Recent Comments

Prev  1877  1878  1879  1880  1881  1882  1883  1884  1885  1886  1887  1888  1889  1890  1891  1892  Next

Comments 94201 to 94250:

94201. Riduna at 13:13 PM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Monckton advocates adopting a policy of self-interest, irrespective of the cost, because of his fallacious belief that no price need be paid. Not the first time Monckton has put forward this point and my response has been – we hang together or we hang (the environment) together. In other words, if we absent ourselves from pursuing the common good (GHG emissions reduction) because of perceived short-term political or economic gain, we risk paying a far greater price in the future. That price will initially be imposed by countries acting in the common good and in the longer term by catastrophic global warming and sea level rise.
94202. RW1 at 13:04 PM on 1 March 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       "Any substance with an emissivity greater will radiate energy with a total energy proportional to its emissivity times the fourth power of its temperature. That is where the radiation comes from, from the gases in the lower atmosphere which radiate in the IR spectrum and have non-zero temperatures (primarily water vapour and CO2). The heat that warms that gas comes evapo/transpiration from the surface, radiation from the surface, and atmospheric absorption of incoming solar radiation, although at any given layer, a large part of it will come from thermal radiation from adjacent layers, or convective heat transfer from adjacent layers." Agreed, but ultimately what matters here is the net combined effect of all these things relative to surface emitted radiation. Aferall, that's what we're talking about here is it not? That's what determines global average temperatures, right? Heat flows - how much from the surface is coming back from the atmosphere and how much is passing through. This is determining the heat flux or power flux at the surface, which ultimately is determining the temperature.
94203. John Chapman at 12:56 PM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       It is often maintained that Australia's 1.5% CO2 contribution is insignificant. Imagine a world of 100 countries each emitting the same amount of CO2, they would each claim to only contribute 1% and so in Monkton's world, they would each do nothing to curb their emissions. The planet has over 150 countries. Most of them could claim to produce less than 1% and carry on as usual. The per capita measure is the most appropriate figure, for which Australia's is much higher than China's. Each country, and at a smaller scale each individual, must be on board to reduce emissions.
94204. RW1 at 12:54 PM on 1 March 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       "What I am pointing out is that because not all energy transfers are radiative, situations can arise in which the atmosphere returns more energy to the surface than it receives from the surface. This will only happen when there is a temperature inversion, as sometimes happens with low lying clouds. In Antarctica in the winter it can happen on a continental scale because Antarctica is receiving no insolation, and there is still an energy transfer from the Antarctic Ocean to the Antarctic interior carries by the atmosphere. However, when you say "If some of the surface originating kinetic energy is radiated into the atmosphere and that energy is ultimately radiated out to space, the amount of kinetic energy returned to the surface will be less, having a cooling effect on the surface, effectively reducing the emitted surface power by the opposite amount", you appear to be making an error. Specifically, when energy is transferred to the atmosphere, it makes no distinction in the source of that energy when it radiates. So, the sum total of the energy it receives is radiated away, and half of that energy must be downwelling, and half upwelling. And if the sum of Insolation plus back radiation is less than the sum of Surface radiation plus energy transfer by evapo/transpiration and (a small) energy transfer by by collisions between gas molecules and the surface, then the surface will indeed cool. You also may be not making a mistake, and I have simply misunderstood you. It is true that the presence of evapo/transpiration and convection, by making energy transfer more efficient, cool the surface compared to the temperature it would be if all energy transfers in the atmosphere were radiative (about 70 degrees C). So in that respect, the fact that evapo/transpiration carries energy into the atmosphere, a portion of which does eventually escape to space does mean the surface is cooler than it otherwise would have been." Tom, All I'm saying is that globally, energy has to be conserved. Any kinetic energy moved from the surface into the atmosphere, some of which ultimately leaves radiatively at the top of the atmosphere, has to reduce the amount of emitted surface power by an equal opposite amount due to less being returned to the surface in kinetic form, which has the effect of reducing the surface temperature; thus reducing surface emitted radiation. I know about the Antarctic temperature inversion. It's highly localized.
