Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 Next
Comments 94301 to 94350:
-
pbjamm at 02:25 AM on 1 March 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@773 What evidence do you have to support your assertion that it is C and not A? For this to be a non-conspiracy then you need to provide more to back up your claim than vague accusations of impropriety by faceless government officials.Moderator Response: [DB] I appreciate your tenacity on this thread, but let's please try & steer the conversation away from the dangerous waters of conspiracy & impropriety, where many dangers lurk to menace comment safety. Thanks! -
KR at 01:39 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - My post on basic energy exchanges just demonstrated the principle of energy conservation, which your interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics breaks. The more detailed discussion here simply extends that to the sun/Earth/atmosphere/space case. Gas compression is a red herring; irrelevant to the discussion. Temperatures and energy flows are deeply interrelated - more energy flows out of an object (or gas, or liquid) when it is warmer, less when it's cooler. Climate temperatures are the response and feedback to the total energy flows - net flows (summing all directions) as well as individual flows, such as the sun and atmosphere warming the surface. --- I did a bit of research, damorbel, and you have been pushing these incorrect ideas on the 2nd law of thermodynamics for at least 3 years. Given the number of people who have pointed out your errors without your understanding, I suspect you won't get the idea this time either. I would love to be proven incorrect - but educating you on this topic appears to be a Sisyphean task. -
Tom Curtis at 01:26 AM on 1 March 2011CO2 was higher in the past
alecpiper @29 Easterbrook treats a local temperature record as if it were a global temperature record, which is obviously a fallacious method. What is more, he treats the last data point in the ice core record as though it were very recent, whereas it is in fact 1855. Comparison with modern Greenland temperatures show that for most of the ice core record, temperatures have been below modern temperatures (and may have been below for all of it). Further discussion on this point should be taken here where they are already discussed in detail. -
damorbel at 01:24 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #398 KR in #392 you wrote:- "The purpose of my example is to demonstrate that a cool object can add energy to a warmer object, making it warmer still." It seems from your #398, where you wrote :- "The surface and atmosphere are in dynamic equilibrium, as described by..." that you didn't really mean an 'cool object' but a gassy atmosphere. You really should be more clear because thermally speaking 'objects' and gas are very different. The really serious difference is that gases are compressible and their temperature changes when compressed. Also the Earth's gravity compresses the atmosphere while holding it on the planet. Trenberth doesn't consider this at all; none of his diagrams have any mention of temperature, it really is not at all easy to understand his explanations, perhaps you can help. -
Ari Jokimäki at 01:13 AM on 1 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
There's also Lin et al. (2010) who address Spencer & Braswell papers. -
JMurphy at 01:13 AM on 1 March 2011CO2 was higher in the past
alecpiper, what is it about "Dr Easterbrook" that makes you believe him above all others ? -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:03 AM on 1 March 2011CO2 was higher in the past
alecpiper: Dr Easterbrook concludes: "If CO2 is indeed the cause of global warming, then global temperatures should mirror the rise in CO2" No, that would only be true if CO2 were the only thing that affects global temperatures. Nobody would claim that is the case. "In 1945, CO2 emission began to rise sharply and by 1980 atmospheric CO2. had risen to just under 340 ppm. During this time, however, global temperatures fell about 0.9°F (0.5° C) in the Northern Hemisphere and about 0.4°F (0.2° C) globally." Sulphate aerosols (which have a cooling effect) also rose in the 1940s, but began to be phased out from the early 70s. Dr Easterbrook is just demonstrating his ignorance of the work that has been done on attribution of climate change in the 20th century. It isn't hard to find, there is a whole chapter on it in the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report. Being skeptical is fine, but you do need to know what it is you are skeptical about. These two errors ought to be enough to make anyone skeptical of Dr Easterbrooks article, I suspect there are others. -
alecpiper at 00:53 AM on 1 March 2011CO2 was higher in the past
Dr Easterbrook recently uses GISP2 data to show that over the past 25,000 years there have been more extreme fluctuations in temperature than that of the past 200 years. These changes are clearly not AGW. He also shows that there is no relationship to CO2 levels and that over the past 100 years CO2 have shown periods of inverse relationship. Easterbrook GISP2 -
mspelto at 00:35 AM on 1 March 2011Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
