thread, and saw some really nonsensical statements (from a physics point of view) that are backed by no evidence. I think whoever is moderating this blog (if anyone) should be more discriminating and not allow unscientific claims and statements be posted here ...Moderator Response: Thank you for your concern, but being wrong is not a violation of the Comments Policy. The idea is to educate by encouraging rational discussion, not shut down anyone due to a misunderstanding of the science. -
Alexandre at 03:46 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Shoyemore Thanks. For some reason that is not all clear to me, the frog is gone and now I see the graphs. If the problem comes back, I'll resort to John as you suggested. -
Alexandre at 03:42 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Kevin C Yes, maybe some input from professional communicators would help here. From personal experience, no level of communication (basic, advanced, etc) totally rules out dismissive attitutes from people who were already prone to do so. Explaining the basics really helps, but that leaves you with the problem of getting enough of people's attention to do the proper teaching. Providing context (like the recent SkS guide) also helps, even with people that did not learn the basics. I'd also add that getting there first also makes a difference. One thing is trying to teach the basics of atmospheric physics to someone that never thought of it before. Another, much more tricky thing is to try and teach someone that had already "learned" it through denialists. For these, even the concept of temperature itself may have become suspiscious. So maybe the thing to do would just be more of what we have already been doing... -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:42 AM on 16 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Dana... That's because their purse strings are tied to rejecting the science of climate change. -
shoyemore at 03:32 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
I think as scientists we beat ourselves up too much. Science is a fairly clearly defined endeavour, and in the 80s there was a spate of courses in science communications and science journalism that was supposed to explain it to the man in the street. The real dereliction has been in what we can loosely call "the media" where hard-pressed editors gave up on science as a discipline and started reporting it as if it was politics or (in Stephen Schneider's words) a contact sport, not about truth but about winners and losers. Bottom line, it sold better in the "market", but it has been a disaster from teh point of view of rational decision-making and the political process. Eli Rabett had a good post on this. Churnalism -
dana1981 at 03:32 AM on 16 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Back to the subject at hand, Democrats have tried to add a few science-related amendments to the legislation in question. One simply to state that climate change is happening:"Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level."
Every single Republican (31) on the Energy and Commerce Committee voted against these amendments. They won't even acknowledge that the climate is changing. -
shoyemore at 03:22 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
#15 Alexandre, You should not need to get a login for imageshack. That is were the images are stored and they should be displayed here like charts in other blogposts, which I assume you can read. I and other readers seem to see the charts - suggest you e-mail John with your problem. -
Climate_Protector at 03:04 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I happened to be a scientist as well, and claim to understand a thing or two about laws of thermodynamics and planetary energy budgets ... Satellite spectral data overwhelmingly show that earth's atmosphere absorbs strongly in the bands attributed to greenhouse gases ... what can be more proof that the greenhouse effect is real and that heat-absorbing gases are cousing it!! -
danno at 02:59 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
"Maybe 'climatestories.com', collecting the experiences of people who have visited glaciers, had to change their gardening habits, sailed round the pole etc." or maybe call it "anecdotalevidence.com"... your other idea was good though. -
Kevin C at 02:54 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Well, I think that's what I've trying to point to. But it needs input from science communications experts and sociologists, because I'm constantly speaking beyond my expertise! But to turn what I was saying into something more concrete: Firstly SKS is brilliant. It is already in my view the best tool on the web for addressing people who regard themselves as scientific (even if they are contrarian on this one issue). It also provides invaluable resources for those of us who engage with such people. But maybe we need other things to complement it in order to address other groups. These will do some of the things many bloggers are already doing, but in a more systematic and findable way. Maybe 'citizenscience.com', focussing totally on experiments you can do for yourself with hardware or with downloaded data. Maybe 'climatestories.com', collecting the experiences of people who have visited glaciers, had to change their gardening habits, sailed round the pole etc. This is all pipe-dreaming of course. I don't have time to make it happen, and the people here are already doing more than their share. -- One other note: I think people are being thrown by my comment on the invalid methodology of citing papers. I'll try and expand to prevent further confusion. It is invalid methodology to go to the literature