94205. RW1 at 12:37 PM on 1 March 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       "Worse for your interpretation, a decrease in transmittance will automatically mean that a higher proportion of radiation from lower in the atmosphere is absorbed higher in the atmosphere, even with opticat thicknesss less than 1, but greater than 0. Because the higher gas is cooler (in the troposphere) it will radiate less energy, thus reducing the total IR radiation leaving the planet. That means a change in transmittance has more effect than simply reducing surface radiation to space." How do you figure? If anything, it seems a decrease in transmittance will shorten the height from the surface where the atmospheric absorption occurs. "The only way to properly calculate its effect is, as the LBL models do, calulate its effect on each layer of a large number of layers of the atmosphere (in modtran's case, 33). The LBL models take account of radiation flows in both directions. That is, for each layer, they determine its emission at each individual wavenumber (or wavenumber couplet for modtran), based on its temperature. They then apply that radiation as both upward and downwelling radiation. For each layer, they also take the total incoming radiation (upward and downward), multiply by the transmittance for that layer, and apply the result as upwelling or down welling radiation from that layer as appropriate. Because the transfers in radiation are calculated for each wavenumber, and for each level independently, there is no single calculation that corresponds to what you are seeking, ie, a level in which all incoming radiation is from the surface, and all upwelling radiation goes to space. But that does not mean that both the upwelling and downwelling emittance from each level is ignored, or that the absorption at any level is ignored which is what is required for George White's adjustment to make any sense." Have you verified with GW that this is what he's claiming? Because that's not my interpretation of it. The model simulations he's using are multi-layered through the atmosphere - he's simply showing the aggregate effect through all the layers. Is it just another coincidence that he's getting an incremental absorption or reduction in transmittance of 3.7 W/m^2 for 2xCO@ from his HITRAN based simulations?
94206. Berényi Péter at 12:35 PM on 1 March 2011
       Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
       #10 muoncounter at 11:14 AM on 1 March, 2011 "Not listening, not listening." Let's put recent warming over Greenland into perspective. The conclusion (based on evidence) is always the same. 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 Years 2006-2009 are added to their supplementary data.
94207. Tom Curtis at 12:30 PM on 1 March 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1 @193: "And where does the radiation from the lower regions of the atmosphere come from?" Any substance with an emissivity greater will radiate energy with a total energy proportional to its emissivity times the fourth power of its temperature. That is where the radiation comes from, from the gases in the lower atmosphere which radiate in the IR spectrum and have non-zero temperatures (primarily water vapour and CO2). The heat that warms that gas comes evapo/transpiration from the surface, radiation from the surface, and atmospheric absorption of incoming solar radiation, although at any given layer, a large part of it will come from thermal radiation from adjacent layers, or convective heat transfer from adjacent layers. "So this is what you're claiming? That the 3.7 W/m^2 does NOT represent a reduction in total transmittance, as I have defined it? I just want to be clear." If your definition of total transmittance is "... the specific amount of emitted surface power that passes through the atmosphere unabsorbed and goes straight out to space", then no it is not. A small part is reduction of transmittance, but a more significant part is the reduction of thermal radiation from lower levels of the atmosphere to space, as per the diagram @171. "Define what you mean by correlation ..." The normal statistical sense. What I am pointing out is that because not all energy transfers are radiative, situations can arise in which the atmosphere returns more energy to the surface than it receives from the surface. This will only happen when there is a temperature inversion, as sometimes happens with low lying clouds. In Antarctica in the winter it can happen on a continental scale because Antarctica is receiving no insolation, and there is still an energy transfer from the Antarctic Ocean to the Antarctic interior carries by the atmosphere. However, when you say "If some of the surface originating kinetic energy is radiated into the atmosphere and that energy is ultimately radiated out to space, the amount of kinetic energy returned to the surface will be less, having a cooling effect on the surface, effectively reducing the emitted surface power by the opposite amount", you appear to be making an error. Specifically, when energy is transferred to the atmosphere, it makes no distinction in the source of that energy when it radiates. So, the sum total of the energy it receives is radiated away, and half of that energy must be downwelling, and half upwelling. And if the sum of Insolation plus back radiation is less than the sum of Surface radiation plus energy transfer by evapo/transpiration and (a small) energy transfer by by collisions between gas molecules and the surface, then the surface will indeed cool. You also may be not making a mistake, and I have simply misunderstood you. It is true that the presence of evapo/transpiration and convection, by making energy transfer more efficient, cool the surface compared to the temperature it would be if all energy transfers in the atmosphere were radiative (about 70 degrees C). So in that respect, the fact that evapo/transpiration carries energy into the atmosphere, a portion of which does eventually escape to space does mean the surface is cooler than it otherwise would have been. Having said that, I do not see the relevance to the basic point at issue - is it George White, or all the world's radiative transfer modelers who are correct in their interpretation of the output of radiative transfer models?
94208. Don Gisselbeck at 12:28 PM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       I said this on another thread and will repeat it here. Free market capitalism has no way of dealing with long term existential threats either to all or part of the system. After the money has been made destroying fisheries, forests, topsoil etc. capital will move on to exploiting the next resource. Unfortunately there is no next earth.