The Zwally et al (2011) paper is excellent. Figure 8 in particular indicates that it is dynamic thinning that dominates the increase in volume loss. Also note figure 14 indicating the amount of loss around Jakobshavn from dynamic thinning versus melting in the areas beyond the ice stream margin. This is not to say melting has not increased and does lead to mass loss, note the Mittivakkat Glacier, just that is not as significant to date. -
Mighty Drunken at 00:20 AM on 1 March 2011Prudent Risk
@RSVP #10 "If on the otherhand a positive effect is very obvious, it is more than likely only a local benefit, whereas on a global scale, someone or some species is suffering in some way. And since it is impossible to predict all outcomes (in a global sense) until this is possible, "being cautious" is about all you can justify." -
KR at 00:12 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
scaddenp - Actually, the response I expected to my post was a combination of over-interpretation, nit-picking, and red herrings, while ignoring the actual point. If only I was as accurate with the lottery... -
Tom Curtis at 00:12 AM on 1 March 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
HR @128, I do mean the Medieval Warm Period. During the Medieval Warm Period, there was an exceptionally low number of volcanoes, particularly at the beginning. Because of the reduced aerosol load that follows, there is significant warming (at least in Husserl's models). A similar, though not as extensive, lack of vulcanism occurred in the early twentieth century, and may partly explain the very warm temperatures in the 1930s and 40s. Volcanoes are short lived, but their aerosols can remain aloft in significant quantities for several years. As a result, if several volcanoes occur in a decade, it can significantly lower temperatures for that decade. Given that a single large voclanoe can depress temperatures by up to 0.5 degrees for three years or more, even one large event can drag down the average. In that context, consider the sulfate load in a greenland ice core during the Dalton Minimum:
As you can see, there were two very large volcanoes in that periods, and a continuous sulfate load in the atmosphere. The 1815 volcano (Tambora) is estimated to have generated 14 w/m^2 forcing. Assuming scaling is linear, the background sulfate level would have generated a forcing around -0.5 to -1 w/m^2, or enough for around a 0.5 degree equilibrium decrease in global temperatures after feedbacks. Half a century without volcanoes would remove that negative forcing, and could result (accordingly) in an increase in global meant temperature of up to 0.5 degrees, ie, the equivalent of the MWP.
-
KR at 00:00 AM on 1 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - The purpose of my example is to demonstrate that a cool object can add energy to a warmer object, making it warmer still. The surface and atmosphere are in dynamic equilibrium, as described by the Trenberth 2009 energy budgets; the surface receives sunlight and back radiation (input), emits IR, convection, and latent heat, flow and sum flow of energy going sun->surface->atmosphere/space. The atmosphere receives sunlight, various inputs from the surface, and radiates that energy away, flows going sun/earth->atmosphere->earth/space, sum flow sun/earth->atmosphere->space with the energy flow to the surface considerably less than the energy flow from the surface to the atmosphere (thus satisfying the 2nd law of thermodynamics), while still adding some energy to the surface - and hence raising it's temperature to a higher level than it would have without the GHG containing atmosphere. Of course, we've covered this ever so repeatedly before... -
Tom Curtis at 23:32 PM on 28 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
ranyl, the blue crosses mark the 1850-1859 average and the 2000-2009 average at the GRIP site. These temperatures are taken from Box et al 2009. Because it is an average, it does not rise as high as the exceptionally warm 2009 temperature, but the GISP2 ice core, of necessity from how the ice is formed, also represents a multi year average, so we should compare it with multi-year averages rather than single years. Gareth Renowden has confirmed with Box by personal communication that the GRIP site is typically warmer than the GISP2 site, by about 0.9 degrees C. On that basis, you could argue that the modern GISP2 temperature would be about -29 degrees C. However, Renowden took the difference between the 1850's temperature and the 2000's temperature at GRIP and added it to the end of the GISP2 record, with that postion being marked by the grey line. I think that is a better procedure. It would probably be better still to say that the modern decadal average is between 1 and 2 degrees warmer than the end point of the GISP2 ice core. And to correct an error I made, Box et al reconstruct their temperature from local surface station records rather than an ice core. Regarding the Western Pacific data, it shows 250 year averages (see Adeladys'comment @18), so comparison with individual years or even decadal averages is misleading. Modern temperatures are significantly above the last indicated point, but included in a 250 year average, would not significantly move the end point. While there have been no warmer centuries than the current decade, there may have been warmer decades that have been smoothed out by the average, for all we know. That mere possibility is not evidence for BP's position, but we should not neglect it. -
