Recent Comments

Prev  1845  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  Next

Comments 92601 to 92650:

92601. scaddenp at 07:26 AM on 15 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Just a very general point. Your claims involve a different interpretation of thermodynamics from the theory that has served us so well so far. Since you are sure the textbook is wrong and you are right, 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?
92602. ClimateWatcher at 07:20 AM on 15 March 2011
       The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
       #27

       Firstly, current temperatures have already equaled those of the HCO, AKA the Holocene Altithermal (Hansen, 2011).

       The context was the Mesopotamian era which took place near thirty degrees north. The Holocene optimum was due to orbital variation and we should recall that it was a period of more extreme climate in this regard - the northern hemisphere summers were hotter and longer AND the winters were colder but shorter. Thus the range of extremes was greater and the transition experienced a greater rate of change. Global averages do not reveals this behavior. And of course, the Southern hemisphere experience a nearly opposite cycle. In any event the Mesopotamians certainly experienced a higher than average temperature during their advancement of civilization. There are other factors to note about the reference, though. This is not a peer reviewed publication for one. Further, the temperature series is at odds with both the borehole proxy data ( which was a global land date set): http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf. It is also at odds with the Greenland ice core data:

       Secondly, emissions are trending at the IPCC "High" emissions level.

       Look again - I was pointing out that the temperature trends are all below even the IPCC "Low" scenario. If the emissions are in fact increasing at a greater than modeled rate, , while temperatures are rising at less than the "low" scenario, then this is an indicator of even less forcing, or sensitivity, or both.

       Lastly, it was exactly the climate stability of the HCO that allowed the development of agriculture. Given what we know of the orbital variation, Mesopotamia encountered more sunshine for a longer period from spring through fall, but less sunshine than today during winter. For Mesopotamia, we may then surmise that warmer overall temperatures and longer summers aided agriculture, even though winters were colder and weather more extreme.

       and the ensuing desertification to come as a result

       I know of no basis for the claim of desertification above. Do you have a reference to one? The greatest example of desertification that I know of is the Sahara: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Climate which according to fossil records enjoyed a wet period during the Holocene Climatic Optimum - corresponding with the local wamrth! The cause of the Wet Sahara was likely more due to dynamic factors (shifting of the inter tropical convergence zone northward) rather than being due to thermal conditions, but even so, the desertification took place when hemispheric temperatures fell. I have not seen any compelling model that would indicate desertification. That is as it should be. Precipitation occurs largely where the dynamics of surface convergence can foster lifting, not something in the domain of climate models.

92603. Rob Honeycutt at 07:08 AM on 15 March 2011
       It's the sun
       John (TIS) @ 801... The problem with your analysis here is that what you're saying doesn't allow a mechanism for current warming. Look at the overall temperature trend of the Holocene (even per your Penny ice cap chart). Compare it with the Holocene shown in the Vostok record and the Byrd ice core. All these put together you can see that over the Holocene we are in a slow cooling trend that is orbitally forced (Miller 2010). But we are now seeing nearly all indicators of temperature pointing one direction. Up. The planet is warming. The entire planet. That is clearly not being cause by the difference in land mass between NH and SH. John, the whole reason all the temperature data sets use an anomaly is because you have to look at the overall trend, not the annual signal. The annual signal tells you very little, if anything, about any kind of forcing.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed date. Rob, we've been hearing a lot of conflation by commenters between temperatures and anomalies lately. It's probably time to put together a post on the subject. I can do one later this week unless someone has more time before then.
92604. Rob Honeycutt at 06:57 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       nofreewind @ 137... Regarding your comment about the laws of economics... That depends on how you add up all the economic costs. The laws of economics are, very clearly, not a fixed equation (ask any economist). The whole point to cap & trade or a carbon tax is that there are external costs to burning carbon which are currently not being captured in the overall economic equation. It's the story of "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later... but you're going to have to pay me." Once you build in the external costs of carbon alternative energy generation becomes more cost effective.
92605. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 06:49 AM on 15 March 2011
       It's the sun
       Ok, I am caught up with the discussion. I disagree that this is a sun discussion because my point is the temperature of the Earth changes separate from the energy from the sun for the exact reasons that Tom states in #798. The SH varies less because there is more ocean and less land. The NH drives the global temperature because it has more land. As he also pointed out it is simply inaccurate to apply the insolation of London as a global change in energy. Rob and Muon continue to miss my point (but deride me anyway). My point is that the Earth's geography plays a very important factor in the Earth's temperature. If the Earth's orbit was a perfect circle, but with the same tilt. The Earth as a whole would receive the exact same energy every day of the year. The temperature would vary based on the geography of the land that was receiving the direct and indirect energy. Winters would be colder than they are now and summers would be hotter than they are now. I am baffled at the deriding discussion between Rob and Muon when they are ignoring the point of discussion.
92606. dana1981 at 06:26 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       nofreewind -

       "without politics there is hardly one single person that would...ever worry about global warming"

       That's quite obviously demonstrably false.