94209. Doug Proctor at 12:24 PM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Tony Curtis: Iterative games or actions work when an action produces a result before the next action is required. With CO2 emission controls, this does not occur. A minor reduction in one area may show up as a reduction in the rate of increase, but will not show any improvement as the effect is global. The iterative game requires feedback - positive and negative - in a timely manner that allows the players to change their behaviour. A prisoner's dilemma or other such game also requires the game to be run a number of times. Here we have - according to CAGW theory - only one "set". When the results are in, it is too late. These arguments are not valid wrt CO2, global temperatures and one-sided actions. Except morally. Or that CAGW is not catastrophic, not a tipping point problem, not an immediate concern and not more suited for mitigation over the long run.
94210. Alex C at 12:11 PM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Perhaps, Tom, that would be an argument for long-term agreements that would not require renewal? Binding, as it were. Fun political game that would be, the US faced with the option of agreeing to a binding international pact. I think, though, that the application of the concept of Tragedy of the Commons here is not a bad analogy. Emitters choose to not limit their impacts because they have no personal incentive to account for the full long term costs of their actions with respect to a public good, so overuse of the public good leads to depletion. Granted there is a twist in this analogy, as the public good - the climate, perhaps, and as used in the article - is not used up, merely altered to the point where it is largely harmful to participating individuals in the long term. I also don't think that the Tragedy of the Commons you bring up is the same being discussed here. I think this article is intentionally referring to the hypothetical situation described by Hardin in Science, 1968. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
94211. Doug Proctor at 12:08 PM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       The Nash game theory way to determine the correct course of action is valid only if one-sided action has an effect on the outcome. If AGW is really a global, catastrophic problem, then a 20% cutback of emissions by a portion of the world will not have a global impact. The rising emissions of underdeveloped nations will be the determinant. CO2 input into the atmosphere is presented as a global problem, moreover, with tipping points based on gross quantities, not rates of input, as no feedback mechanisms are presented in the models to say that nature will adapt to increased CO2 content without increasing the heat content of the world. One-sided action makes sense in three ways. The first is when the act-ers working against the problem show benefits the non-act-ers don't have. As the atmosphere is global and the effects are said to be global, not regional, CO2 reductions on one side won't give anyone any benefit. All cost, no profit. The second is where action is directed not at causes of problems, but their effects: we'd call that adaptation or mitigation. Changes of agriculture, building of dikes, removal of cities on low coastlines, etc. The example of personal benefit would be, of course, not to reduce CO2 emissions but to make mitigation worldwide. The third way is if the one-sided action aims at neither stopping the action or at mitigating, for some, harm. This is in the moral, philosophical or ideological realm. Shut-down your local economy by doing the right thing. However, since the AGW theme is actually catastrophe, not trouble, this way is about having your survivors, if not just God, think you honourable. It is said that you cannot cross a large chasm in a series of small jumps. Is A-CO2 emissions as occuring today a problem amenable to mitigating its effects or a developing catastrohe? Or is the global warming battle a physical issue representing an ideological position? I'd love an energy efficient lifestyle. More people could live as I do. But if, in spite of the "consensus", the underdeveloped world sees carbon-based energy use more important to well-being than a temperature rise that they, surely, will suffer the most, I do not support ineffective actions on our side. Calvinism is in my family background, but I note that even they gave it up as a poor way to a pleasant, successful life. Which all of us, not just Gore in his castle and Suzuki in his wilderness cabin, have a right to achieve.
94212. Bern at 12:02 PM on 1 March 2011
       Visualizing a History of CO2
       I like! [two thumbs up!]
94213. RW1 at 11:52 AM on 1 March 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       "given that at many frequencies, the atmosphere has an optical thickness greater than 1 (ie, transmittance is 0 for less than the full thickness of the atmosphere) than much of the IR absorbed by that region of the atmosphere that actually radiates to space does not come from the surface, but only from lower regions of the atmosphere. So an increase of absorption by 3.7 w/m^2 may have absolutely no effect on transmittance, or the atmospheric window (as you have defined it)." And where does the radiation from the lower regions of the atmosphere come from? So this is what you're claiming? That the 3.7 W/m^2 does NOT represent a reduction in total transmittance, as I have defined it? I just want to be clear. "Further, as much of the heat in the atmosphere is carried there by evaporation or transpiration, there is not even a necessary correlation between surface radiation and the thermal radiation of the lower levels of the atmosphere." Define what you mean by "correlation". I understand that a good amount of the heat in the atmosphere is carried there by evaporation and transpiration, but those amounts are in addition to emitted surface power and are non-radiative, which means they have to be returned to the surface in equal and opposite amounts, because all the infrared energy leaving at the top of the atmosphere is radiative. It's true that some of the kinetic energy moved into the atmosphere from the surface by evaporation and transpiration can radiate some energy into the atmosphere, but again it has to be offset by the surface radiation in equal and opposite amounts. If some of the surface originating kinetic energy is radiated into the atmosphere and that energy is ultimately radiated out to space, the amount of kinetic energy returned to the surface will be less, having a cooling effect on the surface, effectively reducing the emitted surface power by the opposite amount.
