Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Next
Comments 100651 to 100700:
-
Phila at 04:53 AM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
meerkat #2: - if we take a Kuhnian approach to the history of science then consensuses are temporary alignments I think this is a misreading of Kuhn. Paradigm shifts happen, granted, but they don't usually involve a complete overthrow of our understanding of basic physical laws. More often, they involve an enlargement of our understanding of the implications or consequences of those laws. If anything, it's the gradual acceptance of the seriousness of AGW that represents a scientific revolution in Kuhn's sense, and it's the "skeptics" who are failing to rise to this occasion, intellectually and emotionally, by sticking their heads in the sand. Furthermore, Kuhn would (I think) argue that a new paradigm would have to offer a more comprehensive or consistent account of the phenomena under discussion. "Skeptics" haven't come anywhere near to offering such an account. They haven't even tried, as far as I can tell. Instead, they've reflexively offered a bunch of improvised and often contradictory counterarguments against specific data and interpretations. The only thing that unifies these counterarguments is a fundamental assumption of conspiracy, in my view; that's the only "paradigm" within which most of their speculations make any sense at all. And that's where I'd disagree (slightly) with this post. I don't think there's some vocal subset of "skeptics" who are prone to conspiracy theories. I think conspiracy theory is absolutely fundamental to the anti-AGW endeavor, both because it provides a framework in which mere speculation takes on the appearance of rigor and logic, and also because it's a compelling marketing tool (people love to feel like they're apart from the herd by being in on secret or forbidden knowledge). -
Renewable Baseload Energy
Here's the high-density windmill paper - Whittlesey et al 2010, free access to an earlier version at Dalribi on Arxiv. Counter-rotating vertical axis turbines arranged to take advantage of upwind turbine wakes increase area power density by an order of magnitude over horizontal axis (propeller style) windmills. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:38 AM on 23 December 2010It's cooling
Still Happening (hmmm, just like the Energizer bunny): 2010 was the second-warmest year on record, says the Japanese Meteorological Agency (The ranking is preliminary and is based on the January to November data)
(Anyone know if JMA corrects for ENSO?)
This other relevant bit caught my eye: "The average temperature over land is expected to hit the warmest record."
See JMA press release here. It's like Deja Vu all over again... The Yooper -
Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
RSVP - Another fixed sum experiment/analogy? With pre-heated bottles? A more realistic rate experiment consists of two containers (CO2 and N2 filled), each with a piece of dark paper (or perhaps some dirt) in the bottom. Add energy with a visible light lamp, measure the temperatures. The CO2 filled container will rise to a higher temperature because the CO2 inhibits the thermal radiation from the paper, the visible light absorber. Visible light comes in, warms the surface, IR is emitted, and the CO2 slows it's exit rate by re-radiating part of it back to the surface. Rates, RSVP, not fixed sums. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:07 AM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Dueling conspiracy theories: FF companies are trying to cover up climate change, or scientists are fabricating the fear. Numbers: very few FF companies in a handful of countries, controlled by a handful of people versus thousands of scientists working at hundreds (thousands?) of institutions around the globe. Motivation 1: trillions of dollars at stake for FF companies, versus perhaps a slight edge at getting additional grant money to fund research (which does not affect a scientist's already meager salary, but probably at best merely keeps them employed for another short span of years, or perhaps enables them to keep working/focused on their chosen topic instead of something else). Motivation 2: Corporate FF leaders personally make millions or billions of dollars a year (7 to 10 figures). Most scientists earn 5 figures. Their preferred reward is generally success and recognition in their field. Motivation 3: If the threat of AGW is believed, FF companies will lose trillions upon trillions in profits, now and forever. If the threat of AGW is not believed, climate scientists will simply work on something else within climate science. They don't need a threat to global civilization to keep their jobs. Climate and ecosystems have been studied for centuries, and we'll continue to do so, with or without the threat of AGW. Organization: One FF leader can fund and direct any number of "think tanks" or propaganda/media cronies through a well structured corporate chain of command. Who is in charge among the thousands of independent, institution/university employed scientists worldwide? Facts: If anything the FF companies say is false, they can continue to spout it over and over again, no matter how firmly it is refuted. There is no court governing propaganda. In advertising, if you say it often enough, people believe it. If anything a scientist says is false, it will quickly and thoroughly be taken to task (such as the mistake concerning the projected melting of Himalayan glaciers). Scientists live in a vicious world of peer-reviewed literature, professional competition, and (now) continuous, intense professional, public, media and governmental oversight. If there were a real chink in the armor, it would have been found. Tactics: Businesses are in the business of marketing. The most successful companies are great at advertising and marketing, which means getting you to notice them, and believe them. Scientists are in the business of doing research. They are often clueless in the nuances of convincing large groups of people. They expect the facts and logic to stand by themselves, without the window dressing that is the bread and butter of for-profit corporations. -
chris at 03:00 AM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
meerkat at 21:34 PM on 22 December, 2010“If we take a Kuhnian approach to the history of science….”
