Recent Comments

Prev  1881  1882  1883  1884  1885  1886  1887  1888  1889  1890  1891  1892  1893  1894  1895  1896  Next

Comments 94401 to 94450:

94401. Rob Honeycutt at 06:03 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Risk
       Albatross... I've spent a lot of time in China (my wife is from China) and I can tell you the smog is shocking. My wife's aunt lives in a high rise just up from one of the rivers in Chongqing, maybe 1/4 mile from the water's edge. In the summer most days you can barely make out the buildings on the other side of the river. Interestingly, I remember almost the same thing when I was a little boy growing up in East Tennessee. Everyone used coal furnaces and in the winter everything was covered in suit and you could not see 1/2 a mile ahead. China is closing down old dirty coal fired power plants at a fairly rapid pace. I'm also concerned at what this is going to unleash in terms of extra warming. If mid-century cooling was aerosols, is the same thing going on now?
94402. lenarends at 05:50 AM on 26 February 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       At the intermediate level, this is the final sentence in the caption for Fig. 1 ... "In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers." Yet it appears in that very chart that there were more cooling than warming papers in 1971 (2 vs. 1). Am I misinterpreting either the chart or the assertion in the caption? The basic premise remains solid that climate papers in the period leaned heavily towards suspected warming, but it's best to correct overreach, before the "doubt mongers" use your own words against you.
94403. Rob Honeycutt at 05:43 AM on 26 February 2011
       Motl-ey Cruel
       I think it's a little worse than that with Lubos Motl. The guy quite literally possesses a genius level brain, he's just choosing to apply it very selectively. The tiff that I got into with him over the Phil Jones interview he was trying to tell me that something that "did not have a 95% confidence level did not exist." It was absent, so there was no warming since 1995. I was shocked that a person of his level could make such an utterly absurd statement about statistical significance. My suspicion is that Lubos Motl has a political ax to grind and he will attempt to use the skills he has to further that agenda regardless of reality.
94404. Albatross at 05:40 AM on 26 February 2011
       Motl-ey Cruel
       My post @ 21 should have read: "... goes to show just how what genuinely good people they are and how much confidence they have in the science. " Dana, good for you to engage the aggressive and misguided crowd at Curry's blog-- you probably realise this, but I'l say it anyways, you are very likely wasting your time their. Don't confuse them with the truth and reality, it angers them
94405. Albatross at 05:34 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Risk
       I like that analogy of the car's brakes. As with most things, prevention is better than cure. I'm really concerned that the huge aerosol loading from Asia is providing quite a substantial buffer, that may be giving some a false sense of security. Image from here.
94406. Dikran Marsupial at 05:27 AM on 26 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - The point I was making is that you can reject any scientific theory regarding the nature of reality by demanding provable facts - but that doesn't make it rational or scientific behaviour. Consider a thought experiment, a blackbody object exists in a hard vaccum; initially the object is 273 degrees Kelvin (for the sake of argument), but it will cool by radiation to its environment which is at zero degrees kelvin. Now consider a second identical black body, also initially at 273 degrees kelvin, but now enveloped by a concentric hollow sphere of a blackbody material, leaving a gap all around of 1mm containing a hard vaccum. The shell is maintained at 272 degrees Kelvin. Which object will cool faster and why?
94407. dana1981 at 05:19 AM on 26 February 2011
       Motl-ey Cruel
       Sure, I'm pretty patient when it comes to discussing the scientific evidence. Though there are limits - I've been commenting on Curry's "hide the decline dishonesty" post for the past day, and I'm to the point where I'm no longer responding to several of the commenters there, because it would just involve a Gish Gallop whack-a-mole on my part. Plus they're very rude people. But since Motl banned me from his site after just 4 comments, I never reached the point where my patience with him ran out! Motl doesn't understand climate science, but he's capable of understanding it (based on his physics background), so if he were willing to learn, I'd be willing to discuss it with him. Unfortunately he seems completely disinterested in learning.
94408. damorbel at 04:54 AM on 26 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re 371 Dikran Marsupial, you wrote:- "Matching experimental results does not prove that the quantum explanation of black body radiation is correct (however it is repeatable)." I'm afraid I do not understand what you expect of quantum theory other than 'matches experimental results'. The essence of a good theory is that it enables new experiments to be devised which produce results that could not have been predicted with previous theories. Do you feel that quantum theory is deficient in this respect? Also you wrote:- "Nobody claims that the upper atmosphere does raise surface temperatures. The energy that causes the temperature of the surface to rise is from the sun" All significant climate energy comes from the Sun. The question is about how it is distributed. When you write:- "the upper atmosphere being warmer than outer space just means the surface looses energy to outer space less quickly and hence its equilibrium temperature is higher" Now there are various explanations for this and the presence of gases that radiate towards the surface in the infrared (GHGs) is the matter in hand. It is well established that matter cools when there is a net transfer of energy away from it. Correspondingly its temperature rises when energy is transferred into it. When you say "looses energy to outer space less quickly and hence its equilibrium temperature is higher", you are of course talking about a change in energy distribution. Now according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics a temperature difference is needed for a change of energy distribution and the also other way round, a change in energy distribution is always accompanied by a temperature difference. You seem to agree that it the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a surface temperature rise and many say that it is radiation from increases in CO2 that causes this. However this explanation would need the CO2 in the atmosphere to be warmer than the surface otherwise it will be the CO2 that is warmed by the surface (2nd Law). Personally I can see no other effect of CO2 that comes anyway near explaining temperature changes of any sort. Is there any other effect, in your opinion?
