Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 Next
Comments 92801 to 92850:
-
Albatross at 04:50 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
Albatross at 04:34 AM on 15 March 2011Climate 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. -
Gilles at 04:28 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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 ? -
PhysSci at 04:26 AM on 15 March 20112nd 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. -
Gilles at 04:25 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
muoncounter at 04:06 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
PhysSci at 04:02 AM on 15 March 20112nd 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 ... :-) -
PhysSci at 03:59 AM on 15 March 20112nd 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! -
Paul D at 03:50 AM on 15 March 2011Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
I get file not found when I try and listen to it. -
Albatross at 03:48 AM on 15 March 2011Climate 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. -
Chris Colose at 03:46 AM on 15 March 2011What 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) -
PhysSci at 03:34 AM on 15 March 20112nd 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. -
Albatross at 03:26 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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... -
RSVP at 03:19 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
Albatross at 03:19 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
dana1981 at 03:02 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
Tom Curtis at 02:43 AM on 15 March 20112nd 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:16 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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." -
Fred Staples at 02:13 AM on 15 March 20112nd 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:08 AM on 15 March 20112nd 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. -
Gilles at 01:52 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
Tom Curtis at 01:25 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
RickG at 01:22 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
Tom Curtis at 01:15 AM on 15 March 2011Solving 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. -
RickG at 01:15 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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? -
nofreewind at 01:04 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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 -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans 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. -
JMurphy at 00:21 AM on 15 March 2011Solving 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. -
funglestrumpet at 23:58 PM on 14 March 2011UWA 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). -
Daniel Bailey at 23:30 PM on 14 March 2011The 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
-
Marcus at 23:07 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans 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. -
Marcus at 23:04 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans 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. -
idunno at 22:33 PM on 14 March 2011The 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! -
Gilles at 22:30 PM on 14 March 2011A 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.... -
michael sweet at 22:15 PM on 14 March 2011Solving 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. -
Gilles at 22:09 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans 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 ? -
Marcus at 21:51 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans 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? -
alan_marshall at 20:30 PM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
John, This site has become what it is because of your vision, skill and selfless dedication, but most of all because of your love for humankind, and your passion for truth. The recognition of the site implied by the nomination is an encouragement to minor contributors such as myself to play our part and to seek excellence. May the truth prevail! -
Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Hi John Congratulations on the nomination and the iphone app. Info on the app comes in handy when responding to blogs on the ABC drum! -
PhysSci at 20:00 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ben, You are mixing apples and oranges here, and obviously do not understand the subject being discussed... Your skin is a strong absorber of IR, but it is also a strong emitter of IR ... When I say 'IR trapping', I mean preventing of IR radiation generated inside from escaping to the outside. That prevention is done NOT through high-emissivity materials but by using low-e (thermally highly reflective) materials ... Talk to any engine mechanics, and he will tell you that in order to help cool an engine, they use black covers of high IR emissivity. That's because such covers help transfer more efficiently the IR heat generated by the engine to the outside environment ... I have done more reading about the radiative transfer theory than you can imagine. From your response regarding the First Law of thermo, I gather that you did not understand my points in the previous posting. Please, read it again and think it through one more time ... I'm not your 'garden variety' of 'climate skeptics', and believe me there is hardly anything you could tell me that I do not already know. On the other hand, I could probably tell you a few things that would enhance your knowledge on this subject ... For example, did you know that this 30 deg (or actually 33 deg) GH effect that's quoted in all popular literature, is mathematically wrong? One arrives at this number, when solving the S-B equation for temperature using observed solar irradiance and the Earth's total albedo. However, since radiation is a 4th power function of the absolute temperature, if one has a non-uniform distributions of temperatures such as on a spherical planet, one does NOT get the TRUE mean surface temperature by simply inverting the S-B equation. Mathematically, this is explained by Hoelder's inequality. 