Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 Next
Comments 93851 to 93900:
-
DeanL at 07:17 AM on 2 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
What Kevin C says @3 is extremely important. I point to SkepticalScience often and the credibility of the site and its scientific response to the issues is crucial to being useful as a weapon against deception and misconception. I'd go so far as to suggest some of the recent articles on Spencer and Monckton should be reviewed in the light of maintaining a non-political, purely science based approach at SS. I am profoundly grateful for the job John has done in adhering to this approach and I'd hate to see it derailed by a few I'll advised comments in an otherwise very well reasoned post. I think that it will still be very obvious to objective readers as to the motivations and intentions of those being critiqued and, at the end of the day, all scientists make mistakes and deserve the benefit of the doubt. Despite some evidence to the contrary, most people can discern a trend when subtly pointed out! -
bbickmore at 07:05 AM on 2 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
Peter #8, I'm not the guy to answer that question, unfortunately. You'd have to find someone who is way into radiative transfer calculations. -
bbickmore at 07:04 AM on 2 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
Hi Kevin C #3, I honestly tried very hard to keep the tone moderate. In any case, I certainly didn't say everything that popped into my head! In the example you bring up, note that I didn't ascribe any particular motivation for why Roy Spencer said things about his colleagues that he knows are false. For all I know, he's just never thought about it hard enough to attain some sort of logical consistency. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:52 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel The "higher altitude radiation" and "backradiation" are both parts of the same theory (neither violate the second law of thermodynamics). Again you are demonstrating that you do not understand the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. I'm also not going to get drawn into a discussion of the definition of temperature, that is just another attempt at to derail the discussion. You are still avoiding answering the questions I posed in earlier posts. -
damorbel at 06:42 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #442 Dikran Marsupial you wrote:- "If you were familiar with the basic mechanism of the GHE you would know that" I am familiar with a variety of GHE explanations including the "higher altitude radiation" one you cite which is quite different from the "backradiation" one; the one that busts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. None of these AGW - CO2 models stand up to serious examination. But I agree that there are rather too many understandings of how thermodynamics works; even simple matters like the definition of temperature are wildly misunderstood and wrongly taught, particularly at universities. -
damorbel at 06:33 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #440 RickG you wrote:- "Then to what do you attribute AGW?" I am much happier with 'Climate Change' or even better 'Climate Variability' Most of the Sun's heat comes in at the tropics, the atmosphere and the oceans spread this over the globe by various currents that do not follow stable routes; the re is a great tendency to turbulence in fluid flow, even on a global scale. The most obvious example of this is the El Nino current which is highly unstable but there are many, many other currents all of which have powerful heat carrying capacities. Monitoring current flows would go a little way to explaining climate changes. Also Svensmark's cloud generating cosmic rays would have a powerful effect on heat transport in the atmosphere, quite enough to explain ice ages. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:33 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel I see you have gone back to refusing to answer direct questions again and instead are opting for evasion instead. "Like I said to Mike Sweet, more CO2 in the atmosphere means the atmosphere become a more powerful radiator of heat, don't you agree?" Even though your question is evasion, to avoid answering my question, I'll answer it anyway. No, I don't agree. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher in the atmosphere IR has to be emitted before it isn't absorbed by CO2 in the layers above. The lapse rate means this layer will be colder, and hence the less radiation that is emitted and so the atmosphere below and hence the surface will become warmer. If you were familiar with the basic mechanism of the GHE you would know that. -
damorbel at 06:23 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #438 Dikran Marsupial you wrote:- "Do you agree with the fundamental point that the atmosphere being warmer than outer space means that the surface looses heat energy to space more slowly than it would if the atmosphere were not there?" Like I said to Mike Sweet, more CO2 in the atmosphere means the atmosphere become a more powerful radiator of heat, don't you agree? -
RickG at 06:18 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel: Seems to me 'AGW due to CO2' has no validity. Then to what do you attribute AGW? -
damorbel at 05:58 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #438 michael sweet you wrote:- "The energy from the cold atmosphere is not enough to "raise the temperature" of the warmer Earth." But the IPCC says GHE is warming the Planet by 33C - up from 254K to 288K. That is not just a little bit, it's a whacking great amount. Also you wrote:- "It keeps the Earth from cooling as fast as it used to." But radiation from water and CO2 is the way the atmosphere loses heat to deep space. GHE theory says 'more CO2 absorbs more heat' (I thoroughly agree) But doesn't 'more CO2' also radiate more heat into deep space? Seems to me 'AGW due to CO2' has no validity. -