94409. dana1981 at 04:50 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Risk
       Dang sorry, that was sloppy. Comments #1 and #3 are correct that the text should have read "unlikely to be more than 4.5°C". I've corrected the text accordingly, thanks. michael #1 - I provided a link to an article I previously wrote on the costs of carbon pricing. Click the link for more details.
94410. keithpickering at 04:34 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Risk
       Um ... After reading Annan & Hargreaves 2009, it seems that their result is the opposite of your presentation: they concluded that there was a 95% probability that sensitivity is less than 4.5 C (actually, within the range 1.3-4.2), using the Cauchy prior, updated by the ERBE data.
94411. Albatross at 04:26 AM on 26 February 2011
       Motl-ey Cruel
       Robert @20, All too true (well most likely). It is odd though that Dr. Motl has not been here to defend his misguided understanding of the science. Dana just picked one of the most egregious errors in Motl's post, but Motl erred in practically every one of his "rebuttals". I think John and Dana are still being willing to engage Dr. Motl and discuss the science, even after the personal attacks that he has made against them, goes to show just how what a genuinely people they are and how much confidence they have in the science. They are bigger and better people than I.
94412. Philip64 at 04:14 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Risk
       Excellent post. It's rare that we get a chance to see the risks quantified and set out in such a clear way. I think when people see what a gamble the business-as-usual policy represents, their reaction is to support prudent evasive action - in the same way that they shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars in house insurance every year. They prefer losing the money than gambling that there won't be a fire, a flood or a break-in.
94413. guinganbresil at 04:00 AM on 26 February 2011
       PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
       Dikran Marsupial - If you interpret my statement that non-anthropogenic factors are 'glossed over' as an accusation of deception, it was not intended as such. The 'pattern' I sense is as follows: 1 - Some parameter 'A' causes 'XYZ' which is not desireable. 2 - Parameter 'A' consists of a collection of major non-anthopogenic sources (B + C + D +...) and a collection of minor anthropogenic sources (q + r + s +...) 3 - Since we are mostly concerned with the most salient non-anthopogenic factor (due to funding, scope of research, ability to affect the factors, whatever...) we re-arrange the equation to: q = A - (B + C + D + ...) - (r + s + ...) 4 - We now prepare plots and graphs where we remove the major non-anthopogenic facctors and less salient anthropogenic factors (look up in this thread for examples!) 5 - Armed with our graphs and plots of non-anthropogenic factors we now conclude that we can mitigate 'XYZ' by reducing the non-anthropogenic factor 'q' 6 - There is an unstated conclusion that 'q' causes 'XYZ' - this is applying a 'Fallacy of Composition' It is clear that 'q' could cause 'XYZ', but 'XYZ' could be, and in my opinion, is most likely, caused by one of the other major non-anthopogenic factors. In the specific case of Feely et al 2008 they concluded that: "...the ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area." They did not consider the effect of changes in the other major factors, specifically upwelling. They came to this conclusion by taking essentially one temporal measurement and projecting the change in areal extent by subtracting the anthopogenic signal. They have no measurements of the affected area from pre-industial times. This is a great example of the 'pattern' I am sensing. No deception - just wrong.
94414. dana1981 at 03:51 AM on 26 February 2011
       How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
       Jesus - the possibility exists that there is a 'natural' factor we are not accounting for. For example, Roy Spencer's "internal radiative forcing" hypothesis. If climate sensitivity is sufficiently low, it opens up a window where an unknown 'natural' effect could account for a majority of the recent warming. But sensitivity would have to be well below 2°C, and there would have to be a very strong natural effect that we're not accounting for. It's exceptionally unlikely, but not impossible.
94415. michael sweet at 03:45 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Risk
       Dana, I always like your posts. In paragraph 4 I think you mean "unlikely to be more than" (not less than). I would be interested in expanding the reference to the minimal costs of reducing carbon emmissions. Moderator: this post can be deleted.