and find a paper that says 'antarctic ice grows in this model because of precipitation frechening the surface layer reducing overturning blah blah blah', and therefore assume that is what is happening. The valid methodology would be to search forward and back for citations of that paper, see what other people are saying, see if people are making observations to check the models, see if other hypotheses have been advanced and/or tested. Or, if you are lucky, find a good review by someone who has done all of that for you. On this basis you can then attempt to draw some sort of conclusion on whether the question is settled and how strong the supporting evidence is. That's the methodological problem I'm getting at. If we give the impression that citing a paper is enough, we are implying that every paper is right. That's a huge misrepresentation. That does impact how things are done at SKS. I don't have an answer on that one, sorry! OK, I've derailed this thread for long enough... -
Climate_Protector at 02:54 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Hello, Boy, this is a long thread! Can someone explain me why we are having a discussion about something that has been proved over and over again? - GW is real and it's clear as a daylight that we, humans, are driving it ...Moderator Response: Welcome to Skeptical Science! Please note this site's Comments Policy. Comments should be applicable to the topic at hand, and should refrain from inflammatory or insulting speech. These policies ensure that the science is communicated effectively. -
les at 02:32 AM on 16 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
as the conversation has drifted to Nuclear - probably for some very unfortunate reasons... "alternative" isn't an end in it's self... low environmental impact / MWh is. A quick heads up for a recent an interesting: Real Climate Economics post which includes a broad range of environmental cost comparisons, including CO2 emisions:The same literature review reported estimates of life-cycle emissions from renewable electricity generation ranging from 9 to 41 mT CO2-e per MWh, with wind and hydropower at 9 to10, and photovoltaics at 32. Fossil fuel-burning plants, in contrast, ranged from about 440 mT CO2-e per MWh for natural gas combined cycle turbines, up to 1,050 for some coal plants. Thus nuclear power [66 mT CO2-e per MWh] has much lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels, but higher than leading renewable technologies.
-
dana1981 at 02:22 AM on 16 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
RSVP #145:"Is nuclear power considered an alternative energy source?"
Depends on your definition. In terms of external costs, nuclear power is pretty good, as long as waste and decommissioning costs are taken into account."Generally speaking, if so called "alternatives" were so attractive, they wouldnt be alternatives."
No, that's wrong. They're alternatives because they're relatively new technologies compared to fossil fuels. Alternative just means not traditional. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:20 AM on 16 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Ken @ 17... Funny how you would be more influenced by BP than the larger body of scientific research. Why would one unpublished commenter on a blog influence you more than 10's of thousands of published research papers on a subject? For myself, this site has been a confirmation of what is happening with the climate. This is pretty much the only site that offers up fully cited blog posts on climate science issues. Science is a contact sport regardless of the issue. This is not specific to climate change. In that, it is a natural part of the scientific process to get things right. What is clear to me is that there is a very large body of evidence that all fits together very well. It's fully in agreement with research going back 150 years. And that science is telling us that we are having a dramatic affect on the climate and should be very very concerned about the potential outcome. On the other side I see ideas that come from all corners, that usually don't even agree with each other, and usually don't fit the extended body of research. It rarely offers any mechanisms for what we see happening today, and usually don't explain what we see in the past (specifically Lindzen and Spencer). Skeptical Science does a great job of clearly, and without a shrill tone, presenting this case. Kudos to John for setting that tone and encouraging people to express their views on the issue of climate science in a polite and intelligent manner. -
Alexandre at 02:18 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
OT - Help! How do I get to see images from imageshack? All the graphs on this post appear to me as a frozen frog with the imageshack link. I tried to register there, but it did not work. -
Alexandre at 02:16 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Kevin C, Yes, I understand and have to agree. I have experienced this myself. But the only way to onvercome this (IMO) is to explain the basics to the audience. Then they can see it for themselves (within limits). I'd love to hear alternative suggestions. -