Peter Offenhartz at 05:36 AM on 2 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
I think your post was excellent. I know it is hard not to say that a man IS a fool when he BEHAVES like a fool, but I think you did a pretty good job staying on the right side of the line. I have a question that is off-topic, and I hope you will feel free to relocate it elsewhere as you please. My question is about the mechanism of radiative heat transfer in the region of the strong CO2 absorption band. In this band absorption is so strong that the sky is essentially black. All outgoing radiation in the band is initially absorbed close to the surface of the earth. According to the Schwarzschild equation, the absorbed radiation is re-radiated upward and downward, so there is a balance of energy fluxes; it is not until, near the "top" of the atmosphere, that the radiation escapes entirely. Thus, the net flux in this band depends almost entirely on the temperature at the earth's surface and the temperature at this "top", both to the fourth power, of course. My question is simple: At what height (and temperature) is this "top" where the radiation flux is overwhelmingly upward? Is it above or below 10,000 meters? The reason I ask is that the lapse rate changes sign in the 10,000-15,000 meter region; rather than cool with increasing altitude, the atmosphere begins to warm (because of heat/radiation originating in the absorption of the sun's ultraviolet). The usual explanation for the CO2-caused greenhouse effect is that increased CO2 concentrations push this "top" region to higher altitudes where it is colder, and the reduction in radiative flux caused by colder temperatures causes warming at the surface. I understand this, I think. But what if this "top" is at or above 10,000 meters? That's the part I really do not understand, and I would appreciate any help in clarifying this picture. Thanks in advance! -
hank at 05:01 AM on 2 March 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, I agree; same for Spencer's comparable effort at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/ -
Jesús Rosino at 04:11 AM on 2 March 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Thanks for your answer, dana1981. However, I don't think a low climate sensitivity opens up any window to a natural effect. If such natural factor existed, it might affect climate sensitivity (it might not), but it doesn't work the other way around, i.e., the fact that climate sensitivity was low, IMHO, wouldn't say anything about the likelihood that such natural factor existed. Consider, for example, the uncertainty in radiative forcing from aerosols. Imagine that, within the said uncertainty, aerosols happened not to have cooled the planet much, and their negative radiative forcing is in reality at the lower end of our estimate (close to zero). This would imply that total net radiative forcing would be in the upper end of our estimate (around 2.4 W/m2), and therefore climate sensitivity would be in the lower end of our estimate, with the 'percentage' of warming attributed to human activities unaffected (likely more than 100%). I'll give some numbers, in case it makes my point clearer: Let's assume that equilibrium temeprature change due to current forcing is 1.2ºC. Then, Eg.1: standard (most likely value) estimate of forcing and sensitivity is: Net forcing = 1.6 W/m2 And therefore, Climate sensitivity = 1.2 / 1.6 = 0.75 (W/m2)−1 (that means ΔT = 3.7*0.75 = 2.8 ºC for CO2 doubling) Eg.2 Weaker aerosols (less negative forcing) -> higher net forcing: Net forcing = 2.4 W/m2 --> Climate sensitivity = 1.2 / 2.4 = 0.5 (W/m2)−1 (this means ΔT = 3.7*0.5 = 1.9 ºC for CO2 doubling, with human contributiong being exactly the same) Therefore, I still think that the sentence:even a 2°C climate sensitivity would mean that humans have been responsible for more than half of the global warming over the past century
is misleading, because "a 2°C climate sensitivity" doesn't mean anything by itself about the portion of global warming attributed to human activities. -
Kevin C at 03:58 AM on 2 March 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
No-one answered my question, so I looked up Zhang 2007. From the abstract: "The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004." If I understand that, the air is warming the water leading to less freezing. However, once frozen, the ice insulates the water below, and the decrease salinity prevents convection from below bringing heat to melt it, so melting is also reduced. The reduction in melting is greater than the reduction in freezing, and so there is more ice. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:55 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel re. (f) you are quibbling about the meaning of words again, rather than addressing the fundamental point. Convection and conduction cause a transfer of heat energy from the near surface to the upper atmosphere, but heat energy can only be lost to space through radiation from the upper atmosphere. Hence the atmosphere as a whole acts as an insulator. Do you agree with the fundamental point that the atmosphere being warmer than outer space means that the surface looses heat energy to space more slowly than it would if the atmosphere were not there? Please can you give an answer to h, I have already explained the basics of how the GHE works in (a)-(f). The only bit I have left out is exactly how the equilibrium temperature is determined, which is not required to refute the assertion that the GHE violates the second law of thermodynamics. If you want clarification of a particular point (a)-(f), then ask specifically. Do you agree that the atmosphere impedes energy, in the form of LW IR, being radiated from the surface from reaching space, but does not substantially impede the SW radiation from the sun reaching the Earth's surface? As to your last point. Consider two black-body objects, A and B placed close to eachother in a vacuum at 0K. Both are fractionally above absolute zero, such that the rate at which they randomly emit photons is very low, but body B is fractionally warmer than body A. We observe both bodies for a period of time that is about the same as the period between IR photons being emmitted by the cooler body. Now in some of those periods of observation, a photon will have been emitted by body B and will be absorbed by body A, making it slightly warmer. In a smaller proportion of observation intervals, a photon will be emitted by object A and absorbed by object B. In that case there has been a transfer of energy from a cooler object to a warmer object. This doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics however, as on average there will be more intervals where the photon went from warmer to cooler than from cooler to warmer, as the warmer object will be emitting more photons. -
michael sweet at 03:45 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damorbel, The energy from the cold atmosphere is not enough to "raise the temperature" of the warmer Earth. It keeps the Earth from cooling as fast as it used to. The input energy from the sun stays the same. Since the input energy stays the same and the Earth cools slower the equilibrium temperature of the Earth goes up. The net energy flow is from the warm Earth to the cold atmosphere (as required by the second law), but the greenhouse gasses slow the cooling energy transfer. Standing on the Earth surface slower cooling with the same input energy means hotter. The GHE is not to move net energy from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth. The GHE slows the rate at which the Earth loses heat to space. -
damorbel at 03:16 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #434 KR you wrote:- "It does not, can not, block energy from moving between a cold object and a warm object," My question is, can the "energy [from] moving between a cold object and a warm object" raise the temperature of the warm object, as described in the GHE? If so how do you calculate it? -
Andy Skuce at 03:13 AM on 2 March 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Rust@36 I agree but it is odd that such wild and poorly thought-out uncertainty estimates--and of a critical parameter to boot--are made by the very climate scientist whose main criticism of the IPCC and others is that they address uncertainty inadequately. -
damorbel at 03:07 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #427 Dikran Marsupial I agree (a)->(e) But then you wrote:- "(f) The atmosphere being warmer than space thus insulates the surface from space, causing it to be warmer than it would otherwise be." Insulate is not really the right word for the atmosphere. The gases of the atmosphere are free to mix and flow, convection is happening all the time, none of these produce the effects of an insulator. "g) This does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as the net transfer of heat is from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere." Couldn't agree more! "(h) The greenhouse effect thus does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, and Roy Spencer (amongst others is perfectly correct on this point and G&T are flat wrong)." I'd like to know how you think the GHE effect works. 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy does not transfer spontaneously from a cold place to a hotter. For example, can energy transfer from a place at 0K to a place at 50K? If this were true I suggest that energy might indeed transfer spontaneously (in the atmosphere) from 250K to 300K but I don't see it happening somehow. -
KR at 02:04 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I've actually found most of the misunderstandings of the greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics are intimately tied to the Fallacy of Division: that what is true of the whole is true of the constituents. "4 is even. 1 and 3 are part of 4, so they must be even too!" Each individual energy transfer - collision, molecular diffusion, photon absorption/emission - can occur in any direction. From a cold nebula to a star, from a candle to a plasma torch, from your hand to the boiling pot you mistakenly grabbed. It's only statistically, in the aggregate, that "Heat" transfer shows up, as the higher energy moves to the lower, based on the fact that there are many more energy transfer events going in that direction. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, and entropy, is a statistical law, a law of summations, not a factor in individual molecular events. It does not, can not, block energy from moving between a cold object and a warm object, adding to its energy. It's just that statistics indicate a greater number going the other way - and with molecular numbers statistics are pretty much a dead certainty. This fallacy is never more clear than with the "colder objects can't heat warmer ones", where I've seen attempted justifications such as "warm objects won't absorb low energy photons!", "destructive interference of cold photons with warm ones keeps them away", and my favorite "They just know, and the warm object doesn't accept them!" When faced with such "logic", it's a tossup whether to laugh, cry, or fetch a strong beer... --- I have to compliment fellow posters for their patience too - Dikran, les, muoncounter, everyone else. I find this website a fantastic forum for civilized discussion; I cannot think of another place where this wouldn't have degenerated into poorly written invective a long time ago. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:01 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re: JMurphy (432) Indeed. One was left with the sound of one hand clapping... The Yooper -