94416. ranyl at 03:31 AM on 26 February 2011
       Hockey Stick Own Goal
       Figure 1: Moberg et al. 2005 NH (blue), Mann et al. 2008 EIV NH (red), Ljungqvist 2010 NH (green), and GISS land+ocean NH (black). Courtesy of Robert Way and John Cook. This is a fascinating graphn thanks Dana. Firstly the reconstructions do follow measured temperatures since ~1900s until 1990 ish which is reassuring to a degree, after which things get hot quickly, 0.2C a decade from 1980, or ~0.6C on 30 years. Looking at the graph two things get my interest, there appears to be a ~1000year natural temperature variation of about 0.3C (0.3C either side of the mean) arround a mean of -0.1C (from 0yr to 1980ish) with an added variation of ~+/-0.2C arround the running mean, meaning that (0.3C + 0.2C) or 0.5C above -0.1C would be a thousand year extreme warm year, so that is +0.4C on this chart and there are 2 spikes in blue of that magnitude in the middle of Medeival NH warming event. However the mid 1000-2000 cold dip period is cooler than the previous one between 0-1000 years by about 0.1-0.2C suggesting a possible cooling between the two, which is also in keeping with the 2000year cooling trend found in the arctic temperature record and in keeping with orbital variations in the NH which leading a general cooling of the NH at the present time, although this is a very slow cooling. All things being equal therefore by natural variation the NH should have been warming from 1500-1600 on wards and 1900-2000 should be the peak of the warming. Without the cooling trend it would be expected from the natural variation that the NH would reach another 1000year peak hot round about now, however this peak should be +0.2C mean with a year to year possibility of +0.2C or +0.4C just like in the 900-1100's and although for an individual year may even surpass this, the probability is less 1:1000 or more. Lets not forget the long term cooling due to orbital changes in the NH (clearly the arctic would amplify this effect as orbital effects are greatest nearer the poles), which should be bringing the mean down to lower than -0.1C (i suspect it is -0.1C as the mean for the whole series is skewed to 0C by the inclusion of the recent hot years), which means to get any year hotter than 0.4C than 2000year mean would be a truly exceptional event via natural variation. Lastly it looks like the mean has suddenly jumped, (would expect to phase jumps in a choatic system) and the new mean seems be a lot higher as there have just been a 10year period were then mean is 0.8C higher (than -0.1C). It is also of note that 2010 from solar and Nino (mod El Nino 5 months, Strong La Nina 7 months) activity should have been a cooler year than average, yet it was the hottest yet and November 2010 was in a well established La Nina and histroical low of sun activity and yet was also the hottest yet. So if 2010 and its weather was a cold year, what is a warm year going to be like? Could the mean have shifted again in 2010 with the earth being tipped into a hotter regime like it probably was 1998? Would this be in keeping with a step changing choatic system and that would mean that the jumps should get more frequent if the warming influence is maintained? As for Climate sensitivity, in the pliocene it 3-5C hotter despite all the natural variation of millions of years, and thus the only substantially different variable was the pCO2 at 350-400ppm although 350ppm more robust from recent evidence. 3-5C would take ~1000years to effectuate due to lags in the system however 60% is realised in the first 100year or so, that means we can expect at least 1.8C to a maximum rise of 3C by 2100, if CO2 levels fall to 350ppm ish. The Earth is a choatic system and therefore will have multiply possible CS as parameters change, the amount of ice will make a difference, the orientation of the continents (pliocene was similiar to now), and therefore CS will vary and have high and low possibilities. From the above long term CS for doubling can be high (3-4x pliocene temperature range) and as at present the earth has a pole whose albedo turn arround is very high going from ice to sea which makes sense as a CS amplifyer especially if permafrost GHG gas release is also considered. Also all the changes being observed in the system are occuring faster than expected by a CS or only 3C. Anyway it is very likely CO2 will hit 450-500ish the way things are going and that is well too high for serious consideration of there being any widespread fruitful scenarios for the future. An interesting graph clearly shows the globe is warming and very quickly, however at least natural variation should trend temperatures down a little, unless of course the natural variation seen in the graph is actually mainly a sea-saw NH / SH event due to long term flow patterns in the AMOC as that makes the current global warming even more impressive and is it likely that flucation could be changed or interupted if an external heating influence is added in.
94417. Rob Honeycutt at 03:29 AM on 26 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech... "Papers on climate change come out because people are interested in researching climate change that does not mean the paper by default supports "anthropogenic global warming"." Not at this rate they don't. Papers come out on string theory because people interested in that. But there are not 20,000 papers a year coming out on string theory. Climate is a hot topic because of people's alarm about AGW.
94418. Dikran Marsupial at 03:13 AM on 26 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damobel. Matching experimental results does not prove that the quantum explanation of black body radiation is correct (however it is repeatable). Quantum theory may be a very persuasive explanation for blackbody radiation, but it is not a provable fact. The point I was making is that if you require provable facts abdout the real world, you require the impossible. Science generally concentrates on the most plausible explanations, proof is generally reserved for mathematics. You wrote: "But all that you write makes it increasingly clear that the idea that the upper atmosphere (UA) can raise the surface temperature simply doesn't work." Nobody claims that the upper atmosphere does raise surface temperatures. The energy that causes the temperature of the surface to rise is from the sun, not the upper atmosphere, the upper atmosphere being warmer than outer space just means the surface looses energy to outer space less quickly and hence its equilibrium temperature is higher.
94419. MarkR at 03:02 AM on 26 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
       Thanks for the pointer explorer, it's a mistake and I'll fix it when I have time!