94214. Tom Curtis at 11:29 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       adelady @34, one of the most insightful comments I have seen.
94215. Tom Curtis at 11:28 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       rustneversleeps @32, I think you are right in your analysis of what Curry said, and why she said it. I would add, however, that she is probably aware that studies of climate sensitivity show far higher resolution of low values than of high values. That is evident in the change in her low and high end ranges for the 66% and 90% confidence intervals. Consequently her statement implies that she believes there is a substantive (at least 1%) risk that sensitivity is significantly higher than 10. However, I suspect her first back down would be to insist she was talking in round figures. That being the case, we should interpret her confidence intervals as: 1.49 to 5.5 for 66% confidence and 0.49 to 9.5 for 90% confidence Still very scary from a decision theory point of view, and pretty indefensible scientifically.
94216. rustneversleeps at 11:27 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       Rob @ 33, No doubt it was shoot-from-the-hip and unsupported, but I think the intent was primarily delay - by both playing up the big bad uncertainty boogie monster, and to argue that (extremely) low sensitivity is plausible enough to give us pause on action. In caually tossing out these bounds and probabilities - likely with little thought - she inadvertently wandered into cloud cuckooland at both ends. I don't think there was any subtle strategy aforethought, let alone a bridge-building one.
94217. Rob Honeycutt at 11:16 AM on 1 March 2011
       Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
       BP... I also have to say your whole thesis is jaw-droppingly pretentious. You are claiming that, "...any talk on committed warming is based on conjecture, not facts." In other words, all the radiative physics related to the greenhouse effect is wrong. In one sweeping gesture you push 150 years of accepted science onto the floor so you can make your case. From that point, for you to be correct, you must completely redefine and re-explain a vast body of work spanning a wide range of sciences, something you do not accomplish in the few remaining paragraphs of your post. I'm sorry but I honestly think the moderators were doing you a favor by deleting your comment.
94218. muoncounter at 11:14 AM on 1 March 2011
       Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
       We've had Greenland ice loss threads here and here, among others. The conclusion (based on evidence) is always the same. The skeptical(?) response is likewise always the same. "Not listening, not listening." To me, this graphic at CCNY's Cryo Processes Lab speaks volumes: The figure above shows the standardized melting index anomaly for the period 1979 – 2010. In simple words, each bar tells us by how many standard deviations melting in a particular year was above the average. ... Previous record was set in 2007 and a new one was set in 2010. Negative values mean that melting was below the average. Note that highest anomaly values (high melting) occurred over the last 12 years, with the 8 highest values within the period 1998 – 2010. -- emphasis added
94219. Tom Curtis at 11:12 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       doghza @26, 10 degrees climate sensitivity means about 11 degrees temperature increase by 2100, with another 4 in the pipeline on Business as Usual. With that high a climate sensitivity, I think the real risk we are facing is not massive economic disruption and human hardship following drought, but of a Venus style runaway greenhouse. Of course, I'm not the one saying there is a 5% chance climate sensitivity is that high, or higher.
94220. Tom Curtis at 11:03 AM on 1 March 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1 @190 &191, given that at many frequencies, the atmosphere has an optical thickness greater than 1 (ie, transmittance is 0 for less than the full thickness of the atmosphere) than much of the IR absorbed by that region of the atmosphere that actually radiates to space does not come from the surface, but only from lower regions of the atmosphere. So an increase of absorption by 3.7 w/m^2 may have absolutely no effect on transmittance, or the atmospheric window (as you have defined it). Further, as much of the heat in the atmosphere is carried there by evaporation or transpiration, there is not even a necessary correlation between surface radiation and the thermal radiation of the lower levels of the atmosphere. Certainly that correlation is broken over antarctica in the winter, and may be broken at other places periodically as well. That is why Line By Line models use temperature profiles in developing their predictions, either a simple lapse rate (as in Modtran) or measured (or modelled) values in more sophisticated programs. Worse for your interpretation, a decrease in transmittance will automatically mean that a higher proportion of radiation from lower in the atmosphere is absorbed higher in the atmosphere, even with opticat thicknesss less than 1, but greater than 0. Because the higher gas is cooler (in the troposphere) it will radiate less energy, thus reducing the total IR radiation leaving the planet. That means a change in transmittance has more effect than simply reducing surface radiation to space. The only way to properly calculate its effect is, as the LBL models do, calulate its effect on each layer of a large number of layers of the atmosphere (in modtran's case, 33). The LBL models take account of radiation flows in both directions. That is, for each layer, they determine its emission at each individual wavenumber (or wavenumber couplet for modtran), based on its temperature. They then apply that radiation as both upward and downwelling radiation. For each layer, they also take the total incoming radiation (upward and downward), multiply by the transmittance for that layer, and apply the result as upwelling or down welling radiation from that layer as appropriate. Here is a diagram illustrating the process from Science of Doom: Although this only indicates transmittance in one direction, be assured it is calculated in both. In the thread from which this comes SoD is developing a