JMurphy at 01:54 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I agree with muoncounter's moderator response above, but would also add commendations to Dikran Marsupial and les - as well as several others who tried their best to impart their knowledge. I certainly found it very educational, if only because you all had to go round and round repeating the same facts again and again, hoping it would all sink in eventually ! It worked with me, anyway... (Strange how none of the self-appointed expert so-called skeptics got inolved, though. No, actually, it's not strange at all, is it ?) -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:51 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@muoncounter Not only should st. KR be commended, he should be canonised - he clearly has the patience of a saint, so he should get the honorific as well ;o) In discussions of climate, again and again we see evasion, pedantry a refusal to stick with thought experiments intended to clarify matters and a refusal to give a direct answer to a direct question (which risks giving a hostage to fortune - but those only interested in the truth are not bothered by that). The, best approach to dealing with this seems tireless patience; it is quickly evident who is there to discuss the science, but it shouldn't really be necessary.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Agreed: St. KR it is. Forgive me if I omitted thanking anyone who has stayed with this for the long haul; haste causes carelessness. It is a shame when a thread becomes so long and convoluted that contributing posters finally say 'enough.' -
MA Rodger at 01:37 AM on 2 March 2011Arctic sea ice... take 2
A "Johnny-come-lately" comment, but I really do dislike the PIOMAS graph in this article, almost as much as the NSIDC "percentage multi-year ice" graph posted above at #38. Neither graph allows the observer to assess the significance of these measurements of ice loss. The data used to make the PIOMAS anomaly graph shows summer 2010 volumes dropping below 4,000 km3 with an annual average loss running at 900 km3 over recent years. The NSIDC graph ignores the 30% reduction in summer ice extent. With the reducing extent factored onto the graph, the conclusion looks far more stark - 700,000 km2 of old ice with an annual drop of 300,000 km2 over recent years. -
witsendnj at 01:31 AM on 2 March 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
The tree rings started to diverge from expected growth due to increased temperatures because their ability to photosynthesize is increasingly impaired due to exposure to toxic background tropospheric ozone, the level of which is inexorably rising. http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/02/rude-awakening.html yes, it's a blog! If anyone knows of tree ring data being collected in the past decade I would be very interested to see it, because it is certain to reflect radically reduced growth - if not shrinkage. -
SNRatio at 01:07 AM on 2 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
I second #3, Kevin C. I think it is great to have those outspoken rebuttals, and while polemical, I don't think it is over the top at all. BUT: We need the "official" version too, from which it could be cut and pasted almost anywhere, including encyclopedies. You may think of it as being a referee for a book chapter, pointing out the problems and inconsistencies without drawing conclusions. And re Spencer's relation to mainstream science, it is enough to describe it, and make a list of problems he does not acknowledge or relate to. Leave to the readers to draw their own conclusions. Less is more. And while it may be significant for an overall assessment of Spencer's character, his religous beliefs etc must be kept as separate as possible from his scientific involvement - even if he does not always keep the separation clearly enough himself. Which, to me, implies that comments about his beliefs and extra-scientific enterprises belon in the comments - not in the article text. However illuminating such information may be! -
michael sweet at 01:04 AM on 2 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
Roy Spencer has published essays stating that he thinks Creation explains the origin of life better than evolution see this Wiki article. He might agree with the Flood explaination. We need to remember that Spencer made the same accusations that everyone else was wrong and he was right with the satelite temperature data. For 10 years he insisted that his analysis showing the troposphere was not warming was correct and everyone else was wrong. In the end other scientists corrected Spencers mistakes and now the satelite record agrees with other methods. He was wrong before, why should he be correct this time around? The deniers do not care that he is always wrong, their only goal is to delay action until the problem is catastrophic.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Dr Spencer's religious views have no bearing on the correctness of his scientific arguments, and are getting very close to being an ad-hominem. Please confine the discussion to the science and steer clear of such issues. -