94420. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:45 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
       About the "ozone hole" and Antarctica: isn't the ozone hole closing, bringing the Antarctic stratosphere back to normal? What are the model predictions for Antarctica?
94421. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:37 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
       The Arctic is not looking good.
94422. damorbel at 02:36 AM on 26 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re 369 Dikran Marsupial Thank you for your contribution. I'm afraid I really don't see the connection between what you write and the application of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics to radiative heat transfer. I might add that the whole of quantum physics was started with the nummerous attempts to explain 'black body' radiation as identified by Gustav Kirchhoff in a way that matched experimental results.
94423. Dikran Marsupial at 02:18 AM on 26 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel The theory of evolution by natural selection is neither a provable nor reproducable fact; however that doesn't prevent the majority of biologists accepting that it is correct. Asking for definitive proof of any theory regarding the real world is unreasonable, as demonstrated by David Hume in the 18th century. We cannot observe causality, only correlation, and to move from an observation of correlation to assertion of causation we need to make assumptions. It is impossible to prove any theory about climate, they can only be disproved.
94424. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:13 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
       Constructive fun for regular commenters: You can enlighten other sites. Take Physorg . com for example. Whenever a new climate paper is described from a press release the comments at physorg . com are along the lines of "AGW is a religion" and other unbright ideas. If the regulars here could watch for new papers at a site like physorg . com and visit, and politely ask for citations eg [citation needed: AGW is a religion], [citation needed: you have provided no evidence that I am a (whatever they call you)] and make positive points with citations from this site and RC (use the ZVON index) you could drive the regulars there nuts and educate a great number of readers that don't comment. With practice the regulars here could constructively reduce cyber-bullying at lots of sites. Apologies for this being OT to this thread, but I don't think there is a separate thread for constructive fun yet. There could be though.
94425. damorbel at 02:09 AM on 26 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re 363 You wrote:- "Response: [Daniel Bailey] If you believe SoD to be incorrect, please address that there, as SoD is well-established as an online reference tool known for accuracy in these matters. Until corrected, that status will remain." Sorry if I have upset anyone but I do not use links to put arguments I cannot support myself. Nor do I have any general position on what third party writers say; they may well be very good but giving a general approval seems to be fundamentally insecure since the question of interpretation arises. To put it another way, I require provable and reproduceable facts.
94426. Robert Murphy at 02:08 AM on 26 February 2011
       Motl-ey Cruel
       I have never understood the authority which so-called "skeptics" give to Motl. Well, I get that they want to include anybody in their ranks with a doctorate, however nutty their views, in order to boost the illusion of scientific respectability. But Motl is really off the deep end, and I don't just mean his Moncktonesque whoppers with the science. That's bad enough. But anybody who reads his posts for a length of time has to come away with the view that the guy is not all there. He's more than once likened climate scientists like Mann and Jones with the Taliban, and said explicitly that they should and will be treated the same and hunted down. In the post you just linked to he likened climate scientists to islamic fundamentalists. The man has serious issues, and it might be better to just ignore him lest he decide to be more *proactive* in his arguments. He sees himself as someone engaged in a holy war. If I were a climate scientist that would make me nervous.
94427. Jeff T at 02:08 AM on 26 February 2011
       Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
       Well written, Robert. Unfortunately we suffer a lack of data from Antarctica. Trends in polar temperatures and polar ice will eventually spur action. I hope it doesn't take too long.
94428. shalayka at 01:47 AM on 26 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       scaddenp, Perhaps I'm doing it wrong. I tried (1.1*sin(2*x) + 2.2*sin(3*x) + 3.3*sin(5*x)) but what I get seems to repeat at intervals of 2*pi (minus a precision error on the order of 1e-15 or so). The reason I asked about these things is that if the clockwork Milankovitch cycle were the only driving force behind the ice ages, then I would have expected each ice age to be identical. As mentioned in the other thread and here, I guess it's not that simple -- there's continental drift, plants, asteroid strikes, volcanic activity. As far as I can tell from what people are saying here, these extraneous forces that give the jagginess to the above temp/CO2 plots are considered to be random, not chaotic. I can buy into their reasoning, though I doubt I'll ever do so wholesale. Thank you for the info! - Shawn
94429. protestant at 01:46 AM on 26 February 2011
       Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
       And why are M&M 2010 and Christy et al 2010 not being cited? Both are discussing the hot spot issue and analyzing the observations. I hear also Klotzbach et al 2009, which provide some explanations for the missing hot spot (a.k.a less warming in the upper troposphere than predicted), for not being discussed either.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial]Rather than asking rhetorical questions, you would be better off making a case for discussing them, e.g. by briefly summarising the arguments made in those papers and explaining their relevance to the article to which you are responding. Usually there are plenty of contributors here who are more than happy to discuss any scientific paper, but if you want a paper discussed, then the discussion has to start somewhere.
94430. mclamb6 at 01:36 AM on 26 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech--you didn't, which is precisely the point. You are demanding something in the arguments of others that you aren't demanding of yourself.