Why would it be helpful to do so meerkat? Are Kuhn’s ideas on the nature of scientific revolutions relevant to climate science and the predicament of man-made climate change? Of course one can only truly address this from a (Kuhnian) historical perspective, but the essential scientific consensus in climate science/global warming (i.e. that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and augmenting its atmospheric concentration will result in warming of the Earth), is not subject to a Kuhnian-style revolution; it’s a truism. The important sub-elements of the science (how much warming and how fast, and where; climate sensitivity determination; paleoclimatology and past greenhouse gas-climate relationships etc. etc.) are being addressed rather productively, I would say (spend a bit of time reading on this site, for example!). In any case Kuhn didn’t consider what he called “normal science” (i.e. the science done within existing paradigms between “revolutions”) to be poorly productive; on the contrary, according to Kuhn, scientific “revolutions” can’t occur without the tensions, and ultimately, crises, that may arise as a result of "normal science". And in fact the current tensions that might presage a Kuhnian revolution in “worldview” is less a scientific one now than a socio-political one; if there is to be a “revolution” I would predict it will be to a worldview in which it becomes obvious that we cannot continue to power our societies on fossil fuels, and that there are productive alternatives.“…we still need to ask Kuhn's question about scientific practice.”
What question are you thinking of meerkat, and why do we need to ask it?“it's just wrong to imagine there is a black and white distinction between the interests of corporations (bad bad bad) and the interests of scientists (good).”
A straw man. No one thinks so, and Nic’s example in his top article of the nefarious actions of some of the tobacco companies is a simply a fact; there are many examples (e.g. elements of the pharma industry misrepresenting the science on the relationship between aspirin taking in children and Reyes disease in the 1980’s). On the other hand we can recognise, for example, Dupont’s far-sightedness in unilaterally ceasing CFC production in response to scientific evidence of ozone destruction in 1988, well before the mandated ban on CFC production by 1996. It’s easy to recognise good practice and bad practice and we should be smart and mature enough to recognise these when we encounter them. It’s obvious that there are vested interests in misrepresenting the science on climate change and these largely arise from some elements of the corporate sector and misguided political positions. This does constitute a conspiracy (to misrepresent the science and mislead the public) of sorts. We'd be silly to pretend otherwise. Going back to Kuhn, it's the latter viewpoint (i.e. that of the easily identifiable misrepresenters) that will lose out in the inevitable "revolution" of worldview to come. The science always prevails eventually, although the efforts of the misrepresenters can cause unnecessary misery along the way... -
RSVP at 02:53 AM on 23 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
KR #83 Consider a cylindrical thermos container with a double plated glass on one end, filled in two cases with two distinct mixtures of a hot gas at the same temperature. In the first case, the mixture is N2, and in the second, it is CO2. I assume you would agreee that in pointing an IR detector at the glass (from outside the cylinder), the detector would register higher for the CO2 than for the N2, since the CO2 is able to emit more energy per unit time. In the same way, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more capacity for emanation, or at worst, any downward emanation should be compensated for this reason. This line of reasoning looking at the problem from a macro level just happens to coincide with the simple photon accounting explanation, and seems to agree with Figure 3 above. For all practical purposes, the two curves are sitting one on another, making more of a case against AGW than for it. I am not saying more CO2 is a good thing, and who knows, maybe it is causing warming in some way, but as the story is being told so far, these explanations seem incomplete, and fairly susceptible to critique (or at least debate archiesteel). Or if the bad CO2 really does slow down cooling, does that mean instead of the temperatures dropping to ten below by midnight, it happens five minutes later? (in which case, is this really a problem?)... or what relation does half of airports shutting down in Northern Europe last week due to bad weather have to do with any of this? Etc. -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:37 AM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Thanks for the praise, Ned. I read all the threads here (or at least the head post) and choose carefully where I can understand and respond to science issues. As I said on another thread, I was brought here after I spewed some "talking point" without doing proper research over on a weather forum that has occasional climate opinion pieces. I have two goals here, to hopefully never make claim that I haven't researched, and second to get critiques of my own, sometimes outlandish-sounding theories. In order to do the second, I have to explain what I mean very carefully which is great practice for the long run. If I can make one useful contribution to the site it would be if someone takes one of my explanations above and cleans it up and turns it into a post, e.g. why lack of warming in the perihion does not disprove sensitivity or something like that. -
Paul D at 01:49 AM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Meerkat: " it's just wrong to imagine there is a black and white distinction between the interests of corporations (bad bad bad) and the interests of scientists (good). " There is a huge difference between the two. Corporations are designed to create 'fantasies' for humans, whether that is insurance, bank accounts, cars or light bulbs. Those fantasies can be anything (like Marmite flavoured chocolate I saw today!). Corporations are guided by how much they can manipulate the public and governments. Science has only one answer, one result, because we live on this one planet in this one universe. You can't design a science theory to fit your desire, no matter how much people try to distort the reality, PR and advertising can not wrap up science and pretend it is a different product to what it actually is. If humanity disappeared along with it's corporations, the science that made it happen would still hold TRUE. -
Ned at 01:46 AM on 23 December 2010It's freaking cold!