Albatross at 02:11 AM on 16 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Gilles @142, Nice try to reframe the argument, but I can only assume that those practices to which you refer (cherry-picking etc.) are those which have been engaged in by "skeptics" and contrarians, including those who have testified to Congress on behalf of the Republicans. So yes, I hope that you will join us in condemning the misinformation and distortion presented by the likes of Lindzen, Christy, Michaels, Pielke Snr and Monckton (their misinformation has been well documented here at SkS and elsewhere) to the US Congress and people of the USA. And that is before we have dealt with the so-called "post-normal science" crowd, whose scientific misconduct has been well documented and is the subject of at least one investigation. "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." Wow, if you wish to have any credibility, at least try and back up your beliefs with some substance, citations, and science. This kind of vacuous arm waving serves no purpose. And yet you somehow feel free to accuse others of not quantifying the probability?.... How do you reconcile this statement made by you: "Most SRES scenarios were already wrong when they were published, because the fuel consumption in the 90's was already greater than their prediction" With your claim that "560 may be reachable in the far future - I don't think that it will be a catastrophe either." You are contradicting yourself, not to mention arm waving again. No supporting evidence, just opinion and unsubstantiated assertions. That is not convincing and is most certainly not scientific. And with that in mind, I am confident that most people here are likely to care what you may or may not think/believe. "where did you see that my position was that we shouldn't encourage the reduction of FF consumption" Well, it is difficult to keep track of your position on this amongst all the arm waving. OK, so we agree that the EPA should be permitted to regulate GHG emissions which will reduce FF consumption and pollution. -
Kevin C at 02:06 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Alexandre #11: I'm a physical scientist. I agree with you on all of this. We are failing to communicate somewhere along the line. What I've learned from dabbling in sociology and science communication is that you simply can't assume that the man in the street thinks the same way we do. He doesn't. When I point to a paper which contains a reasoned argument from evidence, then the man in the street can't tell the difference from Monkton pointing to a paper and misrepresenting it, or Monkton pointing to a paper by Soon or Lindzen. If he tries to read the papers, he can't understand them. He doesn't know how to pick among experts. The 'balanced reporting' trend in media coverage means he constantly sees expert contradicting one another. So he concludes that expertise is meaningless. So he goes with his feelings. To appeal to a source he can't understand just looks to him like an attempt to pull the wool over his eyes. Do you see the sort of problem I'm getting at? -
Alexandre at 01:55 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Sorry, Kevin C #9 became #7 now. -
Alexandre at 01:54 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Kevin #9 In my untrained opinion, your analysis manages to invert the concepts entirely: - Reference to papers with adequate evidence and mathematical analysis are turned into "argument of authority". I wonder what a reference to texts without such detail would be. - Technical (with maths and physics) and non-technical texts alike are implied to be misleading. Of course, on neither case there was an explanation why the contents of the texts were misleading, just a vague insinuation of its possibility. I often see this kind of analysis from people from a social science background. Some of them try to draw conclusions as if they could bypass the (arid, boring) physical understanding of the phenomenon. If you don't want to be mislead, you just can't. You must either understand what goes on and draw your own conclusions, or trust the judgment of someone else. On this latter case, you'd have to choose if you prefer trusting NOAA, JMA, MetOffice, Max Planck Institute (among many others) on issues related to physics and climate, or you feel safer trusting Monckton, Heartland Institutes and the likes for such things. -
Kevin C at 01:42 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
#8 Actually, that's a very helpful link, which I agree with. There's a couple of important distinctions to be made though. Philosophical postmodernism and sociological postmodernism are two very different animals. (As different from each other as either are from architectural postmodernism). The former is a bizarre ivory tower phenomena with almost no connection to reality, the latter is a shorthand for gradual shifts in the worldview of the man in the street - something concrete and measurable. The criticisms you level are against the former, whereas the use in my post and Mooney's are the latter. Mooney's point about social-postmodernism (maybe we should call it postmodernity) is that it doubts the existance of absolute truth. On this basis he argues that the serious deniers are not postmodern - they think they have the truth. And he is exactly right in that. But they are just one constituency. The man-in-the-street is a different constituency - he hasn't read a load of contrarian papers or blogs. But he may well have an increasing distrust of science, an increasing distrust of claims about truth, and an increasing distrust of the opinions of 'experts' of any kind. All of these are relevant to the problem of science communication. And when dealing with this constituency, a 'journey narrative' is probably going to be rather more effective than other kinds of communication. I think that's all roughly right, although again I reiterate this is not my discipline. -
les at 01:40 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
498 Stamples -The questions that really elementary Physics does not ask, are these: Is it possible to use the additional energy in the gas to restore the weight to its original position? If not, why not?