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! ... This implies the presence of considerable EXTRA energy in the lower atmosphere above the amount supplied by the Sun. I hope this helps ...Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please check that you have the correct names of those to whom you respond. Please refrain from subjective judgment as to who understands what and lofty declaratives like "there is hardly anything you could tell me that I do not already know." Those kinds of statements do not serve to enhance your credibility. Please note also that you've claimed a lot of reading and have yet to cite a single scientific reference. The preferred style here at SkS is to make a point and immediately show some substantiation of it, preferably from a peer-reviewed publication. If you've read this thread from the beginning, you've noted that opinion-based science doesn't usually stand scrutiny - and those discussions do little except go in circles. If you follow these suggestions, you'll find that you can have a worthwhile debate. -
RSVP at 19:06 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
To: dana1981 I wrote, "...yet, how many people would still be alive, say, one year after a complete ban on fossil fuel consumption? " ...to which you wrote (dana1981 at 07:35 AM on 14 March, 2011 ), "RSVP - nobody is suggesting a complete ban on fossil fuel consumption. No strawmen please" ...OK, not a complete ban, so is it also a strawman to assume climate science has determined that there will be less human suffering on the whole if the big oil valve in the sky gets cranked to the right, (precisely at a historical point when world oil consumption is on the increase), and that the amount of this adjustment has been adequately determined? Here I am not questioning the effects of GHGs. I am only saying that there is no free lunch at this point. 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 am comparing apples with apples, no strawman. If anything is a strawman, its your trite reply. -
Bern at 18:48 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
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.
Er, no. Somehow, my skin (which is an awful long way from being aluminium or polished silver) traps IR radiation quite effectively - I know I quite appreciate that fact during the cooler months, standing under the heat lamps in the bathroom! To argue that IR is only trapped by materials that effectively reflect it is a fundamental misunderstanding of radiative heat transfer.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.
Er, again, no. The "radiant barrier technology" doesn't absorb IR - it reflects it. You know, bounces it back where it comes from. Foil layers in building insulation are used to do just that - reflect IR either back into the home (to warm it in cold climates) or back out of the home (to stop it heating up in warm climates). As for your comments as to why GH theory violates the First law of thermodynamics - sigh. I suggest you do a bit more reading about radiative heat transfer and the greenhouse effect. Pay particular attention to the bits about how the surface of the earth is about 30ºC warmer than a simple radiative balance with solar input would suggest.Moderator Response: [DB] Careful, the D-K is strong in this one. I fear you are in for a long slog in your efforts. -
PhysSci at 18:46 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
scaddenp - Read my posting above and it will answer some of your questions. Regarding the efficiency of energy transfer by radiation vs, convection, in the atmosphere (which is a fluid), convective cooling is much more efficient than radiative cooling, simply because radiative heat exchange depends on the 4th power of absolute temperatures, while convection depends on the simple difference between temperatures. That's with respect to sensible heat flux. Latent heat flux (i.e. cooling due to evaporation) can transfer heat even across zero or negative temperature gradients as long as there is a spatial gradient in water vapor concentrations. Most convective cooling of the Earth surface is due to latent heat fluxes. Globally, the convective cooling of Earth's surface (sensible + latent heat flux) is at least 2.5 times bigger than the long-wave radiative cooling. Check papers by Trenberth et al (1997, 2009). As I said in my previous posting, the lower troposphere contains more energy than supplied by the Sun. Where is that energy coming from? -
Dan Moutal at 18:38 PM on 14 March 2011Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
Looks like archive.org is up and running again. So everything should be back to normal, and downloads should complete without a hitch. -