Mike H writes: and all this in an extremely complex environment with multiple independent variables. Well, in terms of the big picture: (1) Fairly simple physics suggests that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should cause the Earth to warm. (2) The only thing that could prevent this would be strong negative feedbacks in the climate system. (3) Past climate change (glacial-interglacial cycles, the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age", etc.) suggests that there isn't a strong negative feedback in the climate system. So we would expect fossil fuel combustion to lead to climate change. Our observational systems (weather stations, satellites) are imperfect, but over the past three to four decades they show a very definite warming trend. Occam's Razor says that at this point the ball ought to be in the skeptics' court. It's not sufficient to say "well, the climate is complicated and our observations are kind of noisy". That's not an argument against the existing body of evidence ... and if it were a valid argument, it could be used both ways: your reasoning could just as easily be used to claim that maybe climate sensitivity is being underestimated. So ... individual cold-weather episodes at this or that place aren't evidence against global warming. "Uncertainty" in and of itself also isn't evidence against global warming. -
archiesteel at 01:43 AM on 23 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
@RSVP: "You write that I am wasting everyones time" Indeed you are. "stalling the "debate" on AGW (herein admitting there is something to debate)" Yes, there is, i.e. what to do about it (not whether it's true or not). "The idea being that you can debate it as long as you agree with it!" No, the idea being that bringing up the same debunked myths and refusing (or being unable to) respond to counter-arguments isn't debate, it's propaganda. It is obvious to *anyone* here that you're not interested in debating the issues, but rather you seek to push the same old talking points and stalling the debate on a point that is already settled, i.e. AGW is real, and happening now. As far as incorrect analogies go, they are tools of sophistry, not intelligent debate. Please stop using them. Thanks. -
muoncounter at 01:25 AM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
"So how do we know who is right? How do we tell consensus from conspiracy?" 'Conspiracy' is a loaded word; perhaps it is better to describe 'a group that acts in a manner that excessively promotes group-interest over objective decision-making'. Nah, that's too hard to say. I find the idea of a 'scientific conspiracy' hilarious. Go to any scientific conference: 'Big Science' research may be done in collaboration, but the people involved are at heart individualists. People listen to and read papers looking for flaws and ways to out-do each other. A good example is CERN's effort to build the LHC, supplanting FermiLab as the most powerful particle accelerator. The technical people from FermiLab participated in every phase of the design and many phases of construction. While that lengthy process was going on, they were flying back to Chicago hoping to beat the LHC to some hint of the Higgs. The lure of being the one who discovers something or the one who figures something out is too strong to allow 'conspiracy' to last very long. The folks who are more likely to 'conspire' under the long-winded definition are the ones who set the policies, run the large corporations, represent the paid politicalthink tankslobbies. Look at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, who are "pleased to work with reporters, producers, bloggers and editors to offer background information and interviews on topics related to coal-based energy" for an example. Look for conspiracy not among scientists, but among interest groups. Look for conspiracy on the other side, where science is thin and the politics of influence looms large. If any other proof is needed, look at the climate science situation: The real scientists are terrible at this game; the denial machine is thriving. How can anyone believe there's a conspiracy? -
Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
RSVP - In short, your analogies are all fixed-sum in basis. The change in your pocket, single packets of energy changing positions, etc. The reality (the complex system your analogies refer to) is one of continuous energy flow. Solar energy comes in, IR goes out to space at a rate dependent on temperature and the emissive properties of the Earth. Greenhouse gases change those emissive properties (framed here as changing the altitude distribution of IR emission), causing an energy imbalance, and changing the temperature. There are no fixed sums of energy packets, photons, or pocket change - what comes in goes out again, with the environment determining the rate/temperature relationship. However, every post I've seen from you on this topic includes fixed amounts as part of the framing. Bad analogies lead to incorrect conclusions if you try to reason from them. -
Ned at 00:32 AM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