       "Can you imagine someone building their own solar farm when the electricity is creates will cost 50 cents per kilowatt hour?"

       That's kind of an irrelevant question, since solar PV costs about half that much. Personally I'm leasing solar panels for my home, and the net cost will be approximately the same as if I bought all my energy from the local utility. So yes, I would do it regardless of politics.

       "Who would ever consider wind"

       All those bleeding heart liberals in Texas, apparently.

       "Same goes for electric cars"

       I guess that's why there's over 50,000 people on the Nissan Leaf waiting list, huh?
92607. nofreewind at 06:07 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       You guys are absolutely right about one thing. This cap n' trade and alternative energy is all about politics. Because without politics there is hardly one single person that would ever consider paying for alternative energy, nor would they ever worry about global warming. Can you imagine someone building their own solar farm when the electricity is creates will cost 50 cents per kilowatt hour? Wind is much cheaper than that, but is only built because politics demand that it will be built. Who would ever consider wind when it takes almost 10,000 turbines to match the output of a 2500 MW nuclear plant or even 4,000 turbines to match a teeny tiny 1GW nat gas plant. And the funny thing is that you have to build the nuclear plant or nat gas anyway. Same goes for electric cars. Even with the Gov't deciding to let out kids worry about paying for about 1/6th of a 42K Volt, there will be very, very takers. The Laws of Physics, which you appear to be so well versed in regarding ACC (we have to switch to AnthroClCh so everything fits, right?), apply to alternative energy too, so do Laws of Economics!
92608. CBDunkerson at 06:00 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       There are wildly varying definitions of the terms 'democracy' and 'republic' in this thread... particularly as they apply to the United States. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have established that the term 'republic' as used in the Constitution is basically synonymous with 'representational democracy'... in that a republic is defined as a system of government in which all citizens are given equal representation (U.S. v Cruikshank 1875) and are allowed to choose their government (In re Duncan 1891). In recent decades it has become popular in some Republican (meaning the political party) groups to argue that the United States was not meant to be a democracy but rather a 'republic' (alternate definition) wherein only an 'enlightened few' ran the country. This WAS the preference of some founders, but was NOT the final result adopted by the nation. Conversely, in some liberal groups it have become popular to argue that the United States is de facto NOT a democracy, but rather an oligarchy wherein elected representatives work on behalf of rich campaign contributors rather than voters. While this has certainly become closer to 'truth' over time, politicians ARE still beholden to large voter blocs as well. The United States is a republic... and a democracy. Just not a very good example of either at the moment.
92609. muoncounter at 05:47 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Albatross, "How a nation who put men on the moon can now choose to adopt such a defeatist attitude is beyond me. republicans may think that the USA is the centre of the universe, it ain't ... they do not live in a bubble." We could do an Apollo program because we were scared of the Soviets ... and because there were moderately intelligent folks in charge at the time ... and we weren't broke. Now we lack all those ingredients, except we should be scared, but the folks in charge are so unintelligent that they think they do live in a bubble. The bad news is that even if we have a 'best and brightest,' they don't go into public service: they go to work for Goldman Sachs.
92610. dhogaza at 05:31 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       "I'd like to thank the mods, Tom Curtis and others for defending our imperfect form of government..." Defending it is one thing, mischaracterizing it as a "democracy" rather than "representative republic" is simply wrong. Note that I do defend it, including the non-democratic Senate - as I pointed out, I come from a state with 1/10th the population of California, and am glad we have the same number of Senators as California does.
92611. Albatross at 05:09 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Dana @131, Thanks-- blush. Sorry!
92612. JMurphy at 05:06 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       RSVP wrote : "The world food supply depends on oil in a huge way, and any reduction in oil is going to affect world hunger, which means lives." I reckon (without any facts or figures at hand, admittedly) that the majority (probably ?) of the world would get their food locally, which would also be produced without much in the way of mechanical help - if only because they would grow it themselves or can't afford to get it from anywhere further than half a day's walk/cycle/horse-ride away. So, I don't think things are as simplistic as you suggest, especially as many people in what is called the 'developed world' are already actually trying to reduce their 'food miles'.
92613. dana1981 at 05:05 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Albatross, Markey is a Democrat.
92614. Albatross at 04:50 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Gilles, Thanks-- I do not care what you political leanings are, there are in fact some very open-minded conservatives such as Markey out there. As I keep trying to emphasize-- my interest lies primarily with the abuse and contempt of science by right-wing ideologues such as the GOP and the Tea Party (and conservatives in Canada too incidentally). It is very telling that so-called "skeptics" are not willing to stand up for science when it is under assault, but as evidenced on this thread put forward any reason under the sun to essentially justify the GOP's desire to cripple the EPA, to go against the scientific guidance it has been presented and to ignore the need to regulate and reduce GHG emissions (not ban or eliminate as some GOP senators claimed (and lied) last week). How a nation who put men on the moon can now choose to adopt such a defeatist attitude is beyond me. republicans may think that the USA is the centre of the universe, it ain't, we all share this planet and they do not live in a bubble. 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). 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. 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.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Indeed. As Romm notes, the MIT study projects "a median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm."