94431. KR at 01:18 AM on 26 February 2011
       It's not us
       Julian Flood - One last attempt, Julian. We are putting an amount "A" into the carbon cycle, a well known amount taken from our fossil fuel use. We're seeing a rise in atmospheric CO2 of "1/2 A", indicating that sources currently exceed sinks by that amount. If we remove an amount "A" from the sources, sinks should then exceed sources by "1/2 A", causing a drop in atmospheric CO2. And as we are responsible for amount "A", we are responsible for the "1/2 A" rise. We are responsible for sources currently exceeding sinks. The only way that CO2 would not drop if we stopped emitting would be if the carbon cycle responded in a non-linear fashion (the LGM of the previous post) - and since the carbon cycle is an order of magnitude larger than our contribution, that would be unreasonable unless you have a testable hypothesis of why it would be different, and some evidence to show it.
94432. Dikran Marsupial at 01:16 AM on 26 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech You may not have said that the papers on your list explicitly endorse skepticism of AGW alarm, but if you apply the corresponding restriction to the "denominator" providing the context, as you implicitly did here, that is a double standard. If the papers in your list don't have to explicitly support your position, why should the papers in the denominator/context have to explicitly endorse the opposing position? For another example of a double standard, you dismiss arguments based on impact factors as being subjective (which isn't actually true, but we can neglect that for the moment), when your choice of peer reviewed papers forming your list is entirely subjective. Whether a paper supports your personal skepticism of AGW alarm is entirely subjective - I have already given an example of a paper on your list that provides better support for "alarmists" as it describes the fall of civilisations brought on by climate change. BTW, regarding your comments here, I am very much in support of your project to provide a resource for skeptics; but that doesn't mean I support every argument you make. In this case a shorter, but more robust list would be a better resource for the skeptic. It is very much your loss that you are to obstinate to take advice from those who offer encouragent and constructive criticism (that is what peer review is all about, so there is a certain irony there!).
94433. KR at 01:09 AM on 26 February 2011
       It's not us
       Julian Flood - Your "beneficent uncle" and "unscrupulous daughter" are variations of the LGM hypothesis - Little Green Men, unknown and unpredictable. You're essentially stating that although we are adding CO2 twice the level seen as atmospheric rises (and hence sources exceed sinks by the amount of atmospheric rise), if we were to change behavior we would not see the expected decrease in atmospheric CO2 (as sinks would then exceed sources by ~2ppm/year). Because according to you LGM would change the source/sink balance. Complete nonsense, Julian. We're responsible for the current rise, no matter how much you try to invoke LGM to dodge it.
94434. rhjames at 00:46 AM on 26 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and global warming
       The Ville - I don't know where you get your logic from. Doubling CO2 is expected to increase temperature by about 1 degC, based on direct "greenhouse" effects. This is based on good science, and is well accepted amongst climate scientists. Any further indirect increase is based on unsubstantiated assumptions of positive feedback dominating negative feedback, with no real data to back it up.
94435. rhjames at 00:42 AM on 26 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and global warming
       The Ville - we don't have to know why or how smoking kills - just that it increases the probability of contracting lung cancer etc. Just the increased frequency in a smoking population, after ruling out all other influences, is enough to take action. Climate statistics is still a long way from such certainty. In fact, it's a long way from any meaningful correlation with human activity.
94436. FatherTheo at 00:38 AM on 26 February 2011
       Motl-ey Cruel
       As a non-scientist who has been educating myself on the topic of climate change for a while now, I sometimes feel vulnerable when discussing the subject with persons who might have a stronger science background than me. Sometimes someone will in fact raise a point that I do not have sufficient understanding to answer. More often with climate skeptics, though, I find myself with the advantage simply because I have researched and thought about the subject, and they, evidently, have not. I frankly find it refreshing when a climate skeptic can actually talk about the science and is unafraid of addressing the evidence. When that happens there is actually a chance for an argument to evolve. Too often, alas, it's merely political or personal.
94437. mclamb6 at 00:24 AM on 26 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Yet, you are free to imply when something is "skeptical" of "AGW Alarm"--such as the Pielke paper on hurricane damage? How can you possibly have such an egregious double standard?
94438. les at 00:06 AM on 26 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       366... clearly, and again, we all appreciate the complexities. And, again, I never said gas, I said 'body'. Boltzmann et al don't care what it's made of. Introducing both complexities and irrelevant factors (prompt photon emission? 'prompt' for e-m radiation, is a technical term regarding decay from excited states; does that matter here do you think?) prevent one from seeing the basic facts of the matter which bound such problems - which is the point of idealized models. I really did think going back to basics would help. But I can see that the road is to long and, really, rather than nowhere to go, I have better places to go!