meercat writes: consensuses are temporary alignments and arguably the least productive periods of scientific activity What exactly does that mean? Let's take the case of another scientific consensus -- plate tectonics. Did the geosciences suddenly become less productive between the 1950s and 1970s, when the consensus over plate tectonics solidified? Would the field be more productive if there was a small but vocal community of "plate tectonics skeptics" who used their influence in the media to force the mainstream geosciences community to continually defend the existence of plate tectonics? Scientific consensus is a good thing, because it lets us focus more energy on the areas where there isn't a clear consensus yet. Let's say that a decade from now, we've all come to agreement on climate sensitivity (it's 3C). It's true that there would be much less energy and resources devoted to trying to understand climate sensitivity. People who are now doing that would then need to find other research topics. That's a good thing. There are plenty of other topics that need to be explored! meercat continues: I don't think the world is going to end soon, or that the AGW panic is helpful. Like CBDunkerson, I don't see how this kind of inflammatory talk is helpful. Are there people here who claim that the world is going to end, or who are promoting "panic"? My concern about AGW is that it will impose a lot of undesirable economic, social, and environmental costs on future generations. We are going to have to move away from fossil fuels anyway. If we can start that move sooner rather than later, we reduce the likelihood of adverse consequences from climate change. Like Alexandre, I agree that the actual problem we're facing is not panic but complacency. -
Alexandre at 00:10 AM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#2 meerkat - if we take a Kuhnian approach to the history of science then consensuses are temporary alignments and arguably the least productive periods of scientific activity. I'm no scientist nor historian, but consensuses are just the mounting evidence pointing to one particular explanation, reinforcing the possibility of the theory being truthful, or at least useful. Any problem about the consensus about the existence of Hadley Cells, or gravity or Ohm's Law? Any "period of low production" associated to them? But I don't think the world is going to end soon, or that the AGW panic is helpful. Panic? You mean overreaction? Take a look at the steady upward trend of the CO2 concentration. You see any reaction at all? -
Daniel Bailey at 00:08 AM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Excellent post, Dr. Nic! Albeit one sure to bring out the wingnut contingent... The logical incoherence of denial is forced to rely on conspiracy because science, data and simple physics is not on their side. As to Fawkes, a part of him lives on in all of us. The part that focuses on the truth, fie the consequences. The theory which best explains all of what we see and measure is summed up in 3 letters: AGW. And it doesn't take being a rocket scientist to understand it. Just having an open mind. But, as Tamino recently said:"Keeping an open mind doesn't mean letting your brain fall out."
Let it begin.
The Yooper
-
Ned at 00:04 AM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
In the past, I've pointed out that most of our regular "skeptic" commenters appear to follow an unwritten rule never to say anything critical of another's "skeptic" arguments, no matter how far-fetched. So I have to note here how much I appreciate the tone set by Eric (skeptic), who has been very calmly and even-handedly responding to comments from both the pro-consensus and anti-consensus "side" in this thread. This is a real breath of fresh air ... and it's very reassuring to those of us who have been starting to wonder whether there's anyone on the "skeptic" side whose comments here are worth taking seriously. We need more of this. John has created a really great site here, but it's constantly in danger of succumbing to the typical pattern of two noisy "sides" yelling at each other. Anything that tends to break down the homogeneity of these two "sides" is a good thing, IMHO. -
VeryTallGuy at 23:03 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Riccardo, I found this excellent exposition of the concepts by Chris Colose It turns out that the definition of the no-feedback temperature increase for a forcing is based on the effective emission temperature rather than the actual surface temperature. Using 255K as the effective temperature (that of a notional blackbody with overall emission equal to total net insolation TOA) that gives 1K for 3.7W/m2. I guess that the often quoted 1.2K comes from working through the calculation to give the surface budget accurately for real temperature, without feedbacks, but applying it directly to the effective temperature gets approximately the same answer much more simply. RW1 - if you want to understand this better, Chris's post includes how to calculate for solar forcings, albedo etc. -
CBDunkerson at 22:47 PM on 22 December 2010Conspiracy theories
meerkat wrote: "But I don't think the world is going to end soon, or that the AGW panic is helpful." Straw man argument. No one involved with AGW science claims it is going to cause the world to end. Just as nothing in the post above made the black and white 'corporations bad / scientists good' distinction you falsely ascribe to it. Panic is never helpful to decision making. Neither is fiction. -
Riccardo at 22:29 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
VeryTallGuy I haven't seen any rough calculations and I don't think it is possible. The problem is that you need to consider the wavelength dependence of both emission by the earth surface and absorption by the atmosphere; also, other forms of energy other than radiative need to be taken into account. In other words, you're asking for the climate sensitivity which proved to be hard to calculate. -
Ed Davies at 22:03 PM on 22 December 2010Irregular Climate 16: a leak for all seasons