simple radiation model, and you can see in the code that he makes the calculations first for upwelling, and then for downwelling radiation. (By the way, this illustration also appears in SoD's thread on theory and experiment in atmospheric radiation, from which I got the diagrams which showed the close correlation between the model predictions and observations. That thread has already been linked here. So your claim that all you have received is statements, not evidence, is nonsense.) Because the transfers in radiation are calculated for each wavenumber, and for each level independently, there is no single calculation that corresponds to what you are seeking, ie, a level in which all incoming radiation is from the surface, and all upwelling radiation goes to space. But that does not mean that both the upwelling and downwelling emittance from each level is ignored, or that the absorption at any level is ignored which is what is required for George White's adjustment to make any sense. Of course, in the LBL models, the total upwelling radiation of the highest level (emitted and transmitted) is just the Outgoing Long-wave Radiation. And the difference between that for 375 ppm and for 750 ppm is the increase of the greenhouse effect for doubling of CO2. So, if you want to verify Modtran, and all the other LBL models programed by different teams around the world, and all the energy balance models also programed by different teams around the world, which all come up with essentially the same result; which just happens to match observations almost exactly, you either need to accept the observational match as confirming the models, or you need to go through the models line by line. There is no other short cut.
94221. adelady at 10:58 AM on 1 March 2011
       Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
       Flatlining? Even it it were flat, there's still the main issue. I suppose I can say I'm standing on a flat surface on each step of a staircase. However, even the most naive acknowledge that it makes a difference whether that "flat" surface is ankle-height above the surrounding level or head and shoulders above that level. We're into head and shoulders territory now regardless of the flatness of the terrain.
94222. adelady at 10:48 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       I spend a fair time on education discussions. It just occurred to me that Curry looks an awful lot like those naive teachers and administrators who go into those out of control classrooms or schools. They have the apparently laudable objective of getting "on-side" with the trouble-makers who won't learn anything themselves and spend all their efforts on disrupting the learning of others. And where does this get these misguided teachers? The troublemakers learn that bad behaviour gets not only no penalty, but real benefits. So more students behave more badly because they see no point in hard work or good behaviour - and they too get kind words and a fizzy drink as consequence of deliberately disruptive behaviour. Sound familiar to anyone else?
94223. Rob Honeycutt at 10:36 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       rustneversleeps @ 32... I get the distinct sense that she was firing from the hip with that statement. I don't think it's based on anything other than she wants to play both sides somehow. She wants to appease the denier crowd by saying climate sensitivity could be in the range of zero (which seems insane being that we don't have a perfectly stable climate over long periods), and she wants to appease the pro-AGW crowd to suggest that sensitivity could be a terrifying 10C. If she's building a bridge here it's not made with anything of substance as far as I can see.
94224. Rob Honeycutt at 10:16 AM on 1 March 2011
       Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
       BP... I read through it and I see exactly why it was deleted. Go to the comments policy statement: "No politics. Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments will be deleted." You just took it a little too far and started turning it into a political statement. We've all had comments deleted for going a little too far over the line.
94225. Tom Curtis at 10:11 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Shoyemore @9, this is in fact a prisoner's dilemma, which is what makes it so difficult policy wise. The trick for effective policy is to turn it into a reiterative prisoners dilemma. In a reiterative prisoners dilemma, participants can choose a policy, and observe how the policy chosen by others. Because there are multiple rounds, it becomes possible to adjust your policy based on the behaviour of others. Analysis in games theory shows it is very hard to beat a tit-for-tat strategy in a reiterative prisoners dilemma. In that strategy, you choose the "nice" option first, and then respond to other players by doing whatever they did in their last move. In this case, by targeting small steps in reducing green house emissions, you make each successive reduction a new game in the prisoner's dilemma, thus making it a reiterative prisoner's dilemma. Following tit-for-tat, you then reduce emissions in the first round. If others do not reduce, you then do not reduce in later rounds. If others reduce, you continue with further reductions. Importantly, the reverse strategy of "defecting" in the first round, and then repeating what your opponents do does poorly in reiterative prisoners dilemmas. As it happens, that is the policy we have been following. We have defected on Kyoto, and defected again last year. There is more to this, which I'll probably elaborate when deniers start attacking this analysis ;) On a side note, I do not like the terms "tragedy of the commons". It was invented as a rhetorical device to aid a political push for an "enclosure" movement for the high seas. The true tragedy of the commons was, in fact, the enclosure movement in Britain whereby the common law rights of tenants to grazing land, or inheritable leases were repudiated by land lords in order to make large grazing areas for sheep. That tragedy, the deprivation of ill defined, but actual property rights of the poor, by the rich for commercial benefit continues to today in Israel, Indonesia and no doubt many other countries; and indeed was the basis of colonialism.