Kevin C at 23:28 PM on 28 February 2011Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
New article adds the contribution from volcanic lakes Including this contribution, total volcanic CO2 emissions could be as high as 420Mt/y, or closer to 2% of human emissions if we use the 23Gt figure from the Skeptic's guide. Still negligable, but worth noting. -
damorbel at 22:55 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #396 les you wrote:- "Looks like SoD has some suggestions for people confused on this issue," Would you like to reccommend some passage? -
Ken Lambert at 22:39 PM on 28 February 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
Bern #5 I have a better example Bern. Think of all Australia's current electricity generation capacity as 100 units - about 83 of which comes from coal, 6 from hydro and the balance from hydrocarbon gas, diesel and 'renewables'. China alone will build the equal of 100 units of coal fired generators each year for the next 10 years - that is 1000 units. China will also build vast nuclear and other energy generation sources including renewables (mainly for export to advanced economies). The Chinese already have coal fired capacity 14 times Oz's total generating capacity so in fact by 2020 China will have 24 x 100 = 2400 units of carbon emissions compared with our current 83. Our great leaders have a target of reducing all carbon emissions across the board by roughly 5% by 2020. I can't recall if that is 1990 or 2010 emission levels - but it makes little difference compared with China and the rest of the planet. Electricity generation is about 40% of total carbon emissions. So roughly 2% of the 5% must come from de- carbonizing (shutting down) coal fired power stations. That is 2 out of little Oz's 83 units of coal fired generator capacity. Net result in 2020; 81 units of carbon emitted from our coal fired generators. To do this PM Gillard has just sprung a carbon tax, and prior to that, ex-PM Rudd had an ETS, a great moral challenge, a great abandoning of his ETS and a great fall, resulting in political decapitation by his own Party. Meanwhile back at the ranch (mainly in Qld and NSW), vast amounts of coal are being dug up and exported to China and elsewhere. In fact Oz's main exports are steaming, coking coal and iron ore. All that carbon gets turned into CO2 by the Chinese (and Koreans, Japanese, Indians and other economies). Crucially, our Federal and several State budgets heavily rely on this 'resources' boom for revenue (taxes and royalties) and dare we say - balance. So in the next 10 years, Australia will put itself through a 'carbon tax' to save effectively 2 units of carbon, while the Chinese alone will add 1000 units of carbon to the atmosphere, in addition to the 1400 units it emits today - a large portion of which will come from Australian coal mines. By doing this we will save the Barrier Reef and damaging climate change all over our fair land, and launch ourselves into the new 'renewables' economy and lots of 'green' jobs. Although we love home grown products, our 81 units of C in our CO2 don't know they are Australian. Off they go and mix shamelessly with those 2400 units of C in all that Chinese CO2 and spread all over the planet. Looks more like Chinese CO2 will ruin the Great Barrier Reef, derived from lots of Oz coal which finances Oz prosperity. 2400 is a bit bigger number than 81? I am sure a clever lady like Prof Penny Sackett can do the sums just like me, however, my feeble brain just can't work out the bit about: "If we can change, then surely anyone in the developed world can change, and then we become leaders." Prof Sackett - how do we leverage our current 83 units of carbon emissions and 2 units of reduction via the Gillard Carbon Tax to stop the Chinese *alone* from emitting 2400 units in the next 10 years? Do we shut down all our coal mines? Shut all our coal fired power? Freeze to death in the dark? Or, having no nuclear technology or industry due to labor and green politics - do we instantly go nuclear? Please explain?? -
Kevin C at 22:33 PM on 28 February 2011Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Interesting new paper in Climate Change by Koch and Clague. Abstract: The Medieval Warm Period is an interval of purportedly warm climate during the early part of the past millennium. The duration, areal extent, and even existence of the Medieval Warm Period have been debated; in some areas the climate of this interval appears to have been affected more by changes in precipitation than in temperature. Here, we provide new evidence showing that several glaciers in western North America advanced during Medieval time and that some glaciers achieved extents similar to those at the peak of the Little Ice Age, many hundred years later. The advances cannot be reconciled with a climate similar to that of the twentieth century, which has been argued to be an analog, and likely were the result of increased winter precipitation due to prolonged La Niña-like conditions that, in turn, may be linked to elevated solar activity. Changes in solar output may initiate a response in the tropical Pacific that directly impacts the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and associated North Pacific teleconnections. -