       

92615. Albatross at 04:34 AM on 15 March 2011
       Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
       Angus @101, I have reproduced the RC graphic below for convenience: You claim @101 that: "Your diagram @63 from realclimate appears to be quite impressive; however the temperature data does not look quite so impressive when used in context with AR4." This is patently false, and you should know it. The RealClimate (RC) figure is impressive and does compare the GISTEMP global surface-air temperature anomaly (and those from other centres) with the IPCC mean (and spread) derived using the expected GHG levels for scenario A1B (see here). Now, as readers will see from looking at the aforementioned IPCC figure for scenario A1B, that it is in fact the most aggressive GHG emission scenarios until around circa 2020, after which A1F1 and A2 become the most aggressive scenarios. First, contrary to your claim, the RC validation is made in the context of AR4. Second, RC are using the most aggressive GHG scenario, probably because CO2 levels are tracking at the upper bound of the predicted levels. So RC are using the appropriate scenario from AR4-- at least for now. And third, the observed global temperatures is tracking very close to the IPCC ensemble mean and is thus well within the 95% confidence interval for temperatures predicted for the most aggressive IPCC emissions scenario, A1B. "These studies show that their emissions scenarios diverge at 2000 but more importantly so do actual temperatures. The emissions continue to increase whilst temperatures follow the zero-emissions scenarios." This is also a grossly misleading statement. As is clearly visible form your graphic @101, the predicted rate of warming of global temperatures (based on different scenarios) only really start to diverge from the zero emissions scenario after 2010. Additionally, the RC graph shows that the global temperatures are very closely following the IPCC ensemble mean predicted for the most aggressive GHG emission scenario (A1B)-- there are no signs of divergence as you falsely claim (and besides even if there were, temporary/transient slowdowns and even cooling periods have occurred multiple times in the last 40 years while the long-term trend has been distinctly up). The real test is going to be in the years following 2010, and here I am not talking individual years, but the long-term trend. Your wording is also interesting here, because it suggests that "zero emissions" equates to "no warming", when in fact as the data show and as I keep reminding you, the long-term warming continues; additionally, the no emissions scenario only shows a marked decrease in predicted warming after 2010, with very slow warming continuing out to 2100 (see here). You are seeing what you want to see Angus, not reality, and worse yet, you are distorting (and thereby potentially misleading others) to affirm your belief that there is not a problem.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed comment references.
92616. Gilles at 04:28 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Albatross : I am NOT defending Republicans, I don't care about republicans, and they probably wouldn't share my view on the destiny of industrial civilization. From a political point of view, I am a social-democrat and I think that the market will be unable to find a solution -actually that there isn't any real solution, but that the states should insure the protection of poorest people and a minimum of equity facing the unescapable crisis. Is my political position clearer ?
92617. PhysSci at 04:26 AM on 15 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       muoncounter, I have a question for you - how do you upload a PDF file to this blog?
       Moderator Response: [DB] You can only link to it. Permissible HTML tags can be found here.
92618. Gilles at 04:25 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Rob, I totally agree with your views. I am not an optimist - I am a realist. And because I am a realist, I am an alarmist. I'm just saying that the worse problems won't be the climatic ones, but the energetic ones, that SRES scenarios are unduly optimistic about our capacities to produce so much FF that we could exceed 500 ppm or so, and that advocates of alternative energy are unduly optimistic about our capacities to replace them. Yes of course, I'm an alarmist, probably much worse that all climate alarmists. I am saying that the depletion of fossil fuel is not threatening some poor people along low coastlines - it is threatening the whole industrial civilisation. It will not cost 20% of GDP. It will eventually cost 99 % of GDP- because after the exhaustion of FF , it is unlikely that the Earth support more than 1billion people , and that their standard of living exceeds 1/10 of ours. And yes, I do think it is about to begin - actually I think that the current crisis IS the beginning.
92619. muoncounter at 04:06 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       RSVP #125: "There is nothing sacred about oil," Actually there are petrochemical derivatives in many products. You should say 'There is nothing sacred about oil as a fuel source.' Albatross #126: "I would rather speak to the Republican's contempt for science" Hope you are prepared to give a long speech. This goes to the core beliefs of the hard right turn that swept the US, starting with the '94 Newt 'revolution.' They're tightly organized, have co-opted fear as a motivator and depend on the kind of party loyalty that precludes freedom of thought. Lincoln wouldn't recognize this crowd.
92620. PhysSci at 04:02 AM on 15 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       muoncounter - Note taken! This was only my personal (unscientific) opinion, and I'm far from the thought that I can prove that in the court of law ... :-)
92621. PhysSci at 03:59 AM on 15 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Tom Curtis @ 464: Providing a comprehensive response to your comments/questions would require repeating the content of my paper (which I mentioned above). So, you'll have to wait until it's published. However, I'll point out two things: 1) I never claimed that the GH effect was equalizing the temperatures on a surface of a planet, although this is one of the products of the GH effect. As I explained in my posting #458, the lower troposphere contains much more internal energy than provided by the Sun. Therefore, trying to explain the GH effect with a transformation (recycling) of solar energy (as attempted by the current theory) inevitably clashes with the First Law of thermodynamics. 2) The nature of the GH effect has specifically to do with that extra energy in the lower atmosphere. Now, ponder this for a while: the so-called 'greenhouse' effect is NOT a radiative phenomenon, but a thermodynamic one!
92622. Paul D at 03:50 AM on 15 March 2011
       Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
       I get file not found when I try and listen to it.
92623. Albatross at 03:48 AM on 15 March 2011
       Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