Surely 'elementary' physics asks and answers that question - although expressed more precisely - with the Carnot Cycle etc. No? -
h pierce at 01:37 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Before you start crunching numbers you should ascertion the field resolution of the weather station therometers. In the earlier records of US weather stations, this is 1 deg F. Since 1979 in Canada, this is 0.5 deg C. Any results you calculate has to be rounded to the nearest whole degree for US data and the nearest half degree for Canadian data. Secondly you must check _all_ data for mistakes. For example, here are the monthly mean temperatures for Feb 1900-1909 for Utah, which I obtained from NOAA's "Climate at a Glance" website: 31.6, 30.4, 33.5, 16.0?, 33.6, 29.9, 33.1, 39.8?, 30.5, 28.8 The 16.0 entry is a mistake and should be 36.0. The 39.8 entry looks too big and probably should be 29.8. Errors, like enemies, accumulate and they come back to kick you in the butt. For the Feb temp data, I found 11 mistakes for the interval 1895 to 2010. Calculation of Weather Noise. I propose the following formula for computing "weather noise": WN = AD - RT where WN = weather noise, AD =classical average deviation from the mean, and RT = resolution of therometer. For the Feb temp data, Tmean = 31 +/- 3 deg F Since AD = 3 and FT = 1, WN = 2 The main drawbacks of the procedure for computing weather noise is that it is site and time dependent. Nevertheless, it is method for obtaining an estimate of natural variability for a locality. I see a lot of climate data where a few tenths of a degree C are deemed significant. This is nonsense. Unless you have at least ca 0.5 deg C change or difference, you are probably looking at noise. BTW: I posted my proposal for computing weather noise at WUWT, RC, Climate etc, SOD, and Brigg's site. And I got _no_ comments. [snipped] What do you guys say about my proposal for computing noise? -
RickG at 01:36 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel: How can anybody learn anything from the supposed heat transfer shown in the diagram in #491? The author who drew this failed to provide any temperature information anywhere. How can he possibly know the energy tranfers (all over the diagram in W/m^2) without indicating the temperatures? Whoever drew this diagram obviously hadn't the slightest knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Who pays money for 'stuff' like this? The diagram was about the flow in energy which is expressed in units of W/m^2. That is: energy (watts) over a specific area (a square meter). Are you suggesting that it should be "degrees" per square meter? It is the appearance of dagrams like this in IPCC reports that makes one instinctively mistrust all of 'global temperature increase' figures produced by the IPCC. Why, because they used the proper of units of measure instead of the ones you suggest which make no sense whatsoever for describing the flow of energy. Also, why are you criticizing the IPCC when the diagram you are talking about is by Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiel (2009)?Moderator Response: [Muoncounter] Damorbel has asked the same question on prior threads. Do not try to rehash the same thing with him or it will never end. -
damorbel at 01:06 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
How can anybody learn anything from the supposed heat transfer shown in the diagram in #491? The author who drew this failed to provide any temperature information anywhere. How can he possibly know the energy tranfers (all over the diagram in W/m^2) without indicating the temperatures? Whoever drew this diagram obviously hadn't the slightest knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Who pays money for 'stuff' like this? It is the appearance of dagrams like this in IPCC reports that makes one instinctively mistrust all of 'global temperature increase' figures produced by the IPCC. -
shoyemore at 00:33 AM on 16 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
#7, Good, thoughtful post but I have to admit that anything tagged "postmodern" makes me feel queasy. Chris Mooney had a good post on this recently. Climate Denial is not Postmodern If fact I doubt if postmodern said anything new or profound about science. But if you want to believe that climate science is a male-dominated power narrative, I can't stop you. For example, how is a paper from a scientist (male or female) with data and equations an " argument from authority"? The fact is that scientists were oblivious to the postmodern "science wars" going on around them. Those wars were debates, fought mainly by philosophers and post-Marxist literary "critical theorists". Scientists kept doing science as practised by Einstein, Feynmann and Darwin ... and I hope that is what they keep doing. -
Tom Curtis at 00:30 AM on 16 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred Staples @499, contrary to your claim in 498, your "proof" of the second law of thermodynamics is nothing but hand waving. It seems plausible, and we believe it to be true; but we do so because we are assuming heat loss to the environment through friction, air resistance and imperfect insulation. Absent those assumptions, ie, in an ideal system, it is not clear that the increased pressure and temperature could not be converted to work and raise the weight to its original position. Your merely asserting this is not the case does not constitute proof, and is, contrary to your claim, hand waving. Having said that, why not simply appeal to the second law of thermodynamics:"When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itself, but not in equilibrium with each other at first, are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, and they exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium. The sum of the entropies of the initial, isolated systems is less than or equal to the entropy of the final exchanging systems. In the process of reaching a new thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy has increased, or at least has not decreased."