Not to pick nits or anything but it seems like your "The Climate Show #4" post doesn't appear in your feed. It's not just my feed reader - I "manually" (with wget) downloaded the feed.xml file, opened it in an editor and searched for "Climate Show" and "#4". Commenting here rather than on the post in question so anybody else who relies on the feed can see the comment and maybe throw some light.Response: I found posts with YouTube code broke the XML feed so I exclude any posts with embedded YouTube movies. If anyone has some tech tips on how to resolve this in a better manner, please don't hesitate to let me know :-) -
RSVP at 22:03 PM on 22 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
KR #75 "Please stop with the inappropriate analogies" I will grant it is possible to draw poor analogies, yet all cognition ultimately depends on simple mental models. If what I posted is oversimplified or can be shown to be inappropriate, feel free to explain why. Alec Cowan #74... instead of clarifying your position, you attempt here to place the burden of explaining what you think on me. As above, why not simply say it as it is? archiesteel #76 You write that I am wasting everyones time, stalling the "debate" on AGW (herein admitting there is something to debate).... The idea being that you can debate it as long as you agree with it! -
meerkat at 21:34 PM on 22 December 2010Conspiracy theories
A couple of things, hope they're reasonably on topic. They are written from a mildly sceptic viewpoint so my tin hat is firmly strapped on - if we take a Kuhnian approach to the history of science then consensuses are temporary alignments and arguably the least productive periods of scientific activity. Nancy Orestes paper looks a bit on the simple side to me, but even if it were possible to line up papers in the way she did, we still need to ask Kuhn's question about scientific practice. - it's just wrong to imagine there is a black and white distinction between the interests of corporations (bad bad bad) and the interests of scientists (good). Science is a complex activity full of interests and rhetoric. The AGW debate is fascinating in this respect. Personally I'd like to see more use of renewable energy sources. But I don't think the world is going to end soon, or that the AGW panic is helpful. -
Ebel at 18:56 PM on 22 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
#80 Patrick 027 at 16:47 PM on 22 December, 2010 True, where much is absorbed, there is also emitted much - but the importance of adaibatischen moist circulation for the temperature characteristic is forgotten, as well as changing the height of the tropopause. -
VeryTallGuy at 18:47 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, you're simply not listening, I'm done. Riccardo @141 do you have a reference or link for how the calculation for surface heat flux change and therefore temperature change is done from the TOA 3.7W/m2 ? As I said in the post, conceptually I'd expect the surface change to be larger, but I'm interested if a rough methodology is available to work through. -
Harald Korneliussen at 18:30 PM on 22 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theorists sometimes argue that climate scientists and their co-conspirators have something to gain by convincing us that humans are causing global warming. But that's a gross distortion of the truth. If we reasoned that way consistently, then whenever medical researchers discovered a new health hazard we shouldn’t heed their warning, we should accuse them of conspiring against us. Not only that. You should not brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, floss, avoid eating between meals, and drink water when thirsty (instead of juice or soft drinks). See, all these things are recommended by dentists to avoid cavities, but dentists are economically dependent on filling your cavities! They have a strong economic incentive to lie, or at the very least downplay the risks. The perverse incentives of a scientist seeking funding pales in comparison. Yet we believe our dentists, and distrust our climate scientists. -
archiesteel at 17:14 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
I'm pretty sure discussing perihelion insolation and albedo is quite off-topic. Please stop bloating the thread with such confused, irrelevant and repetitive arguments. Thanks. -
RW1 at 17:00 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
muoncounter (RE: Post 160), "The bulk of this change (as labeled) is due to 'ice amount'. This is used as some form of input to a 'power' equation. Do you include the fact that NH solar insolation above 60N lat is sharply reduced during winter months? So while there is higher albedo due to the greater ice extent, there is very little sunlight falling on that reflective surface. How can there be any material alteration to what you call your 'power' calculation due to these purely seasonal changes? What, then, does this 'gain' actually mean?" I don't get the question. The numbers used and inputed for each variable are global averages, so all of what you mention is automatically accounted for. -
Patrick 027 at 16:47 PM on 22 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