       Angus @103, Actually, your posts on this thread are very typical of those used by "skeptics", and I have directly taken issue with the content of your posts without having to make generalizations. The goal posts shifted because you went from my presentation of the RC graph to your own version of the IPCC graph-- so I was referring to you avoiding specifically discussing the RC graph, which is in fact impressive. I'll deal with how you misrepresented that graph in my follow-up post. You seem to be very fond of Hansen et al. (2006). Rather ironic and odd that you are trying to use/invoke that paper in your argument that there is no reason to apply the breaks, when the following is what the authors conclude in their abstract: "Global surface temperature has increased ~0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes" Also, "Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ~1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ~1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute ‘‘dangerous’’ climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species." Nothing in that paper supports your opinion that there is no reason for concern or your assertion that nature is "applying the brakes" for us, quite the opposite in fact. And one could argue that paper is from 2006, but as I showed above, Hansen et al. (2010) came to the same conclusion regarding the continuation of global warming. So I'm afraid it is you who is missing the point Angus, and I'm confident that observers following this would agree with me on that.
92624. Chris Colose at 03:46 AM on 15 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       Peru, Once again you ask good questions, but neither I (nor the scientific community) has full proof answers to them. It is not unreasonable to suggest that cloud water increases in a warming climate, allowing high clouds to become more optically thick, as well as clouds at all levels to have higher water vapor content. It is possible that both the cloud albedo and cloud greenhouse effect increase substantially, only for the net effect to not change much. As I noted in my last comment though, if you keep the temperature fixed, but reduce the solar radiation (and increase the greenhouse effect), you also reduce precipitation. Precipitation efficiency also matters, and there's some papers showing that this goes up for warm-rain regimes in the tropics, but the mechanisms that control cloud fraction is not well known, nor what it means for the radiative budget. There's also some work showing that biological stress in a warming climate can impact clouds by changing biologically sourced cloud condensation nuclei (e.g., here)
92625. PhysSci at 03:34 AM on 15 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Rob Honeycutt @ 462: I agree that what I'm saying goes against the popular believes, but it is fully supported by the scientific literature... Regarding your Nobel Prize remark, I'm flattered ...:-) I'm writing up my ideas in a comprehensive paper (currently over 70 pages long, single space), which I hope to be published sometime this year. However, I do NOT care about the Nobel Prize! I lost respect for that institution after they awarded IPCC, and especially after giving a Peace Prize to Obama at the time when he was just getting into office while expanding the wars. In my opinion, the Nobel Prize has become as corrupt as many other institutions in our society... What's important here is to promote real knowledge and help the intellectual and spiritual evolution of mankind. Oftentimes, these things are done outside the (corrupt) 'establishment'. So my focus is in that direction, not at the 'carrot on a stick' ... :-)
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please read the Comments Policy, taking note that accusations of corruption, dishonesty, fraud, etc (even parenthetically) are usually deleted.
92626. Albatross at 03:26 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Dana, "Republican politicians are effectively blocking all large-scale climate solutions in the USA." It is worse than that Dana-- because of NAFTA they are essentially blocking reductions of GHG emissions in Canada and Mexico too. Worse yet, if they do not move, the "BASIC" bloc countries - Brazil, South Africa, India and China, won't budge. The USA needs to enter into an agreement with the BASIC bloc. Anyhow, I would rather speak to the Republican's contempt for science. I need to keep reminding myself that the USA put men on the moon...
92627. RSVP at 03:19 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Marcus 112, 114, 115 I actually concur. There is nothing sacred about oil, and if its combustion is messing up the atmosphere, a replacemente needs to be found and quick, but if the replacement isnt par to support the existing output, some group, somewhere is going to suffer. In other words, just because you are able to control global warming doesnt mean you have saved the world from some kind of disaster.
92628. Albatross at 03:19 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       The title of this thread is: "Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics" Can we please try and focus on the fact that most Republicans either think that they know more than science and the scientists, or that they dismiss the science and the science. There are other threads (and sites) dealing with the expected costs of reducing GHGs, targets, pros and cons renewable options et cetera. Gilles, nofreewind, RSVP and other "skeptics" defending the Republicans on this thread: 1) Do you or do you not support the anti-science agenda of the Republicans? 2) Did you even listen to the circus last week and the nonsensical and ideological claims that almost all of the Republican senators were making? The EPA has already addressed the concerns brought forward by the public on this issue. This thread is a perfect example of a few stubborn souls standing in the way of science and progress, and of argumentum ad absurdum by "skeptics". Seems that the "skeptics" have quite a bit in common with the discredited Republican representatives when it comes to science. Go figure.
92629. dana1981 at 03:02 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       nofreewind #117 - I don't know what you're referring to, but no piece of legislation ever proposed would cost $1.9 quadrillion. Please, let's remain grounded in reality here. Rob #122 - good point that those of us who are optimistic that we can make the transition away from fossil fuels without destroying civilization are the ones being labeled "alarmists". Ironic. As a general note, this post is not a "change of direction" for Skeptical Science. A few months back we noted that we would start addressing climate solutions in addition to the fundamental science. We haven't done a whole lot of solutions posts, and the site will remain focused primarily on the science. This is just one of those infrequent solutions posts, as Republican politicians are effectively blocking all large-scale climate solutions in the USA.
92630. Tom Curtis at 02:43 AM on 15 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       PhysSci @458:

       That is why the term 'atmospheric greenhouse effect' is a misnomer, and has been identified as such in the science literature back in the 1970s and 80s. In addition, since IR radiation travels at the speed of light, it can only be trapped by materials of very low emissivity and (respectively) high IR reflectivity such as aluminum, polish silver etc. This fact is well known in the insulation industry and is the basis for the so-called radiant barrier technology pioneered by NASA some 40 years ago.

       IR radiation can also be trapped by a high emissivity substance with low temperature. This follows straightforwardly from the fact that absorption is a function of emissivity and the incident radiation (and hence not of temperature), while emission is a function of emissivity and temperature. To illustrate this point, consider a source of heat and a heat sink in a vacuum. Suppose all waste heat is disposed of through the heat sink. In this instance, we can change the temperature of the heat source by changing the emissivity of the heat sink. If we increase the emissivity, we will cool the heat source; and vice versa. But we can also change the temperature of the heat source by changing the conductivity of the connection between heat source and sink. Increasing conductivity will cool the heat source, while reducing it will heat it - even though there is no change in emissivity. @461:

       " The correct way to calculate the 'black-body' (airless) temperature of Earth (or any planet for that matter) is to first take the 4th root of the radiation absorbed at EVERY point on the surface, and THEN average (integrate) the resulting temperatures across the planet surface. When one does that, one finds that the actual GH effect is 133C. That's right - the presence of an atmosphere raises the average temperature on Earth by 133C, not 33C!"