PhysSci at 18:29 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
This is a response to scaddenp from another blog. I've been asked to post this here as a more relevant place ----------------------- scaddenp - Yes, I have read the article "2nd Law of thermodynamics and greenhouse theory". Firstly, I never said that the GH theory violates the 2nd Law of thermo. I said it violates the First Law pertaining to energy conservation, which is even worse, because among the 4 laws of thermodynamics, only the First one is mathematically exact! Secondly, the above article makes a common mistake as many other popular publications do by using the 'blanket' analogy to describe the working of the atmospheric GH effect. Specifically it states: "The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer." Nothing can be more misleading! As I explained in a previous posting (now deleted!), blankets, coats, and real greenhouses preserve heat by obstructing convective heat exchange, not radiative cooling, i.e. by physically trapping air mass. The free atmosphere does not impose any restriction on the surface convective cooling. 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. Since the atmosphere contains no IR-reflecting substances, and has a negligibly small heat storage capacity, it cannot physically 'trap' heat of any kind (radiative or convective)! Now, here is why the GH theory violates the First law of thermodynamics. These facts are well-known in the science literature, but not usually discussed in popular outlets such as this website - Satellite and surface based observations have determined that the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs on average 239 W m-2 solar (short-wave) radiation. At the same time, the lower troposphere emits towards the surface some 343 W m-2 long-wave radiation (the so-called down-welling thermal flux). If the GH effect were due to absorption and re-emission of IR energy by greenhouse gases ultimately traceable to solar input as claimed by the current theory, then how is it possible that the down-welling thermal flux exceeds the total solar input by 44% (343/239 = 1.44). Simply put, observations indicate that the lower troposphere of Earth contains significantly more internal energy than provided by the Sun. This situation is extreme on Venus, where the down-welling thermal flux is about 80 times larger than the average absorbed solar flux by the entire planetary system of Venus! Given the rather small heat storage capacity of the atmospheres on both planets, these data cannot be explained in the context of the current GH theory founded on radiation interception without violating the Firs law of thermo! ... Yes, the lower atmosphere does contain energy above and beyond of what the Sun provides, but the source of that energy is not IR radiation! It's something else and much more fundamental ... Can you guess what it is? -
PhysSci at 18:21 PM on 14 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Rob Honeycutt - yes, the Holocene is much more stable than glacial periods, no doubt, and this has to do with orbital variations. Also, we currently live in one of the warmest (if not THE warmest) periods of the Holocene contrary to some skeptics, who try to prove that the global temperature has been much higher 7-8 thousands years ago. All these discussions about how warm the present is or how big the rate of temperature change over the past 100 years has been compared to past periods are besides the point. The point is, where is the empirical evidence that any of the temperature changes (past and present) were caused by variations in CO2 or any other so-called 'greenhouse gases'? I have researched this topic in detail, I can tell you with full confidence that is NO credible empirical evidence in the entire historical record that CO2 has had ever any impact on Earth's climate! The CO2-climate 'connection' ONLY exists is virtual realities generated by models, but not in our physical reality. In fact, the whole GH theory is based on radiative transfer models from the 1960s and 70s ... -
From Peru at 18:19 PM on 14 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
Chris Colose: But what a 50ºC or 70ºC hot, super-sauna Earth with enormous amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere (as in the Archaean Eon and in the snowball aftermath) would mean for the atmospheric dynamics? What kind of clouds cover would dominate the Earth, high level (cirrus), low level (cumulus and stratocumulus) or monstruous convective (cumulonimbus)? How much of the planet would be cloud-covered? Could it be near 100%? How big would be the Tropical Storms? Could they reach the warm Poles? -
Gilles at 18:09 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
sorry a whole bunch has disappeared after the "smaller than" sign. [snipped]Moderator Response: Once again discussion of the Greenhouse Effect should be discussed on The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics -
Dan Moutal at 16:54 PM on 14 March 2011Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
Archive.org (which hosts the podcasts) is currently down. Hopefully this wont last long, but there is really nothing I can do to fix the issue. Sorry for the hiccup, and keep trying to download. It will work eventually. -
dana1981 at 16:33 PM on 14 March 2011Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
It's my first interview, so don't go in with high expectations!
Prev 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 Next