Paul W at 22:32 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
@MarkR I had to laugh at your post! Very funny. You have picked the only two points out of hundreds that could be miss understood if you ignore all the other results and obsess on just those two data points. I guess that is what it takes to be contrary when the data is presented so clearly. I do think you should write it up for WUWT. It belongs their and matches what that site is on about. What is so good about the graph in this video form is that it shows the natural seasonal cycle of the earth with the great line of intake at about 85N of CO2 and release of CO2 as the line of trees that stretch right around the world just south of the tundra lose and then regrow their leaves each autumn and spring. The CO2 signal from this regular event is unmistakeable that is unless you have a bent for obfuscation. We may end up having to use this kind of process of natural seasonal uptake of CO2 and then by a massive effort char as much as we possibly can of the waste leaves to draw down the CO2 if the contrary ones succeed in delaying effective CO2 reduction action and we over shoot what CO2 levels our planet can handle. The garden and domestic waste could be charred to similar effect. Of course coal would need to be completely stopped to make it worth while. Well done by the way for spotting the over lap. Even after 10 years of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels it matches just one seasonal fluctuation in the natural cycle at 85N. The graph very clearly shows we are at the very top of CO2 levels in the last 600,000 years. Human appearing ancestors only appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Full behavioural modernity only appeared 50,000 years ago. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:31 PM on 28 February 2011Prudent Risk
RSVP@18 No, for the species to adapt, the individuals need to survive long enough to find the right combination of genes that allow them to flourish in the new environment. If they are all dead because the environment changes faster than they have time to shuffle their genes then they cannot adapt. They don't need "millions and millions" of years, but they do need more than a handful of generations. The reason insecticides and antibiotics loose effectivenes comparatively quickly is becuase the time between generations is measured in days (which is why drosophola melanogaster is used for experiments in genetics) for insects and seconds/minutes for bacteria. -
RSVP at 22:09 PM on 28 February 2011Prudent Risk
muoncounter #17 "So we are doing calcite bearing creatures a favor by setting in motion the chemistry that dissolves their shells?" According to Darwin, those within the species with the right genes to adapt would survive. By the same token, its the creationist that should be more concerned, and yet, its the liberal scientist that seems to have very little faith in nature's plasticity, and the argument is that it requires "millions and millions" of years. And would these genes not already be there since the CO2 levels were higher at some point? Or, why do insecticides and antibotics loose their potency? Apparently every flu season, there is a need to innoculate people given that viruses are mutating continuously. -
JMurphy at 21:55 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
QuestofApollo wrote : "I realize I’m being cynical, and if I’m wrong, my sincerest apologizes to Mr. Gore (no sarcasm). So, I don’t believe he would ever have invested in oil and your question is therefore too hypothetical to answer." Not wanting to get into a pointless discussion about Al Gore, but I sometimes wonder what the man has to do to, to stop so-called skeptics from constantly sniping at him : hide his money under his mattress ? Previously he was criticised for holding family stocks and shares in oil and a zinc mine, but now that he is investing in green technology (i.e. putting his money where his mouth is, as he put it) he is criticised again ! I know the so-called skeptics can't stand him and will criticise him come-what-may, but if you didn't laugh at this stuff you'd have to cry at the desperation of the tactics. -
les at 21:50 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Looks like SoD has some suggestions for people confused on this issue, and who want to get a proper grasp of the maths... Find Stuff Out and Book Reviews -
ranyl at 21:42 PM on 28 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