94226. RW1 at 10:03 AM on 1 March 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Are you claiming that the 3.7 W/m^2 of additional absorption from 2xCO2 does NOT represent a 3.7 W/m^2 reduction in transmittance? What I don't think you understand is that unless the specific wavelengths are saturated, some of the outgoing surface power still passes through them unabsorbed, and this amount is included in the transmittance. Increasing the concentration of CO2, for example, will reducing the amount that passes through at wavelengths NOT already saturated (i.e. widening the band or deepening the trough). The effect of more CO2 at saturated wavelengths will just reduce the height from the surface where 100% absorption occurs.
94227. Alexandre at 09:56 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       
94228. Alexandre at 09:56 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Shoyemore #10 Thanks for the link, I'll have a look. Global warming is arguably the worst-case scenario for common-pool dilemmas: no way to keep new users out of the resource, now central legal system to enforce rules, difficult to monitor, a huge amount of users (everyone in the world, basically), etc. Basically we need a rule that respects the carrying capacity of the resource, and a way to enforce it. Self-regulation usually works better then centralized ones, because they're closer to the reality of the resource, and users are more commited to it. In the AGW case, I think this can be translated as general goals (both global and each country), but different rules for countries and industries. For example, here in Brazil a tough anti-deforestation law with an adequate enforcement would yield much better results than carbon markets, for instance. But this would be innocuous in the US or Germany. Some industries would have good results with a fuel tax, others with efficiency standards (maybe self-regulated ones). International treaties will be necessary at some point, but it does not have to start there. I remember the EU made an offer to unilaterally comit itself to emission targets, and made a public statement that they would improve that target if other countries made similar commitments. That's a clever way to overcome such dilemmas. Industry standards, including tough import rules would favor exporting countries (like China) to improve their own standards - as suggested by Tom Friedman. It's really a huge subject, and I resent the fact that all this effort in responding to denialist crap prevents us to really embrace this much more important part of the debate.
94229. rustneversleeps at 09:53 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       Andy S @ 21: "It's a pity that we have to guess what she means." I don't think we have to guess at all. On the thread where she makes the assessment, first she responds to Zeke's statement of "likely" (>66%) climate sensitity by saying: I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further. Asked to clarify what she means, she says: That there is a 33% probability that that actual sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C. (My highlights.) She's not talking about whether the quality of the data allows you to make such-and-such a bounded estimate, or the accuracy of the measuring devices or anything like that. She is clearly saying that there is a 33% chance that the ACTUAL climate sensitivity is outside of the range of 1-6C, and a 10% that it is outside of 0-10C. I mention this only because an apologist tries to dodge this on the next thread, by talking about confidence intervals - which with enough convoluting you might be able to shy away from this. But that's NOT what Curry is saying. She is outright declaring that the PROBABILITY is that the actual sensitivities are outside those bounds. Now, yes, we don't know how she is assigning that probability to the low and high ends. But we're not guessing that this is exactly what she said. Whether she meant to say this is another matter... I suspect she'll walk back from this in some way, but if so I think we should again press for a clear articulation of what she means...
94230. dana1981 at 09:53 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       Rob #29 -

       "even if Mann and others had completely cooked the data, ultimately it wouldn't even matter. If they are wrong their work will disappear into obscurity."

       In fact we saw this was the case with the IPCC. Even if there are valid criticisms of the way the TAR handled the tree ring data, the IPCC was even more thorough and explicit about it in AR4. Of course, that didn't stop Curry from lumping both reports together in her extreme accusations, but it proves your point that flawed science gets supplanted. Same thing for the "hockey stick". It was a good first effort, but imperfect. Now millennial temp reconstructions all show a bit more natural variability over the past 2,000 years. The "skeptics" continue to obsess over the 11-year-old reconstruction, but it's been supplanted with even better scientific work. Including by Mann himself! I agree it's unfortunate that Curry seems to be mired over a decade in the past on a very minor issue. It's not worth wasting time over.
94231. Berényi Péter at 09:51 AM on 1 March 2011
       Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
       #10 Ken Lambert at 12:20 PM on 28 February, 2011 I read and copied (luckily) a long post from BP. It corrected Bern's numbers. It has been deleted without comment by moderators. It should be compulsory reading for all SKS contributors. John Cook et al; this is unwarranted censorship of a valuable contribution which will do harm to the credibility of this site. Yes, it will. The more so because I've tried to respond to the act of deletion and KR's comments on it, but that post was also deleted. Anyway, here is the original one for anyone to see. Just make sure you've passed the Age-Verification Test before proceeding, please.