re the main post - I think it's more straightforward to note that the CO2 molecules tend towards the same temperature as the rest of the air in a given volume, because of the frequent molecular collisions (reality diverges from this above some level where the air is too rarefied, but this is above the stratosphere), which means some fraction of them will be in various states. At a given wavelength, they can emit as well as they can absorb, in that a given path will absorb the same fraction of incident radiation as the fraction of blackbody radiation it emits, the later being a function of temperature; this fraction approaches 100 % with increasing path length and increasing CO2 concentration for a given path length (specifically it 'decays' from 0 to 100 % exponentially) - except that if the temperature varies, the emission from a path is a weighted averaged of the blackbody value over the path; greater opacity concentrates that weighting closer to the near end of a path, so the emitted radiation would become more similar to the blackbody radiation for the temperature near the end of that path. This weighting is the same distribution of absorption for radiation coming from the opposite direction; it corresponds to what you can see coming from that direction. When more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the outgoing radiant flux is reduced because the weighting is concentrated into the higher, generally colder levels of the atmosphere, and less is at the generally warmer surface, etc. Water vapor feedback does the same thing, at different wavelengths. Warming must occur in order to bring the flux back into equilibrium with solar heating - because the CO2 (and positive greenhouse feedback) reduce the net upward flux at the tropopause level, some warming must occur beneath, and given the convective coupling of the surface and troposphere, the surface and levels of the troposphere tend to warm together. Because the atmosphere is more transparent at some wavelenghs, and at least for the effect of CO2, it's transparency has not been decreased at all wavelengths, the warming that is necessary to bring the outgoing flux back to what it was before will increase the outgoing flux beyond what it was before at some wavelengths, which means it will still be less than what it was before at other wavelengths, which means that the highest portion of the atmosphere, from which the strongest parts of the CO2 band emit to space, will be colder than what it was before. (The H2O feedback could be more complicated). (PS I learned this from a discussion at RealClimate). There is some additional stratospheric cooling that is transient - the stratosphere is initially cooled by the addition of CO2 by a larger amount than the final equilibrium, because some (small) fraction of the increase in radiation from the troposphere+surface upon warming will be absorbed in the stratosphere and cause warming there - this is after the decrease in radiation from below (from increased CO2) that, along with increased downward radiation from the stratopshere (from increased CO2), minus the reduction in downward radiation from the stratosphere (from stratospheric cooling), forces the warming. Also, the solar heating of the ozone layer, making the upper stratosphere warmer than otherwise, increases the stratospheric cooling caused by addition of CO2 (in the highest part of the atmosphere that can emit signficantly, as the concentration of a greenhouse gas is increased relative to the concentration of a gas that absorbs solar radiation, the temperature will generally tend to fall). -
RW1 at 16:47 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
muoncounter (RE: Post 160), I wasn't getting my albedo numbers from that sight, but I don't think you are interpreting the graph there correctly. The referenced limit is the amount from the dashed line to dotted line, and the peak albedo is actually above the dotted line - making it greater than 0.304. So what numbers do you want to use for average yearly albedo vs. average albedo in January? I've been using a round 0.3 yearly average. How about we use 0.34 then for January? That yields a gain of 1.63. -
RW1 at 16:12 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, I'm sorry again. The increase in average solar power at perihelion is actually 350 W/m^2 - not 347 W/m^2. When this is corrected for, the gain calculation for a 0.4 albedo is about 1.78 and for a 0.37 albedo is 1.7 - pretty close to 1.6. Also, the original gain calculated from 288K is actually 1.64 (390/238 = 1.64). So again, it's very close and certainly same ball park. Most importantly, it's no where near 8 or significantly less than 1.6. -
muoncounter at 15:24 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#159: "At perihelion in January, the albedo is closer to 0.4" Your website's graph 'global monthly albedo' shows the average at 0.27 and appears to put the NH winter seasonal difference 'limit' at 0.032. Thus, in January, according to your figures, the albedo is closer to 0.3. The bulk of this change (as labeled) is due to 'ice amount'. This is used as some form of input to a 'power' equation. Do you include the fact that NH solar insolation above 60N lat is sharply reduced during winter months? So while there is higher albedo due to the greater ice extent, there is very little sunlight falling on that reflective surface. How can there be any material alteration to what you call your 'power' calculation due to these purely seasonal changes? What, then, does this 'gain' actually mean? Please note these questions are not an invitation to merely restate what you've already said here numerous times. -
RW1 at 15:08 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, To show you that the global temperatures being 3 C colder at perihelion still coincides with the average gain factor of about 1.6 for net incident solar power, here are some calculations: At perihelion in January, the albedo is closer to 0.4 or nearly 0.1 higher than it is on average. So if we take the increased solar power at perihelion of 347 W/m^2 and subtract out an albedo of 0.4, we get net incident solar power of about 209 W/m^2 (347 x 0.4 = 138; 347 - 138 = 209 W/m^2). At 3 C colder, the earth's average temperature is about 285K. 285K = 374 W/m^2 from S-B. 374 W/m^2 divided by 208 W/m^2 equals a gain of about 1.8, which is not far off from 1.6. The albedo is actually not quite 0.4 in January on average, so if we used .37 instead, it comes to a gain of about 1.7, which is pretty close to 1.6. -