       It is true that equalizing the temperature ranges on the surface of the planet will increase the global mean temperature, and adding an atmosphere and/or ocean to a planet will tend to equalize temperatures. But this is not the greenhouse effect, and should not be confused with it. Therefore including the impact of this effect as part of the greenhouse effect as you have done is an error. The effect you are relying on here would hold with a nitrogen only atmosphere, while the greenhouse effect would not. I will note that calculating the energy balance of the Earth on a one dimensional model will over estimate the Earth's surface temperature. The fact that the Earth's surface is warmer than this over estimated temperature indicates that there is more, not less to be explained by the actual green house effect. I will further note that GCM and energy balance models are not one dimensional calculations, so the overestimation indicated above is not a feature of climate science per se, but only of some simple models used to illustrate a particular concept in climatology. Finally, I will note that because increasing the greenhouse effect reduces the temperature difference between poles and equator, and between night and day; the effect you mention is an additional positive feedback on the greenhouse effect.
92631. Rob Honeycutt at 02:16 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Gilles... If no industrial country can exist without fossil fuels then we have a much larger problem on our hands. By that thinking there is no way industrial civilization can exist for even 100 more years regardless of climate change. In fact, it's even worse than that. Basically the collapse of industrial civilization has begun already as energy supplies fall behind demand. There are those of us who don't see things that way. There are those who say, "Yes, we have a massive task ahead of us but we must transition to new forms of energy, and we can." Seems like there is a pessimist side and an optimist side. Funny how the optimists are also labeled as the "alarmists."
92632. Fred Staples at 02:13 AM on 15 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       That's fine, moderator (97). I will move to here and, without waving my hands, invoking the second law, or mentioning entropy, I will attempt to demonstrate that energy is characterised by both quantity and quality. In any transaction involving energy transfer, quantity is conserved. Quality is not.
92633. Rob Honeycutt at 02:08 AM on 15 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       PhysSci... I believe your proclamations belong in the "Your Nobel Awaits" category. What you say goes completely against almost all published and accepted literature on the topic. My guess is you know far less about this topic than you claim to know. But I could be wrong. In that case, write up your ideas, publish it, receive the Nobel Prize for overturning a century of basic physics. I'm not joking here. If you're right you quite literally will win the Nobel Prize. What an incredible opportunity! Don't you think? Outside of that, all I see is a case study for D-K.
92634. Gilles at 01:52 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Marcus, I am not pro-ANYTHING. I have no vested interest in anything. I know that all energy sources have drawbacks. Fossil fuels pollute (not only with CO2) and are finite, hydro- and geothermal electricity require specific geographical configurations, wind and solar are intermittent, nuclear produces dangerous wastes and can explode. That's unfortunate, but that's life, you know : nobody's perfect. So I'm JUST looking at reality. When I say that no industrial country can exist without fossil fuels, it's just what I'm observing. Are there industrial countries without nuclear? yes. Without hydroelectricity ? yes. Without windmills, solar panel?yes, yes. Without fossil fuels? no. Even those that are totally deprived of them. That's just facts, man. And even the currently growing economies like China and India, despite they've access to all modern technologies (actually they built almost everything we use for all industrial processes, including alternative energy, don't they ?) can't help increasing their FF consumption. Maybe a "a transition to a fossil fuel free economy is *not* going to occur overnight", but you should first ask why fossil fuel economies are just being settled in countries that had very few before, and that they obviously refuse to curtail their emissions - they just accept to reduce their energy intensity, which is a rather obvious thing to do anyway. I am not defending anything, I'm just looking at facts. Now you can believe very strongly that you could do it differently. I'm just observing that nobody in the world can achieve an industrial society without FF, that's all.
92635. Tom Curtis at 01:25 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       nofreewind @117, the EPA regulations, or the proposed Carbon Tax in Australia do not, and are not intended to solve the problem of global warming. They are designed to be the first step in that solution. Granted that if we do not take the following steps, that first step would have been pointless. But it is no argument against starting a journey that the first step does not get you to the destination; and that is the essence of your argument. If we do take the following steps, however, as many studies have shown, the cost of the entire journey will be less than the cost of the damages if we do not take it. Of course, those studies are seriously flawed. For instance, they typically do not include as costs the likely loss of such important ecosystems as the Amazon Jungle or the Great Barrier Reef. Nor do they include any reduction in growth in GDP due to climate change driven natural disasters. In fact, on every step they tend to radically underestimate the costs of global warming. So, if we step outside of the economists flawed models, the case for substantive action on global warming becomes stronger.
92636. RickG at 01:22 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Just to clarify my previous post at 118, the 3C I'm talking about is from pre industrial CO2 doubling, not that much increase between 2011 and 2100.
92637. Tom Curtis at 01:15 AM on 15 March 2011
       Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
       Having been sceptical of nuclear power since I was old enough to consider the issues, I have recently revised that position because of the threat of global warming. IMO, the threat of global warming is so large, and so imminent that we cannot responsibly take nuclear power of the table. However, my support is not unconditional. As a simple matter of geology, there are regions in the world with heightened radioctivity due to the presence of uranium ore. The presence of those ores may be of concern to particular communities, but is not of itself an environmental issue. Conceivably, the nuclear industry could treat its waste so that: 1) It is no more radioactive on average than uranium ore; 2) It is commercially more expensive to recover the radioactive material from the waste than it is to recover nuclear fuel from the ore; 3) The radioactive waste cannot leach into the water table; and 4) The radioactive waste is stored at a remote location, far from any significant population centers. If it did so, then the nuclear waste would be no more dangerous to future generations than was the original uranium ore from which it came. Meeting these requirements, therefore, removes the primary ethical objection to the use of nuclear fuels. There would remain serious issues relating to nuclear safety and proliferation, but these can be adressed as engineering and administrative/security issues. They are in principle soluble issues, for a sufficient price. That being the case, there is no in principle objection to nuclear power remaining, even as a long term solution to energy needs. It is just necessary to ensure safety standards for supply, transport, pocessing and use of nuclear fuels are sufficiently stringent, and that the disposal of nuclear waste meets the criteria above. That may make nuclear energy too expensive. Well then, tough, for that means it can only be made cheap enough by taking unacceptable risks. But if nuclear power is commercially viable given these criteria, then it should be among the energy solutions for a low carbon future. I do not think the crisis in Japan changes this. It is evident that better engineered reactors are needed in earthquake and tsunami prone regions, which may add to the cost of nuclear power. But that is not an in principle objection.