http://www.brightstarstemeculavalley.org/science/climate.html BP, Using this site linked by Albatross, the 10000yr change in insolation at the tropics has indeed risen at 30S south but fallen at the equator and at 30N. However at 65N which is the important one for determining Greenland summer temperatures fallen from 506w/m2 to 462w/m2. It is the far North temperatures which are the the apparent initial driver of ice age glaciation fluctuations from maximum to minimums since CO2 dropped below ~300ppm, so the earth should be cooling in the far North as all the reconstructions posted seem to indicate and as such due to natural feedbacks so should the whole globe as it did in glacials. Also note that average insolation for the earth hasn't changed at all in the last 10000yr but is slowly on the increase over millions of years (the faint sun paradox), people forget this when they peer into the past and it does mean as 55Myr (say) was alot hotter than today that other factors (GHG) must have been heating the earth proportional more then than now. Tom 22 and 14, just clarification on graph 14, if current Greenland top of icesheet temperature measurements are graphed they would be at the blue cross (in keeping with the graph shown in 10), 1950's would be the grey line? And in West Pacific graph posted from Stott 2004, the 0 or now point is actually 1950 and the real now 2010 or even 1990-2010 average is ~1-2C higher than 1950's and as such to actual present the graph should show a sudden steep rise to above 30C. Therefore these two isolated temperature records actual show that on top of the Greenland Ice sheet present temperatures are about 1C warmer than the last 8500yrs and in the Western Pacific for the last 15000yrs, this is keeping with Hansen's most recent estimates that the earth is probably already hotter than the last thermal maximum already. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf WHat was th eworld like in the pliocene cos that was the last CO2 concentration were as now, although as the sun is very very slightly more powerful now than then I suppose the earth might heat a little more eventually than the pliocene, of course put CO2 concentrations up 500 or more and well who knows!? -
damorbel at 21:39 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #392 KR you wrote:- "Now we introduce an object cooler than the Earth (at some temperature above absolute zero) that radiates 'B' to the Earth. It doesn't matter what power level 'B' is - other than it is > 0." How does this 'object' get introduced? The troposphere is only 10 - 15 km thick and in close contact with a surface of 510,072,000 km2 which means they are closely coupled thermally and will quickly come into thermal equilibrium. Any object that is relatively cold will quickly be warmed up to a temperature related to the Earth's surface. Let us suppose the cold object was at 0K (you say it isn't but it could be) such an object would be producing no thermal radiation so it would have no effect on the surface temperature but it would still be warmed from the surface. Do you see a point where this cold object, as its temperature rises, it would begin to warm the surface by radiation? -
MarkR at 21:07 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
CO2 didn't rise between 1980 and 1990! If you look at the CO2 amount in February 1980 and June 1980 at about 85N you clearly see a fall, yet your graph on the left hides the decline! I should write this up for WUWT. -
damorbel at 20:51 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #393 scaddenp you wrote:- "If you do an experiment and it results can be explained by the real 2nd law of thermodynamics but not by you imaginary version" I am most interested in what you write but two lines is just a bit too little to give me a proper grasp of your point. I would very much like to hear how you see 'the real 2nd law of thermodynamics' and how it differs from my 'imaginary version'. Make this clear and I'll happily agree with you. -
jyyh at 20:30 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
The obligatory link to a previous post by Riccardo showing the normal zone of correlation between CO2 and temperature proxy/instrumental record vs. the current values. (CO2 doesn't always lag temperature) -
Carol_S at 20:12 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Brilliant! -
shoyemore at 20:01 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
@Stephen #15, Muller, Curry & co. set out to "make peace" and start by accusing the majority party of dishonesty and malfeasance! I don't think any Peace Prizes will be handed out for their activities -
scaddenp at 19:27 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NQA - fair enough. You could be completely right about Gore. I am not an American and from my perspective, his championing of AGW seems damaging since it seems to have instantly turned other side of political fence into an antagonist stance. It's a quandary though. Politicians divide and yet you need political solutions. Please dont confuse scientists with Green Peace -t hey get on my goat. JohnD. Perhaps a fair point. Not so much survive but be able to devote time to interesting problems. I hate working on boring ones and there is no end of those. Phil -
Tom Curtis at 18:45 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
actually thoughtfull @18, I was recently looking at the TAR graph in which, according to McIntyre, Mann as lead author placed the Briffa plot underneath the others to hide the end point. That is in fact false, but the difference on the GIF version is just two pixels, and is not visible to the naked eye even at 3 or 4 times magnification. On that difference, McIntyre wants to assassinate Mann's reputation. -