94232. dana1981 at 09:43 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Phil #7 - it costs either country $3 to take action, plus the $4 cost from the damages of climate change if only one country took action. Thus if only USA takes action, it loses $3 and $4 (hence $3 remaining), while Australia only loses $4 (hence $6 remaining). That's why it's seemingly in each country's best interest not to reduce emissions. Shoyemore #9 - yes, those are also good analogies. Same concept.
94233. mspelto at 09:43 AM on 1 March 2011
       Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
       We just experienced the warmest decade in terms of global temperature, the largest ice loss from Greenland since observations began in the 1950's, and the largest decade of glacier mass balance loss, no flat lines in sight.
94234. mdenison at 09:40 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Dana, I think you have over estimated Australia's emissions when an 80% cut is implemented. At present CO2 increases by about 2ppm/year. An 80% cut would reduce this to 0.4 ppm/yr. That is approximately a total of another 50ppm by 2050 assuming a linear decrease in emissions. Of this Australia accounts for 1.5% or 0.75ppm. This is a reduction of 1.65 ppm not 1 ppm.
94235. RW1 at 09:37 AM on 1 March 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Tom, When I use the term "atmospheric window" I mean the total transmittance - the specific amount of emitted surface power that passes through the atmosphere unabsorbed and goes straight out to space. If that is not the technical definition, then I stand corrected, but that's what I mean when I use the term.
94236. protestant at 09:33 AM on 1 March 2011
       Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
       So one is not allowed to say global temperatures are flatlining after over 10 years of flatlining. But when 8 years of greenland ice mass data shows decreasing, you instantly declare "it's accelerating". You do not have the context for that, so you do not know whether it is accelerating (or even melting long term) at all. That is absolutely too short period of time. Where's the coherence on what can you say on what intervals, and what you can't? And shortly calculated, if we pick like 170Gt/a, it makes 0,006% a year, the Greenland is ice free in only 15 000 years. I think that's a rather good reason to sound the alarm. And BTW, Greenland temps are just as high as they were in the mid 1900's during the last peak of AMO. Nothing unprecedented on the temps of Greenland either.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] "So one is not allowed to say global temperatures are flatlining after over 10 years of flatlining." You can say it all you want, doesn't make it true: GISS, no exogenous factors
94237. shoyemore at 09:27 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Alexandre #3, Good interview here. Interview with Elinor Ostrom She takes a more benign view of "the commons" than Garrett Hardin. "If you are in a fishery or have a pasture and you know your family’s long-term benefit is that you don’t destroy it, and if you can talk with the other people who use that resource, then you may well figure out rules that fit that local setting and organize to enforce them. But if the community doesn’t have a good way of communicating with each other or the costs of self-organization are too high, then they won’t organize, and there will be failures." What happens when the "the community" is the whole world?
94238. Marcus at 09:25 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       @ Tom Curtis #20. I heartily agree. Remember that the people who hacked the CRU computers got their hands on *all* the raw temperature data that East Anglia University had at their disposal, which means so did the Climate Change Deniers whose websites hosted the hacked material. Yet more than a year after "Climate-gate", have they chosen to publish their own versions of the climate data? No. Probably because, after painstaking analysis, they were left with the fact that the data was completely accurate-not that they would tell the public that. Instead they chose to release a bunch of e-mails-out of context-to paint the CRU guys in the worst light possible.
94239. RickG at 09:20 AM on 1 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       #418, Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. Trying to dance around words does not help your argument. Here's my point. We agree that all bodies emit and absorb radiation. If a source of a specific temperature emits radiation, what is there to prevent another source of higher temperature to absorb that radiation?
94240. shoyemore at 09:20 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Isn't this the classic Prisoner's Dilemma in another form? Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act? The position of co-operation and defection is equivalent to the reduce or not reduce position. I have heard it also posed as the co-operation go two retreating soldiers under fire, where one must provide covering fire while the other runs. If they co-operate, their survival chances are maximum, but for an individual the selfish solution is to keep running and let his partner engage the enemy. Matt Ridley, who has turned into a climate change denier, has a good book on the Prisoner's Dilemma called The Origin of Virtue.
94241. KR at 09:16 AM on 1 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - The vast majority of solar energy (shortwave) passes right through the atmosphere and warms the Earth. As Dikran Marsupial and I have both said, 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. The atmosphere is basically transparent to SW radiation, emitted by the sun based on it's temperature. The IR radiation emitted by the Earth, on the other hand, is almost completely blocked by the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not block sunlight from the surface, and for the purpose of discussion the sunlight could be coming from underground to warm the surface. To take it back to the analogy - the heater wires could run though the piece of wood, but they don't interact with it. Energy flows from Sun/surface/atmosphere/space, in that order.