92638. RickG at 01:15 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       nofreewind @117, Would that not be better than a 3 deg C increase which is the direction we are headed?
92639. nofreewind at 01:04 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       >NoFreeWind, Instead of whining about your perceptions of what modern is, I suggest you just get on with the job and change. Sure let's wreck our civilization to bring down 2100 temperatures by .006 to .0015 degrees, at a cost of 1900 trillion dollars. Then the world will see how smart we are and follow us, that's the theory right. Maybe, if your models are right, we could bring down 2100 temps by .1 if the world world participates. "In rulemaking documents from April 2010, the EPA writes, “Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm [parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 ˚C by 2100.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-s-own-estimates-say-greenhouse-gas-r
92640. Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 15 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       I'd like to thank the mods, Tom Curtis and others for defending our imperfect form of government, and correct a trivial error by dhogaza: there were six Democrats (not five) voting against EPA oversight of GHG (see http://community.adn.com/node/151996) Also AFAIK, the amendment last summer marked the last time that either body of Congress could stop the EPA without the President's signature (they have a 60 day window to do that although there are technicalities involved and Republican may try to stop funding instead). BTW, Markey is a Representative, not a Senator.
92641. JMurphy at 00:21 AM on 15 March 2011
       Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
       Nuclear is definitely not the complete (or even major) answer to non-carbon sources of energy, despite what some have said on here in the past, particularly because of the possible worst-case scenario events - one of which we are witnessing in Japan. Now, the reply to that may be that most countries are not as vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis as Japan, or that this is showing just how tough they are because it may all be contained; but, at the very least, people are now being reminded about the ultimate dangers that lie behind even the safest of nuclear power stations because there is no guarantee that the worst will not happen and, if it does happen, the worst nuclear failure is, I believe, worse than that following the failure of any other type of power station. Nuclear, at most, must only be a temporary stop-gap between carbon-based forms of energy generation and the future reliance on wholly renewable sources.
92642. funglestrumpet at 23:58 PM on 14 March 2011
       UWA Climatecasts now on iTunes
       Tried downloading via My Yahoo and despite it saying via a comment box that they are mp3 files, they are saved as html file type (with an '.htm' suffix).
92643. Daniel Bailey at 23:30 PM on 14 March 2011
       The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
       @ idunno (54) Thanks for the kind words. Points: 1. Agreed. To it I would add the extra warmth flowing through the Bering Strait as well as the thinning of the mixing layer immediately below the Arctic Ocean sea ice. Since most of the ice loss occurs through melting from below, this layer thinning means even warmer water is brought into play nearer the ice - and it is occurring year-round. Once the melt-season cranks up, if we get even a moderate Arctic Dipole, the daily losses will be breathtaking. Thinner ice means even more turbidity & "sloshing" around of the top layers of the Arctic Ocean, with even more thinning of the mixing layer (a temperature anomaly gradient would resemble a quadratic curve if graphed)... 2. Agreed. Logicman's March 2011 Arctic Ice post (update here) contained a strong prediction of an ice-free pole this summer. If not, 2012 will be a lock. I posted on Tamino's blog (Open Mind) last fall that 2011 had but a slim chance of seeing an open-pole, with 2012 being 50/50. I have since revised that opinion in light of the sum of evidence available. The models are simply unable to match what we see visually. Simple extrapolation, as you and others have performed, shows Maslowski to now be on the conservative side. Logicman's September 2011 prediction, for those who missed it: 3. Agreed. But also consider the historical role of Arctic Ocean sea ice: to inhibit surface turbidity & insulate the surface from the warmer waters found below (essentially the ice acts as a 2-way insulator preventing both heat loss to the atmosphere and a warming/cooling of the surface layer). Some models show that a loss of summer ice initiates a phase change, wherein the system then proceeds to a no-ice (year-round) phase in a decadal timescale (essentially the model says the system supports only a fear-round ice OR a no-ice solution as having long-term stability). 4. Agreement, completely. I would add that a warming Arctic Ocean with no summer ice to retard mixing will then warm even more, increasing the forcing applied to the clathrate layers, causing even more melting than now currently being observed by Shahkova in the East Siberian Sea Shelf area. Clathrate destabilization has already been observed in other areas as well, even down to several hundred meters depths. Not being an expert I can't speak to atmospheric anoxia, but any sizable clathrate melting would likely raise the spectre for local-to-regional scale oceanic anoxic events, resulting in outbreaks of red tide in areas that have never seen them. Please do not "pipe down". Clathrate melting is perhaps the biggest under-researched and under-reported danger to our climate there is. I would encourage anyone to read as much as is available on the subject. One recent paper, summarized here, provides evidence for the "clathrate gun" hypothesis. An open copy is available here. The only other advice I would offer is on the "presentation" of what you say (in regards to the atmospheric anoxia), not the message itself. Some may find you a bit alarmist & dismiss you out of hand (indeed, some consider me to be alarmist already). In sales, it is not the steak that sells, but the "sizzle" of the steak. Best, The Yooper