Rob Painting at 18:44 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Very cool Rob!. -
Tom Curtis at 18:40 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NQuestofApollo @125, while conceding it would make sense to deduct expenses from the oil industry revenues for the comparison, you ought also then deduct expenses from the other side of the equation as well. Doing so, it still looks paltry compared, for example to Exxon's profits of $7.6 Billion for just one quarter. As to Daniel's statement, I don't know that it is true. But it is certainly true that a comfortable and easy living is available to any scientist willing to stay on message in the anti AGW speaking tour. Much easier than actual research. I don't know that financial incentives are important to either side, however. I think people try to make a living doing what they believe in. On the other hand, there are several people who gain a lot of attention for their message because what they happen to believe in coincides with what the Oil industry wants to be heard. In contrast, and especially in the US, speaking out in support of the science has alienated politicians of all stripes, and the major sources of campaign funding. Simple pragmatism has always favoured staying quiet on AGW, or opposing it. -
John Brookes at 18:39 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Beautiful! -
Tom Curtis at 18:20 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 @185, sorry, I don't recognize the quote. Could you please cite the source and link to it if on the web. If not on the web, could you please embed the quote in a wider context. -
NQuestofApollo at 18:20 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Moderator - sincerest thanks for allowing the discussion to continue.Moderator Response: [DB] While I'm skeptical that the direction of this comment stream will bear fruitful results, you have made a commitment to adhere to the Comment Policy (my many thanks on that!) and others have shown a willingness to engage you. As such, no one wishes to stifle discussion and ongoing dialogue between interested parties. -
johnd at 18:19 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
scaddenp at 17:30 PM, for as long as I can remember, there seems to have been a constant point made by various contributors about scientists salaries being relatively modest. So much so that one could be excused for considering that perhaps it is not the desire to get rich that directs them, but perhaps understandably the desire to survive. -
Tom Curtis at 18:19 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 @184, evidently you do not know all this. You may think you do, but that is another question entirely. Consider the "atmospheric window". An "atmospheric window" is any part of the spectrum where transmittance is sufficiently high that you can place a telescope on a mountain, and observe the stars effectively at that frequency. Alternatively, it is a part of the spectrum where the transmittance is sufficiently high that you can use it as a channel for communication to space. If you want to see the atmospheric window in the IR spectrum, you should look at the back radiation at the surface:
Clearly, if you looked up at 680 cm^-1 wave number, all you would see is the thermal radiation of the atmosphere. You would not even be able to see the sun in that portion of the spectrum, from the surface. In contrast, the intervals between 810 and 950 probably have sufficiently high transmittance to be useful for telescopes (and sidewinders). That is a atmospheric window. There is another, smaller one on the other side of the O3 trough.
With that in mind, closing the window means reducing the IR radiation from the surface that escapes to space, particularly in those parts of the spectrum; and it is a minor effect. Deepening of the CO2 emission band means that in that part of the spectrum outside of the atmospheric window, the amount of IR from the atmosphere itself is reduced because it comes from a higher altitude and hence has a colder temperature.
These effects are not strictly independent. For example, at the right edge of the CO2 trough, there are transmittances that rise from around 0.2 to 0.8 over a 60 wave number interval. Over this interval, both trough deepening,and narrowing of the atmospheric window occur with rising CO2. On the equivalent left side, however, transmittances peak around 0.2 because of the overlapping effects of H2O. The trough deepening, however, contributes almost as much to the reduced OLR as does the equivalent on the other side.
Speaking of which, on the graph shown, total area under the line equals the total power (watt's per square meter) radiated to space, so the difference in area is the difference in radiated power. As you can see, the most significant part of this comes from the deepening of the trough on the wings, and that is approximately equal on both sides, even where transmittances are very low. Therefore it is clearly not a narrowing of the atmospheric window.