94439. Tom Curtis at 23:48 PM on 25 February 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1: 1) When physicists refer to "the atmospheric window" they refer to a portion of the spectrum in which radiation is not absorbed, so radiation can pass through that "window" without appreciable loss or distortion. The atmosphere has several windows - one at the frequencies of visible light, another in the IR spectrum, and still others in the radio spectrum. 2) One of the atmospheric windows in the IR spectrum is in that range of frequencies where the majority of the surfaces IR radiation is emited. As a result, about 40 w/m^2 of IR radiation escapes to space without being absorbed by any atmospheric components (except clouds, if present). 3) Increasing CO2, O3 or H2O content into the atmosphere, or introducing novel GHG can narrow this window slightly, but the effect is very small. 4) Outside of the atmospheric window, IR radiation from the Earth's surface is entirely absorbed by GHGs; but 5) Those GHGs then emit radiation at the same frequency at an intensity that depends on their temperature. The IR radiation emitted towards space by GHGs is then absorbed by higher GHGs, which in turn emit radiation at an intensity depending on their temperature, which is in turn absorbed and so on until the atmosphere is thin enough for the upward emitted radiation to escape to space. 6) Because the radiation outside the atmospheric window that escapes to space is emitted high in the atmosphere, it is emitted by gases that are much cooler than the surface. Therefore, that radiation has a much lower intensity, ie, transmits much less energy than the radiation emitted from the surface at the same frequency. The difference between the energy that is radiated to space outside of the atmospheric window and the energy originally radiated from the surface at those same frequencies is the fundamental basis of the green house effect. 7) If you increase the concentration of a GHG, then the altitude at which radiation from that GHG will effectively escape to space will increase. Because the altitude has increased, the temperature of the radiating gas is lower, so the total energy radiated is also lower. 8) If you double the CO2 concentration, the atmospheric window will narrow slightly as the absorption band of CO2 widens. This does not mean no IR radiation will escape in the frequencies where the absorption band widens - it just means that the IR radiation in those frequencies will come from a higher, ergo cooler, ergo less energetic altitude, reducing the total IR energy escaping in that frequency band by about a third. 9) At the same time, IR in the frequencies of the previously existing absorption band will come from slightly higher in the atmosphere, and therefore carry less energy (because the emitting CO2 is colder). 10) The combination of these two effects will reduce the total energy leaving the atmosphere by 3.7 w/m^2 That is the full and complete answer to your questions (given space limits). It has been given to you ad nauseum above but you refuse to hear the answer because it is not framed according to the frankly fallacious model of the Green House effect used by George White. However, we cannot ignore the physics and give you answers that only make sense if framed in terms of George White's fallacious physics. If you try frame your question in terms of the actual physics, however, you will find you have already been answered repeatedly.
94440. damorbel at 23:37 PM on 25 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re 364 les You wrote:- "Clearly. I was starting, as you observe, from an ideal model" If you start your model as a gas 'behaving like a black body' you really have nowhere to go because the odd CO2 (or H2O) molecule (at the density in the atmosphere - think of the thickness when brought to the surface and liquified) will never get anywhere near absorbing all the radiation from the surface. Even this observation is utterly irrelevant because any radiation absorbed by CO2 & H2O in the atmosphere is promptly re-emitted, if it wasn't the temperature of the intermediate layers would change. The atmosphere really is not, as far as radiation is concerned, different from a solid. Radiating solids also need internal heat transport to get the heat to the emitting suface. The emitting surface of solids is not an ideal, theoretical model; it is very complex and depends on the exact composition of the surface, which is seldom the same as the bulk material, it is an oxide or dirt or something.
94441. Dikran Marsupial at 23:18 PM on 25 February 2011
       It's not us
       Julian: I note that you have failed to attempt to engage with the challenge I suggested, namely: "Try giving a specific example, giving values for all natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks, where the annual rise is less than anthropogenic emissions and where the natural environment is a net source. You will find that you are unable to do so, but the attempt will probably demonstrate to you why the mass balance argument is correct." Can you explain why you responded to every part of my post, except that one? Regarding the analogy regarding bank balances, it seems I will have to spell it out. The partner represents the natural carbon cycle, all of it, so there is no benificent uncle (unless you think aliens are coming here in flying saucers and taking carbon from the atmosphere). As I said, we don't need to know anything about the transactions performed by the partner to know that he/she is a net sink. [S]He could be putting in and taking out millions of dollars a month, or hundreds, and it wouldn't make any difference to the argument at all. The change in bank balance only depends on the difference between income and outgoings, not on the volume of transactions. You say I that I believe all sources and sinks are accounted for. That is not correct, and the mass balance argument does not depend on knowledge of the sources and sinks, I have said that repeatedly, so you ought to know that by now. The mass balance argument is a means of inferring the difference between total natural emissions and total natural sources. That is all you need to know to be sure that nature is a net sink and hence CO2 levels would be falling if not for our emissions. Now, please try an address the challenge repeated above, can you give a counter-example, using any values you like for the fluxes, even if they are not realistic (as long as they are positive real numbers). If you are not willing to try, or not willing to admit that you can't find a counter example, what would that imply?
94442. les at 23:15 PM on 25 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       364- in 2/ "same amount of energy" should read "same amount of energy / unit time".