Renewable Baseload Energy
Interesting article here from Scientific American on wind farms and fish schools. Gist of the article (at least the part interesting to me) is that by studying fish schooling (optimized for minimum energy in moving from place to place) and taking that analysis to wind farms (vertical turbines, closer spacing, aiming to provide maximum energy extraction) can result in a 10x higher energy density for wind farms. That's 1/10 the land use for the same energy provided. -
scaddenp at 14:26 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
"that site will provide some good practice in spotting incorrect assumptions, logic or math" Indeed. Starting with this one: According to HITRAN based simulations, the atmosphere captures 3.6 W/m² of additional power when the CO2 is increased from 280ppm to 560ppm. Of this, the atmosphere radiates half of this up and half down. One of us doesnt understand what HITRAN outputs mean. It seems the site author is also eccentric in usage of word "power". I had no luck finding publications by George White in physics and climate. Anyone else done better? -
RW1 at 14:26 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 148), Eric: "RW1, the sun, measured by TSI changes in the historical measurements and proxies, increased by about 0.5 W/m^2 from the depths of the Little Ice Age to about 1900, see fig. 1 in A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html The temperature increase, which also involved other factors, was at least 0.5C, maybe more like 1C. With no other factors considered the "gain" is something like 2.5 to 5W/m^2 divided by 0.5 which is 5 to 10, rather than 1.6 The problem, I believe, is you are calculating gain with full solar input (zero to current day) which will yield a much smaller result than a delta of solar input as I demonstrated, albeit crudely, using the LIA." You're assuming the temperature increase was caused entirely by the 0.5 W/m^2 increase in solar power. The overwhelming majority of it could have been caused by a countless number of other things or combination of things - most of which we still don't know. It's well known that the very small increases in total average solar radiance are not enough to cause the warming we've seen since the LIA. -
RW1 at 14:19 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 154), "RW1, the (lack of) perihelion increase is just another example of nonlinearity in the effects of forcing." How do you figure? -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:03 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, it looks like the consensus is that site will provide some good practice in spotting incorrect assumptions, logic or math. I can't guarantee anything, but I'll give it a try tomorrow. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:56 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, the (lack of) perihelion increase is just another example of nonlinearity in the effects of forcing. The increased solar power hitting the SH is absorbed in the oceans which smooths the extra forcing much more evenly than the NH can. One bit of interesting evidence is that part of the Milankovitch theory is that seasonal extremes melt the ice and release us from an ice age. This occurred 11k years ago when the perihelion was in July and the summer extremes melted the NH ice. -
archiesteel at 13:44 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
@muoncounter: hey, maybe RW1 *is* George White. That would explain a lot, actually... :-) -
archiesteel at 13:41 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
@RW1: "I've never seen the information and analysis he presents here refuted anywhere" Has he every published in a peer-reviewed journal? The fact that you hold him in high esteem is quite meaningless; in fact, if he gets the same results as Lindzen and Choi are getting, he's likely just as mistaken as they are. Too bad your skepticism is only directed towards those you disagree with, and not those who reinforce your initial position. Meanwhile, many people here have successfully rebutted your assertions, and you have yet to offer a counter-argument. I guess we'll just have to take that silence as an admission of defeat on your part. -
muoncounter at 13:38 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#150: "Check out this ... " Why am I not surprised? I asked you if that website was your source 130 comments or so ago. Where is the published science from this 'originator'? Who are the other authors who've gone on to cite the 'originator'? That site (which begins with nonsensically throwing out 'anomaly analysis') seems to be the basic source for everything you've presented here. To the extent that Lindzen and Choi are debunked here and the extent that you've been shown to be incorrect, that site goes down the debunking trail too. -
RW1 at 13:21 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, Check out this more detailed explanation and satellite analysis of these things by physicist/climatologist and originator George White: http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html I've never seen the information and analysis he presents here refuted anywhere, and I've seen many try and fail totally. It's the single most damning piece of evidence against AGW that I've ever seen. I also don't think it's a coincidence that G. White's sensitivity estimate is about the same as what Lindzen and Choi are getting - albeit via somewhat different methodology. -