-
NQuestofApollo at 18:17 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
scaddenp – please forgive me as I only have the energy to address one statement of yours right now, (Moderator – I’m directly answering a question). Personally, I think Al Gore started out as a true believer in the horrors of anthropogenic CO2. Now, I think he is just invested. I realize I’m being cynical, and if I’m wrong, my sincerest apologizes to Mr. Gore (no sarcasm). So, I don’t believe he would ever have invested in oil and your question is therefore too hypothetical to answer. I have a reason for believing that Gore is “invested”, it is indirect and admittedly spins off of Green Peace. More on that another day. -
NQuestofApollo at 17:59 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Tom - I appreciate your thoughtful counter-point and respectfully disagree. Including Oil revenues without considering their expenses and capital investment expenditures is completely missing the mark. Big Oil must actually spend money to make money. When the gov't gives away Billions of dollars and props up the "green" industry (as was done in Spain, et al) with tax payer dollars - we are not comparing apples to apples. Also, the intention of including #5 was not for the purpose of total global dollars spent, but to point out that $100 Billion a year wasn’t enough and that the motivation is a money grab. (you can claim that is conjecture - again, I will disagree). However, I will concede your point that the fund is not locked in yet - that fund is a great example of true politicking. Regardless, the point of including that fund in the list is to point to the dollar motivation of the “green” team. Unfortunately, the formula isn’t as simple as donations. Daniel’s original statement was, "Fossil fuel interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the US every year to lobby against any controls on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Vast riche$ await anyone who can scientifically break the chain of evidence & show the AGW is a non-worry (I'd chip in a couple of hundred myself)." The first sentence is accurate; the second sentence is where I’m taking issue. With Billions of dollars being GIVEN to green technologies, this constant whining about oil lobby dollars rings hollow. With regard to your last paragraph - I disagree (I know, you’re shocked). As the hour is late, any further support of my position will have to wait for another day. -
Andy Skuce at 17:44 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Tom @17 What she said was that at a 90% level, the bounds are 0-10 degrees. This implies that 10% of the time the sensitivity would be outside that range. If she doesn't accept that sensitivities can be less than zero, then that would mean that there's a 10% chance of it being over 10 degrees. But you should read the the thread I linked to for yourself. I would guess that what she meant was that she doesn't know (or won't say) what the sensitivity range is, so she threw up a big range and said that was the 90% certainty range for good measure. Of course, recognizing more uncertainty does not mean less action is required, on the contrary, more uncertainty means that exceptional outcomes are relatively more likely than in a more tightly bounded probability distribution. It's a pity that we have to guess what she means. -
Tom Curtis at 17:32 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
HR @19, actually, I expect them after considerable expense to end up confirming current estimates. I then expect the entire project to be dropped quietly before publication, because I don't trust the principal's bona fides. Of course, they may show some integrity and publish. Of course, given that they have no-one in the team experienced in temperature reconstructions, they may accidentally or deliberately not adjust for surface station distribution, or treat long records from nearby stations as blendable without adjustment as denialists are wont to do. As the team leader has already been caught out in data manipulation (while trying to slander Jones, Mann and Briffa on a charge of data manipulation), I would be foolish to assume this will be an honest, and competent endeavour until they prove otherwise. -
scaddenp at 17:30 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NQA - the not-so-simple fact is the scientists on the "AGW side" are not trying to make money. If you actually want to make money, it far easily to money from other side where any sort of shonky argument will do. And you can get really rich, which you cant on science salary. IEA estimates fossil fuel subsidies in 2008 at $557B annually. That represents a lot of shareholder value to protect. If you ended those, you would pay more for energy but less for tax. Seem like a good idea? Not if you live on coal subsidies. NOAA spends its money on instrumentation largely. Now if Al Gore invested in oil, what you say? I will agree that if you want to make money by investing in new technology, then investing in green technology is the way to go. That's what we need - who wants to freeze in the dark on the back of a horse? But the DB argument that you object to wasnt about technology - it was about investment in climate science -finding out what its all about - versus investing in lobbying and dirty tricks. That's the difference. -