KR at 01:01 AM on 2 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - If the sun heated the Earth via heating the atmosphere (which seems to be what you are arguing), the lapse rate would be reversed and there would be essentially no convection. This is not the case. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere, heats the Earth just as the heater coil in my example did. "If you blocked the Sun off (and you can) the Earth would cool. This is because the Sun is external to the Earth and its atmosphere." - This is a complete red herring. You could turn the heater coil on the block off and on again - it doesn't change the physics of heat transfer. Claiming that is quite the horrid dodge, damorbel - you're really straining there, and I find it appalling. You've painted your argument into a corner. Energy goes from the Sun -> Earth -> Atmosphere -> Space, with the atmosphere acting as an insulator. --- Everyone, this has been quite a discussion. >400 posts on the greenhouse effect, many of which have done a good job looking at the physics. Unfortunately, damorbel, you seem willing to go to extremes to deny the radiative greenhouse effect, including that silly bit about 'turning the sun on and off' to attempt to disprove the fact that the atmosphere is heated by the Earth's surface. At this point I have to consider you to be either (a) a troll, stretching this out to claim controversy on the topic, or (b) fanatically unwilling to listen to reason and abandon your incorrect ideas on thermodynamics. Either way, damorbel, you are no longer worth my time. I believe the current thread has plenty of information for newcomers, who can clearly judge the topic (and posters) based upon what they read. I'm done here.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] KR should be commended for showing terrific patience in going this far. [DB] Seconded. I would add that I found myself learning the subject even more thoroughly as a result, so in that regard it was time not wasted. -
muoncounter at 00:52 AM on 2 March 2011Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
"I've already said that" But you didn't put that data into the txt file you linked. Hopefully its monthly, so the seasonal picture can be extended, particularly as autumn began averaging over 0C at the tail end of the Vinther data in that txt file. "easier to talk about regions where no measurements were taken" True, but irrelevant. Box has measurements from 27 stations well-distributed over Greenland. His conclusion: a lack of spatial correlation between east and west coasts. -
adelady at 00:24 AM on 2 March 2011On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Am I right in thinking these people don't know the difference between an airport and a landing strip? I think I've just discovered that Orroroo "airport" would have a major impact on the climate record for the southern Flinders Ranges. Presumably Wilpena Pound Airstrip with all the tourist joyrides would have an even more direct effect. (I doubt Orroroo averages too many landings per month.) Must write to the BOM, they need to keep up to date. Glad to keep learning new things every day. -
Alexandre at 23:15 PM on 1 March 2011Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
About Nash: According to Ostrom's findings, Nash equilibrium turns out to be a poor predictor of human behaviour in common-pool dilemmas. It comes closer to reality when communication is absent, but it's an unrealistically pessimistic predictor overall. -
Robert Murphy at 22:37 PM on 1 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
Spencer is the main science advisor for the Cornwall Alliance. They released a paper called "A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming". Spencer authored the second part concerning the scientific case against AGW; while he mentioned paleoclimate in regard to the MWP and the LIA, he never mentioned the Ice Ages. However, the first section of the piece deals with the theological objections to AGW, and they *did* mention what caused the ice age: "While there is evidence that sea level was once much higher than it now is, that evidence is best interpreted in light of the flood of Noah’s day—a never-to-be-repeated, cataclysmic judgment of God that would have been followed by a sudden ice age (accompanied by much reduced sea level as water was stored in vast ice sheets on land) as the atmosphere lost its high water vapor content and so cooled rapidly, and then a gradual recovery as temperatures rose and water vapor rose to approximately its concentration(accompanied by a gradual sea level rise to present levels as the continental glaciers melted and ocean waters expanded as they warmed)." (page 15) http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf There you have it: The Ice Age was caused by Noah's Flood! You can't tell me he didn't know what was written in section one. He either had no problem with that claim or he lacked the integrity to withdraw from the document and the Cornwall Alliance. Considering his rejection of evolution, I have no trouble believing the former. -
SuzieDsouza at 22:37 PM on 1 March 2011Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Wow – One of the reasons famous volcanoes Mauna Loa was selected as a CO2 monitoring spot was because it was so far from, well, everything and atmospheric gases would be well mixed by the time they reached Mauna Loa. If it winds up that Mauna Loa is well placed to measure ocean absorption of CO2, that would be off the irony scale! -