94443. RickG at 23:01 PM on 25 February 2011
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1: By 'atmospheric window', I'm referring to the amount of the emitted surface power that passes through the atmosphere completely unabsorbed by GHGs or clouds. How do you distinguish what is surface emitted from other emitted sources. And why do you use the word "power"? What is power?
94444. Jesús Rosino at 23:00 PM on 25 February 2011
       How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
       I was translating this article and there's one thing I don't undertand. The article says that:

       even a 2°C climate sensitivity would mean that humans have been responsible for more than half of the global warming over the past century.

       However, I don't see how climate sensitivity can affect the distribution between different climate forcings. Natural forcings alone would likely have cooled the planet, so I think we are likely responsble for more than 100% of the warming. Given that ΔT=ΔRF*S, with a given temperature rise (ΔT = 0.8ºC), the fact that climate sensitivity (S) is low, would just imply that the net radiative forcing (ΔRF) has been rather high (i.e. high RF and not that high temp rise), and if the climate sensitivity is high, that would just imply that the net radiative forcing (ΔRF) has been rather low (i.e. low RF and high temp rise). But I don't think that this affects the distribution among forcings, i.e., humans would still be the major contributors to global warming. So I don't see the relationship that the sentence I quoted above means to establish, and I even think the sentence is understating our likely contribution to global warming. Cheers.
94445. les at 22:57 PM on 25 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       363.... "Which is not the case at all. You are applying Kirchhoff's concept of a black body as a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation " Clearly. I was starting, as you observe, from an ideal model... always good to go back to basics - trying to clarify, at least for my self, your 'model'. which is why, in line with "and it doesn't apply in this case, GHGs in the atmosphere get nowhere near this model because no gas, in any circumstances behaves like a black body." I said that the earth and atmosphere are, indeed, not ideal black body objects. Did you actually read that?!?!? Just for clarity... 1/ no, I think it's clear the radiation is lost. end of. I said nothing of gases - I said 'object', it matters not what the object is made of (p.s. the atmosphere is a gas in a vacuum, but that's by-the-by) 2/... no. Read again they hypothetical - situation. In this highly simple model, not meant to represent the real world, but trying to clarify your 'explanation'... they are the same temp, the same surface area, same everything... except density... They would radiate and absorb the same amount of energy. simple. 3/ no it isn't. if I enclose a dense ball in a less dense shell, the shell will absorb all the radiation from the ball... where else is it going to go!?!? I am certainly not questioning the matter, nor - in general terms - the SoD model, with I rather like. But if you think his thermodynamics is amiss, I'd suggest you concentrate more on that then the e-m radiation bit... which, seems to me, you're struggling with.
94446. damorbel at 22:36 PM on 25 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re 362 les First you wrote:- "Clearly two bodies of the same temperature but different densities contain a different amount of energy." Then you wrote:- "Equally clearly, if they are ideal Boltzmann black bodies they will radiate the same amount of em radiation per unit area." Which is not the case at all. You are applying Kirchhoff's concept of a black body as a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation and it doesn't apply in this case, GHGs in the atmosphere get nowhere near this model because no gas, in any circumstances behaves like a black body. About your 'two extremes' 1/'free space' Really? Far too undefined; a gas in a vacuum? 2/'If, somehow, all the radiation from each was absorbed by the other, they wouldn't cool' Only if the density was the same and this is absolutely not the case for the vertical profile of the atmosphere. 3/'If the radiation from the denser was absorbed fully by the less dense' Simply impossible; see #2 From what you write 'Of course neither... ' you are clearly questioning the matter, like I am. Good luck! PS I have looked at SoD but he is far from having a good grip of the thermal characteristics of atmospheres - too much sloppy thinking.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] If you believe SoD to be incorrect, please address that there, as SoD is well-established as an online reference tool known for accuracy in these matters. Until corrected, that status will remain.