Tom Curtis at 17:19 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NquestofApollo @122, your list is interesting, but it is not an apples and apples comparison. You are comparing Oil Industry money spent on lobbying alone with with the total revenue for research (most of which does not end up in scientists pockets), industrial applications, and profits from "green activities". For an apples and apples comparison, you would need to compare that list with the total oil company revenues, which was over a trillion dollars in 2009 for the top four companies alone. Even that is not a fair comparison, because that is a single years actual revenues, while your big ticket items are multi year expenditures, and in the case of 4 & 5, double counted and not even locked in yet. Another apples and apples comparisons is total donations to political parties in the US. Oil and Gas companies donated over 45 million dollars in 2102. Less than 3 million was donated by the alternative energy industry. Just shy of $19 million was donated on environmental issues, but that is as likely to include Koch brother donations as it is Al Gore's. Any way you slice it, there is more money to be made in, and by appeasing the oil industry (not to mention the coal industry) than there is in environmentalism. And much more to be made in spruiking denialism then there is to be made from doing climate science. -
RW1 at 17:16 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, "The decrease in transmittance directly tells us how much more outgoing surface power, across the entire emitted spectrum, is absorbed by the atmosphere." If 'transmittance' does NOT tell us this, then what does it tell us? -
scaddenp at 17:14 PM on 28 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
HR - in my reading of the paper, they estimate global forcings, run a GLOBAL model, and then extract from that model the temperature series for NH. They are not trying a simple-minded application of sensitivity no.s Remember that sensitivity is an OUTPUT of a model, not an input. -
RW1 at 17:10 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, "As regards the window, the figure above @ 171 shows the radiance for 325 ppm CO2 overlaid on the radiance for 750 ppm CO2 on the right. As you can see, the main difference is on the wings of the trough, where a slight step pattern is deeper with 750 ppm than with 325 ppm. That is not a change in the atmospheric window, because IR radiation at those frequencies were already absorbed, possibly completely absorbed as far as radiation from the surface is concerned. If you look even closer, (closer than the resolution will allow, unfortunately), you will also see that the center of the trough is slightly deeper. You will also see the walls of the trough at the top are slightly wider (which is a reduction of the window). You will also see some of the secondary troughs generated by CO2 are deeper. There is one just to the right of the main CO2 trough where a single spike shows up in the center." I know all of this. The total atmospheric window is simply the quantity of the whole spectrum of surface emitted infrared that passes through the atmosphere completely unabsorbed and goes straight out to space. Visually, there is a slight widening of the CO2 absorbing bands at 750ppm, which narrows the more overtly visual part of the 'window', but it's a specific quantity - not just a visual reduction. The outputs of these programs are detailed numbers, specifically the transmittance - not just what can be seen overtly in visuals of a graph. The decrease in transmittance directly tells us how much more outgoing surface power, across the entire emitted spectrum, is absorbed by the atmosphere. -
HumanityRules at 16:49 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
16 Tom Curtis So if they find that all the other temp records are essentially the same as their result then we should scrap the lot? Not even prepared to give this a chance? -
Tom Curtis at 16:49 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1, I cannot keep up with your stream of consciousness posting, and nor will I try to. Sit down, think it out, and work our your objections and problems after a little thought. As regards the "average transmittance", I have seen a comparison of the Modtran model at David Acher's site with the data from a satellite over Barrow Island, and the match is pretty good. Close enogh that you can't tell the difference by eyeball, although if you overlaid them I'm sure some differences would jump out. The "error" you have found is too large for that to be plausible. If you have a further problem with it, work the problem out line by line as I suggest. If you are correct, there will be no difference in the reult. If I am correct, you initial calculation will be shown to be in error. As regards the window, the figure above @ 171 shows the radiance for 325 ppm CO2 overlaid on the radiance for 750 ppm CO2 on the right. As you can see, the main difference is on the wings of the trough, where a slight step pattern is deeper with 750 ppm than with 325 ppm. That is not a change in the atmospheric window, because IR radiation at those frequencies were already absorbed, possibly completely absorbed as far as radiation from the surface is concerned. If you look even closer, (closer than the resolution will allow, unfortunately), you will also see that the center of the trough is slightly deeper. You will also see the walls of the trough at the top are slightly wider (which is a reduction of the window). You will also see some of the secondary troughs generated by CO2 are deeper. There is one just to the right of the main CO2 trough where a single spike shows up in the center. Here for comparison is a modtran graph for 10,000 ppm CO2 with not H2O or O3:
You will notice that that small spike noted above has become a deep trough that overlaps with the first trough, with a resulting large reduction in the atmospheric window. But that widening took place step by step, and in each step, it was always the smallest effect.
Prev 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 Next