damorbel at 22:22 PM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #428 RickG you wrote:- "You are obfuscating the same point I was trying to make to RW1. In one post he calls it "energy", in another, "power", in another "radiation"" 'energy' is measured in Joules 'power' is measured in Watts (Joules per sec.) 'Radiation' is hvwhich is a form of energy dependent on the source frequency 'v'. If you don't get these right then you will become hopelessly confused. Perhaps RW1 didn't get it right, one has to be careful. -
Jonas at 22:10 PM on 1 March 2011Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
This is a non scientific argument, but it's important nevertheless (the Monckton argument is not scientific either, it's the same category): Every human has full responsibility for his/her small 1 / 7 billion share, and so have the Australians, who in average have a very high CO2 impact, and beyond personal responsibility, there is also the social example impact. A balance full of rice will shift with one single rice grain, and each one grain is equally important as the shifting one. -
RickG at 21:56 PM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
423 damorbel, You are obfuscating the same point I was trying to make to RW1. In one post he calls it "energy", in another, "power", in another "radiation". The point is a that an object of higher temperature can receive "energy, power or radiation", or what the hell ever you and RW1 want to call it when it is convenient for you, from a lesser temperature object because that higher temperature object cannot discriminate the source of the "energy, power, or radiation" it absorbs. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:21 PM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel wrote: "But the atmosphere is also between the Sun and the Earth, just like a blanket with a corpse underneath it is between the (ambient or Sun) heat source." However: (a) The atmosphere absorbs LW IR radiation but is essentially transparent to SW radiation (visible light and ultraviolet) (b) Most of the radiation given off by the Sun is SW radiation not IR. (c) Most of the radiation from the sun is not absorbed by the atmosphere [see (a)], so the Sun does not significantly heat the atmosphere directly. The atmosphere does not significantly insulate the surface from suns radiation. (d) When the surface absorbs most of the suns SW radiation, it heats up and re-radiates LW IR radiation upwards. (e) The atmosphere does absorb some of this outbound IR radiation, and hence it heats up. The atmosphere is not warmed directly by the sun, but indirectly by the IR radiated from the surface. (f) The atmosphere being warmer than space thus insulates the surface from space, causing it to be warmer than it would otherwise be. (g) This does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as the net transfer of heat is from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. (h) The greenhouse effect thus does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, and Roy Spencer (amongst others is perfectly correct on this point and G&T are flat wrong). O.K., I've spelled it out for you. Which of these points do you disagree with? For the sake of clarity, it would be best if you could make a list (a)-(h), saying whether you agree with the point or not, and if not explaining why. -
Berényi Péter at 21:01 PM on 1 March 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
#18 Rob Honeycutt at 14:58 PM on 1 March, 2011 BP... Please show me the research that backs up what you're saying. I can't because it gets deleted. Do your own research. You can start here or here then look around.Moderator Response: The original post was deleted as it was off topic for this thread. It should be reposted on one of the pages linked to in your comment. -
macwithoutfries at 20:49 PM on 1 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
It is important to also note in the paragraph about sensitivity that the current value of between 2 and 4.5 °C / CO2 doubling is the short-term sensitivity - while the long term sensitivity is most likely around 6 °C / CO2 doubling ! -
Tom Curtis at 20:44 PM on 1 March 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Hank @212, that is actually a very informative and helpful post for anyone not clear on the greenhouse effect. I heartily recommend it, something I could not say about almost all of Judith Curry's other posts. Of course, the crazies still come out in the comments ... -
Berényi Péter at 20:07 PM on 1 March 2011Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
#12 muoncounter at 14:31 PM on 1 March, 2011 Your link to Vinther et al 2006 doesn't work Sorry, corrected. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D11105, 2006 doi:10.1029/2005JD006810 Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century B. M. Vinther, K. K. Andersen, P. D. Jones, K. R. Briffa & J. Cappelen How would a paper published in 2006 have data through 2009? I have appended recent data from Ilulissat, Nuuk and Qaqortoq, but I've already said that. In addition, Vinther only looked at the southwest coast. Yes, that's the region for which we have long records. It's easier to talk about regions where no measurements were taken, but somewhat less accurate. -
Martin at 19:43 PM on 1 March 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Very, very cool! This is one of the few examples I've seen in the the climate debate blogosphere that successfully combines information and entertainment. I think we need more stuff like this to appeal to a broader audience. I just hope, nobody will be bothering you demanding royalties for Mind Heist. -
Kevin C at 19:13 PM on 1 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