92644. Marcus at 23:07 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Oh, & just to alleviate your confusion, I do believe that coal is a completely useless & obsolete resource-but again it doesn't hurt to have some in reserve just in case we need it. All the same, it is already possible to generate base-load & Peak-load power *without* needing to resort to coal or nuclear power. That still doesn't mean that I'm advocating an overnight switch from coal to renewable energy. As I said previously, in spite of your frequent straw-man arguments, even the anti-fossil fuel people here on this site recognize that a transition to a fossil fuel free economy is *not* going to occur overnight-but that doesn't mean we can't *start* that transition right now. People like you, however, would have us hold off any action until *after* the horse has bolted.
92645. Marcus at 23:04 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Yeah right Gilles, you've always sounded beyond convincing of anything outside of your narrow, pro-fossil fuel opinions (which reads as "Fossil Fuels GOOD. Renewable Energy BAD"-sound familiar?) There are still clearly things-like agriculture & plastics-for which suitable replacements for oil either do not yet exist, or do not exist in sufficient quantity to replace oil altogether, though in time even for these uses oil will become completely obsolete. Even then, its always good to have these resources in reserve, just in case we need it for some kind of emergency. Contrary to your straw-man arguments, I've never argued for the overnight abolition of the use of oil-or any other fossil fuel-but a transition away from a fossil fuel free economy over a space of several decades. Of course, if we keep *wasting* the oil on pointless things-like sitting around in peak hour traffic, each burning around 2L-3L/100km of petrol, then its not even going to last that long. Yet people like you & RSVP seem to think we should just keep using it recklessly until we're forced into a rapid transition by the complete depletion of the resource, a scenario which will almost certainly result in the wars, poverty & famine which you & RSVP keep telling us you want to avoid.
92646. idunno at 22:33 PM on 14 March 2011
       The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
       Hi The Yooper, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable for this to be even in the "possibility zone", and I'm not too sure that it really needs another 20 years to move it into the "probability zone". To recap my (limited and non-expert) understanding of the situation to date: 1. Global warming has been occurring at an increased rate in the Arctic region. Over the last decade the greatest SST anomaly in the world occurs in the extreme North of the Atlantic ocean. Gulf Stream water entering the Artic through the Fram Strait is now warmer than at any time in the last 2000 years. 2. Maslowski posited in 2006 that the imbalance in the heat budget of the Arctic would lead to a seasonally ice free Arctic by 2016 +/-3 years. This now looks IMO conservative. 3. While the surface ice remains, it cools the seawater, just as ice in a glass of 7up would cool your drink. When the ice melts, it will warm and "go flat" much quicker. 4. Under natural forcings the climate has only previously warmed much more slowly. Due to the extreme rapidity of AGW, sea level has hardly begun to rise yet. This means that we are well outside the range of any natural threat to the clathrate stability layer. (Under conditions of gradual change, the change in water temperature would be compensated by a rise in sea level, which would force dissolved methane back into solution due to increased pressure.) I realise I am banging on about this a lot, but I do think it is being overlooked. Trying a Google news search for "arctic sea ice", I get about 3,000 hits; if I try "arctic methane", I get 46 hits... For me, this is now the elephant in the room. Sea level rise of (worst case scenario) 10 metres by 2100 means loads of people have to move house. Methane-induced atmospheric anoxia at any time before then means that they won't be moving very fast... The effects of a very small release of methane causing oceanic anoxia in the Gulf of Mexico last year were well reported. The methane in the Arctic is not at sufficient depth to be absorbed by the seawater. It will vent into the atmosphere. The hazard will not be oceanic anoxia, but atmospheric anoxia. I wrestled with my own conscience before posting anything on this subject anywhere. I don't want to scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre. But I do think I can smell smoke, and it currently seems to me that I would be more irresponsible NOT to mention this. As I have now clearly brought it to your attention, and from all I have read, you are clearly much more informed than I, I might now make some effort to pipe down. If you want to point out any ways in which my position is entirely erroneous, I would actually welcome this, as I'm sure would anyone else reading this... Otherwise, love your work. Keep it up!
92647. Gilles at 22:30 PM on 14 March 2011
       A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
       so, dana, you seem to be among the few guys in the world who know what a relaxation timescale really is ? then please can you explain me : how much is the climate relaxation timescale ? and how would you predict the evolution of the warming rate with a linearly increasing forcing (which is approximately the case since 1970 ) ? I prefer ask you before saying anything stupid....
92648. michael sweet at 22:15 PM on 14 March 2011
       Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
       Will nuclear power have to be re-evaluated in light of the Japan crisis? It is too bad. I have always claimed to be agnostic about nuclear power, but if one leg of CO2 free energy is lost it will be harder to solve the problem.
92649. Gilles at 22:09 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Marcus, help, I'm lost. You just convinced me that oil and other fossil fuels weren't necessary after all, and now you're saying that it is of primordial importance to spare them as much as possible? Why spare a useless, unnecessary resource ?
92650. Marcus at 21:51 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       So RSVP, what do you think is going to happen to food supply when the oil actually runs out for good-as its expected to do sometime this century? The reality is that this is *exactly* the reason we need to start using *less* oil in areas where we don't need to use it (you know, like burning 20% of our petrol just to stand still in long queues of traffic?) We should be saving *every* drop of oil for those areas where there is still no suitable replacement, whilst simultaneously looking for ways to replace oil in those areas too. Unfortunately your mates (& you, judging from your prior arguments) seem to think we should continue wasting oil doing things in the most inefficient way possible and/or by using oil where genuine alternatives exist. For example, why does the US need to use so much oil to heat homes, when methane from a landfill or sewerage treatment would do just as well? Why drive one person to a car, in the height of peak hour, when you should be able to catch a bus or-better yet-work from home using our information superhighway? Indeed, why do so many people still insist on driving gas-guzzlers when they can get around in an electric vehicle for less than a quarter of the running costs of a diesel or petrol powered vehicle? Or is your famine argument just another straw-man argument designed to defend the all-powerful oil industry's profits?

Prev  1845  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  Next