-
Ken Lambert at 00:29 AM on 16 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Congratulations John Cook for your selfless devotion to duty in the service of climate change awareness. I must admit that I don't bother to look at the other climate science blogs - pap like RealClimate et al...and the other lesser organs of AGW and anti-AGW propaganda. While in a congratulatory mood - I would highly commend BP (not the oil company) for his startling contributions and insight into the subject of GW - which have most influenced and educated me and posed serious challenges to the orthodoxy of the AGW true believers. -
Kevin C at 23:34 PM on 15 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
This is an interesting diversification in the way we communicate climate science - thanks. I talked about this a bit on another thread, and would love to hear more from people like Mike Hulme who understand the sociology, but here's my initial take. I'm seeing three developing strands of communication: 1. Traditional argument from authority. That's what SKS does normally with references into the literature. Effective for people who have a high regard for (non-climate) science. Arguments from authority become much less effective for post-modern audiences. There is a danger here that we are teaching a wrong methodology: giving people the idea that any argument supported by a citation is right. Then all they have to do is find a counter citation, and they've shown that they are right or at least that the science isn't settled. 2. 'Journey narratives'. Stories of the form 'This is the journey I made and here is what I discovered'. Personalises the material for non-technical audiences. The most powerful form is the conversion narrative: 'I was a denier and then I looked at the data'. The latter is open to abuse of course - false conversion narratives. A lot of TV science documentaries adopt this form. The recent BBC4 'Meet the climate skeptics' about Monkton was a good example - and one in which the conversion narrative was present but didn't convince everyone. 3. 'You can test it for yourself'. This post, and the recent 'quick and dirty instrument temperature record' post are good examples. Personalises the material for technical readers. People are much more likely to believe, and to disseminate things they've found out for themselves. Lots of people will also be convinced by the argument being made in this form without testing for themselves. Monkton abuses this form by telling people they can check for themselves knowing that they will not. 'The Da Vinci Code' owes some of it's awful success to this - telling people they can check it for themselves. That's my half-baked untrained observations. But I still think we could learn a lot by lay-targeted presentations by people who understand the sociology. -
Fred Staples at 23:33 PM on 15 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
To demonstrate the equivalence of work and energy, elementary physics uses the example of a paddle wheel in a gas filled, insulated container, driven by a falling weight. (Page 51 of Schaum’s Themodynamics for Engineers, since this blog likes references) The potential energy of the weight is converted to kinetic energy as the weight falls, and the rotation of the paddle works on the gas content, increasing its temperature. Neglecting frictional losses, the energy content of the gas (its temperature increase) is equal to the potential energy of the weight. The questions that really elementary Physics does not ask, are these: Is it possible to use the additional energy in the gas to restore the weight to its original position? If not, why not? It is not possible because the quality of the energy has changed. It has been dispersed throughout the gas and, unlike the energy of the weight, its possible use is very limited. To recover the energy, even in principle, we would need to treat the gas as a source of energy, and connect it to a sink at a lower temperature. Energy could then be transferred, and some work could be done to raise the weight, but we would have to discharge most of the additional gas energy into the sink, so the weight would not rise very far. If this concept of energy quality is acceptable to advocates of atmospheric back-warming, we can go on to debate that proposition. -
TimTheToolMan at 22:48 PM on 15 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
"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" I find that looking at the limit of an effect is very useful in understanding the direction an effect will ultimately take. Using the entirely reasonable albedo argument, a snowball earth may well be stable. ...if it could be "forced to exist". However, one cant ignore the path to get there and whether its actually reasonable. Changes in cloud cover combined with increased equator-pole oceanic transfer of heat due to a larger heat differential could compensate for any increasing ice based albedo and decreasing cloud cover is quite a reasonable expectation from a cooling, drying atmosphere. So its not an unreasonable expectation that land masses could tend to ice up locally, particularly the larger ones inland and at altitude, but the oceans remain largely liquid and many smaller land masses largely ice free. AFAIK this doesn't contradict the little evidence of snowball earth that exists either but its a quite different result to a solid snowball. -
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?
Prev 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 Next