94242. rustneversleeps at 09:11 AM on 1 March 2011
       Visualizing a History of CO2
       Nicely done! And, oh, what the heck... Here is another creative use of Mind Heist/Inception as the score to a video. :-p
94243. damorbel at 09:09 AM on 1 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #416 KR you wrote:- "And the atmosphere is a radiative insulator between the Earth and space." Yes KR that is true. 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. If the Earth was itself a heat source then putting a (partially) reflecting layer round it would, like for a living body, keep the heat in and the temperature would rise. But the same (partially) reflecting layer would keep some of the Sun's radiation out. The temperature of the Earth is thus not changed by the albedo, just the rate of heating and cooling.
94244. Rob Honeycutt at 09:05 AM on 1 March 2011
       Preference for Mild Curry
       Sphaerica.... I have to say, I think you are exactly right. I get the sense that Curry is just not quite clear on what she's gotten herself into. It's a little like she's gone into the den of the lion saying, "Aw, you just have to make friends with the poor beast." Her whole current series of posts on "Hide the decline" is a perfect example. Given the broad spectrum of research on climate change, I can't think of a more NON-issue than that. I also can't think of one other issue that climate deniers more quickly glob onto (execpt maybe Al Gore). But there she spent the better part of a week hashing that out on her blog to the chorus of a couple thousand comments. You'll have to pardon my non-scientist perspective here but Peter Hadfield has a really great, simple video titled The Scientific Method Made Easy where he points out that, it doesn't matter if someone gets it wrong, bad science will always be supplanted by better science. (I realize that's probably overly idealized, but for the sake of argument...) So, even if Mann and others had completely cooked the data, ultimately it wouldn't even matter. If they are wrong their work will disappear into obscurity. And it's not like this is the cornerstone of the entire TAR and AR4. It's one piece of information out of thousands upon thousands. So, here Curry is hammering away on how "she" was deceived blah, blah, blah. I just want to tell her to get over it. Either publish a real response to the work or do some better science of your own. The only thing she accomplishes building this "bridge" to the deniers is to fuel the fire they've built and isolate herself from the scientific community. As far as I can see, she's done nothing at all to improve the situation, in fact I think she's made it worse. And I think you're right, a decade or so down the road she is going to very much regret having made the decisions she has.
94245. adelady at 09:02 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       Michael, we're not as big as Spain but SA produces 15% of its current power supply from wind. It would be more if we hadn't had to abandon a really big wind project because of grid deficiencies in that area. I see no reason why other states couldn't do the same. We have abundant coal and gas supplies so we're not using wind because we lack other resources. We've just made a better choice.
94246. Phil at 08:57 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       There is something odd about the chart, but I don't agree with paulgrace @5. The chart details funds remaining. So the on-diagonals (the Yes/Yes and No/No) look correct. What doesn't look right is that countries that unilaterally do reduce emissions cost them $7 (the blue 3 in the top row and red 3 in the bottom). The preceding text suggests it should cost them $4 or possibly $3.
94247. damorbel at 08:53 AM on 1 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #413 you wrote:- "1) Does an object have to be at a specific temperature in order to emit energy?" I am not being pedantic here! Objects do not emit energy, they emit radiation. The radiation they emit depends on the temperature of the body. Energy may or may not be transferred to other bodies even deep space; dependent on their temperature; energy may be transferred to the body in the paragraph above, again dependent on the temperature of bodies in range (deep space included) it all depends on relative temperature. You wrote:- "2)Is an object receiving energy selective to receiving energy only from objects warmer than them?" Does the first answer work here also? To sumarise: all bodies above 0K emit radiation; all bodies absorb radiation regardless of temperature; energy transfer takes place in the direction high temperature to low temperature - always!
94248. dana1981 at 08:52 AM on 1 March 2011
       Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
       The chart is correct.
94249. Daniel Bailey at 08:51 AM on 1 March 2011
       Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
       As discussed here, Greenland’s glaciers double in speed: The Yooper
94250. KR at 08:37 AM on 1 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - The sun is directly analogous to the 1KW heater - as I posted here the solar spectra passes through the atmosphere to the Earth, affected primarily by Raleigh scattering (not GHG's), and warms the surface. The analogy is completely correct, the energy flow is from the Sun to the surface and out to space through the atmosphere. A small amount of sunlight heats the atmosphere directly (your block heater touches part of the piece of wood in the analogy); that changes only in detail, not in essentials. And the atmosphere is a radiative insulator between the Earth and space. The surface of the Earth has an emissivity of ~.97 to .98 in IR, while the effective emissivity of the Earth and atmosphere to space is ~0.612; the insulation. And that insulation makes the planet warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gas atmosphere.

Prev  1877  1878  1879  1880  1881  1882  1883  1884  1885  1886  1887  1888  1889  1890  1891  1892  Next