94447. Julian Flood at 22:32 PM on 25 February 2011
       It's not us
       quote Can you explain why it would be informative to exclude some natural source and lump the remainder of the natural carbon cycle together with anthropogenic emissions? unquote Because that highlights the logic of the argument. Any increase outside the lumped-together sources can be pointed to as the cause of all of an increase. If one postulates e.g. an increase in metabolised methane from the permafrost (this is, IMHO, uncontentious as the suppression of methane efflux by acid rain is documented), or perhaps warmer deep water is increasing CO2 emissions from metabolised clathrates, then one can by the same line of reasoning say 'it's all coming from the permafrost'. This would of course be wrong, one needs to add up all the changes and then -- in this case -- one can say 'it's X Gt from permafrost and 27 Gt from fossil fuel. The proportions are X:27 and, since we don't know the absolute size of the sinks, we do not know what eliminating fossil fuel emissions will do to the rate of sink, but it will remove the CO2 in proportion to the contribution, i.e. X:27.' If we cut all of the fossil fuel emissions then we might find that the CO2 levels continue to increase because X from permafrost is bigger than the enhancement of the sink. Because we do not know the actual size of the permafrost contribution, we do not know the actual size of the sink which is taking up all but 14 Gt of the enhanced (fossil emissions + permafrost contribution). We do not know enough to make a meaningful statement. quote What is important is whether CO2 levels would be rising if not for anthropogenic emissions, and the answer is quite clearly "no, they would be falling" (which we know because the net effect of the natural environment as a whole is to absorb about half our emissions). unquote No, that is not the case. We know only that all sinks add up to more than the sum of all the sources. We do not know that CO2 levels would be falling because we have not measured the sinks and sources. See above. quote Given that CO2 levels would now be falling if we were to cut our emissions to zero, it seems odd to suggest we are not 100% responsible for the current rise. unquote No, you cannot truthfully make that assertion -- I could say 'if we cut our emissions to zero then the rate of increase of atmospheric Co2 would only diminish by 10%' and I would be talking equal nonsense. See above. This is just assertion of what we are discussing and brings us no further forward. It does point up one of the problems I'm trying to understand: if we cut to zero, would the increase in atmospheric CO2 entirely cease? My contention -- perhaps too strong a word -- my fear is that it would not. quote I have repeatedly explained that you don't need to know the value of individual fluxes to know that the natural environment as a whole is a net sink. If you shared a bank account with your partner and always put in $100 a month more than you spent, but observed your monthly balance only increased by $50 a month, you would know your partner was a net sink (to the tune of $50 a month) without needing to know where he/she spent the money, or how much he/she spent in total or how much he/she deposited each month. The mass balance argument is essentially analogous. unquote But if you have a beneficent uncle who is adding untold amounts to your account, or not, depending on how his ulcer feels, you can then say nothing about what's going on. Your daughter, meanwhile, has found a way of silently tapping off an increased allowance, and a direct debit, which you have had running so long that you'd forgotten it, has ceased. Now you do not know who is doing what because there are too many unknowns, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Unless you know the details about what's going on, you don't know what's going on and you cannot make any meaningful statement about what's going on. I agree that the mass balance argument is analogous. It is, however, incomplete in your presentation. Perhaps here we have an insight into our disagreement -- you believe that the sources and sinks are all accounted for and the only things to be considered are one input and one output, while I am not sure they are, which is why I ask these questions. My own guess is that we have screwed up one or more biological sinks, the pull down of 12C has decreased, leaving more 12C in the atmosphere, and we're misinterpreting that as part of the fossil fuel signal. But that is just a guess -- it might even be MWP deep water at last reaching the deep ocean clathrates. Or something else. However, we'll have to wait for more measurements -- only then, to continue the analogy, will we be able to look at a bank statement and see what everyone's up to. Only then will we be able to truthfully say thngs like 'if we stop emitting fossil fuel CO2 then atmospheric CO2 levels will begin to fall.'
94448. les at 21:17 PM on 25 February 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       361 : first, it's not "tautology because that s how you measure temperature remotely", it's a tautology because first you suggest, to paraphrase for clarity: that the em radiation is the same because the temp is the same, then you suggest that the temp is the same because the em radiation is the same. Nothing to do with measuring anything. Anyway, as you then go on to say that in fact they're exchanging "fewer photons", clearly the above is irrelevant, as I pointed out. Then, I'm sure I miss a lot in the real physics, but in this context I'm only looking at your description of how you see things. If something is missing, improve your description. e.g. in "Having a different density does not mean they cannot have the same temperature but 'the different densities' does translate directly into different amounts of energy." Clearly two bodies of the same temperature but different densities contain a different amount of energy. Equally clearly, if they are ideal Boltzmann black bodies they will radiate the same amount of em radiation per unit area. Then at two extremes there are: 1/ If both where in free space, the denser would take longer to cool than the less dense. But eventually both would cool to with a Planks whisker of absolute zero. 2/ If, somehow, all the radiation from each was absorbed by the other, they wouldn't cool. In between 3/ If the radiation from the denser was absorbed fully by the less dense, which in turn lost some energy to free space and some was radiated to the denser object, then, obviously, the amount of energy radiate into space wouldn't be going back to the denser object... it would cool - at some rate depending on it's energy density and the proportion lost in space - etc. till both where again withing a Planks whisker of absolute zero. Of course neither the earth (denser object) nor any part of the atmosphere are anything like that. They are not ideal Boltzmann black bodies. Nor are the em radiation flows so arranged... again, I recommend the SoD series to walk through the incremental complexities of reality.
94449. explorer40503 at 21:01 PM on 25 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
       Hi and first of kudos to all in putting this website together. I've learned a great deal reading it. Who put the circles in the first figure indicating "Even faster warming"? It seems to be pointing to the wrong part of the scale bar. Shouldn't it be closer to the .8 to 1.2 values?
94450. scaddenp at 20:51 PM on 25 February 2011
       Hockey Stick Own Goal
       HR - sorry, I missed the sensitivity calculation, skimming to fast. One other thing though - you shouldnt be just looking at NH temperatures with a global forcing. SH picture is a little different.

Prev  1881  1882  1883  1884  1885  1886  1887  1888  1889  1890  1891  1892  1893  1894  1895  1896  Next