Thanks for your great work in wading through this stuff and collecting all the relevent responses and links. That's a big job done. Without wanting to detract from what you've done, I would like to suggest that what SKS needs is long term is an article based on your work, but slightly different in tone. The good stuff on SKS is written in a detached tone - what wikipedia calls NPOV. Your essay at the moment is still slightly polemical in tone. Why is this important? Because with the good articles on SKS I can give them directly to a contrarian and they have to confront the ideas, because the language is neutral. If the language isn't neutral, then they reject the content before they get to it. The underlying problem is the form of communication. Polemical language is a form of in-group communication. It strengthens ties within an ingroup, by making those already in the group feel good about being in the group, and increases respect for the speaker for being right-thinking. But at the same time, it fails in communicating to anyone not in the in-group, because the tone immediately tells that person that the speaker is not right-thinking. So, for example, a hostile reader would immediately set 'How do I know Roy Spencer is aware of the truth-deficient nature...' against 'I obviously can’t know what Roy’s motivations are...' and turn your own words against you. Which begins to suggest to me that what we need is a wiki for turning good source material like yours into polished NPOV articles to live in the argument section long term. Because it takes multiple readers to pick up on things like this. -
John Brookes at 19:04 PM on 1 March 2011On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Hmm. Google maps link didn't work. Another try:
View Larger Map -
John Brookes at 19:02 PM on 1 March 2011On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Actually, Watts did recently have a somewhat bizarre post where he analyzed data from Australian weather stations. He divided them into "rural" and "not rural", and then showed that they had different temperature trends over the last 100 years. What was interesting was his classification of stations. The Ceduna station was classified as "not rural". Here is a pic of the weather station
It looks even better in -
Riccardo at 18:53 PM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Finally damorbel came to the right point in his comment #424. He simply needs to add an heat source and he's done. I don't have much hope he'll do, though. -
damorbel at 18:39 PM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 420 KR you wrote:- "the atmosphere is warmed by the Earth, and hence the heater/block/wood/ice analogy holds, not your warming of a room through a blanket." In #420 you said it yourself "solar energy (shortwave) passes right through the atmosphere and warms the Earth" If you blocked the Sun off (and you can) the Earth would cool. This is because the Sun is external to the Earth and its atmosphere. If instead the same amount of heat as given to Earth by the Sun was generated inside the planet, then changing the atmosphere, the emissivity etc. would affect the planetary temperature just the same as changing the number of blankets on your bed. -
damorbel at 18:24 PM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 422 KR you wrote:- "In other words, you have agreed that the atmosphere acts as insulation, raising the temperature of the Earth." What is it about insulation that will 'raise the temperature' of anything? Sure when you have something with a temperature elevated above its environment, wrapping it in a first layer of insulation will slow down the rate of cooling but it won't increase the temperature. Adding a 2nd layer of insulation will slow down the rate of cooling further and the outer surface of the 1st insulation layer will become warmer but the final temperature will remain the same as the environment. If your 'something with a temperature elevated above its environment' is also a heat source, when you add a second layer of insulation the surface of the 1st layer of insulation will become warmer and the heat source itself might increase in temperature, depending on how it works. This is not very exciting stuff, perfectly normal common experience. I think your problem arises because gas compressed in a gravitational field has a temperature gradient, thus is the source of your so-called greenhouse effect. Now that really is counter intuitive and, since it involves gravitational energy, it isn't generally understood. -
hank at 18:22 PM on 1 March 2011Climate sensitivity is low
It may amuse (warning, facepalm risk) to see the same issue raised here: judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/ -
damorbel at 17:55 PM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 421 RickG you wrote:- "Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. Trying to dance around words does not help your argument." Rick, the 2nd law of themodynamics is about the direction energy transfer; radiation is the means of transport, not the transport itself. Radiation is specified by its amplitude, frequency and direction, this is insufficient to measure energy transfer. To find out about how much energy is transferred through a given surface a mathematician would integrate all radiation passing through it over time. What I disagree with is taking the different radiation components passing in one direction and calling that energy transfer. For thermal energy, to qualify as energy change it would need to cause a temperature change derived from the thermal capacity and amount of energy; tthat is the hole in the greenhouse argument. If you examine the GHE argument carefully you will find it claims a temperature rise as consequence of loss of energy, the fact that it is a loss is frequently hidden away with the phrase 'net energy' transfer, as good an example of 'dance around words' as you will find.
Prev 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 Next