RW1 at 13:03 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, Getting back to the perihelion point, here it is from a different angle: Let's say the total average incident solar power increases from 340 W/m^2 to 343 W/m^2 as a result of the earth's orbit moving closer to perihelion. This results in a new, higher net incident solar energy of 240 W/m^2 (343 x 0.3 albedo = 103, 343 -103 = 240), which is an increase in radiative forcing of 2 W/m^2 (240 W/m^2 - 238 W/m^2 = 2 W/m^2) - the same as from a doubling of CO2. If according to the AGW theory, the system's response will be to greatly amplify the additional 2 W/m^2 from CO2 to about 16 W/m^2 via large positive feedbacks, why doesn't the system do it with the same 2 W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing from from the Sun? The observed temperature changes are nothing anywhere near 3 degrees C for this additional 2 W/m^2 of solar power. Even better, let's take the last 3 W/m^2 increase that occurs at peak perihelion (347 W/m^2 to 350 W/m^2 for a net of 2 W/m^2 albedo adjusted). The system doesn't respond by amplifying that last 2 W/m^2 8 fold, but somehow it's all of the sudden going amplify the next 2 W/m^2 from C02 8 fold? Again, does it make physical and/or logical sense that the system is somehow all the sudden going to treat such a small increase radically differently than it does both the last 0.5 percent and the original 99+ percent? -
muoncounter at 12:54 PM on 22 December 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
#62: "So if the ocean has quickly absorbed the heat, it will also quickly absorb the CO2 as soon as we stop producing it." The oceans do nothing quickly; see the graphs here. Oceans are absorbing CO2 now, as they are acidifying. You can't just declare oceans 'quickly absorb the CO2 as soon as we stop', as the oceans might might just give it right back to us (if we stop; that's a good one). See the ocean acidification page; you will find some parts of the ocean are sourcing CO2, while others are sinking it. "the paleo record shows a distinct nonlinearity in the region we are in that indicates the opposite of "tipping points" but rather a stabilization in temperature." In this and in #60, you've made a lot of grand generalizations. In order for general statements like as oceans warm over hundreds or thousands of years, CO2 is released in a more or less linear fashion and longer term sensitivity only applies to glacial to interglacial transitions to be accepted into the debate, you must provide some evidence. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:43 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, the sun, measured by TSI changes in the historical measurements and proxies, increased by about 0.5 W/m^2 from the depths of the Little Ice Age to about 1900, see fig. 1 in A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html The temperature increase, which also involved other factors, was at least 0.5C, maybe more like 1C. With no other factors considered the "gain" is something like 2.5 to 5W/m^2 divided by 0.5 which is 5 to 10, rather than 1.6 The problem, I believe, is you are calculating gain with full solar input (zero to current day) which will yield a much smaller result than a delta of solar input as I demonstrated, albeit crudely, using the LIA. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:16 PM on 22 December 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
e, thanks for responding. I will obviously have to look at each study. The biggest difference is that short term amplification from water vapor feedback cannot be compared with long term amplification from a CO2-temperature feedback cycle. Even if we argue that the paleo studies were correct (no other unmeasured factor caused the majority of the temperature increase which then caused the CO2 increase by many centuries of ocean warming), that CO2 to T to CO2 amplification factor does not apply to water vapor for many reasons (e.g. it is not seasonal or geographic unlike water vapor which is). Another key factor is that the ice age to interglacial transition used to estimate sensitivity encompassed a nonlinear change in the warming effect of water vapor (in the present climate there is a much larger ratio of cooling effects from water vapor to warming effects than in the ice age climate). The only valid use of paleo sensitivity is the argument that CO2 increases have short-circuited the long slow feedback process and will emerge in 3C warming after ocean inertia. My very simple answer to that dilemma is that CO2 is sequestered with ocean turnover just the way heat is sequestered. So if the ocean has quickly absorbed the heat, it will also quickly absorb the CO2 as soon as we stop producing it. You may see that as a good argument for the many ideas on the solutions threads here and I agree and I agree with those threads. But I also realize that the paleo record shows a distinct nonlinearity in the region we are in that indicates the opposite of "tipping points" but rather a stabilization in temperature. -
RW1 at 12:15 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, @Eric 144: "You then stated 1) that an increased radiative forcing in the system (atmosphere plus surface) would produce the same ratio of surface radiative increase (i.e. the gain again). And 2) the 3C rise in temperature postulated for the doubling of CO2 would produce a 12 W/m^2 increase in surface radiation by applying S-B to the delta T. And 3) 12 divided by 1.6 is too large for CO2 to produce." No, not quite. I'm saying the 3 C rise requires an increase in surface power of 16 W/m^2 for a gain of 8 (8 x 2 W/m^2 = 16 W/m^2), which is 5 times the 3.2 W/m^2 increase in the surface power from each 2 W/m^2 coming in from the Sun. The AGW theory of a 3 C rise in temperature requires the system to respond to each 1 W/m^2 of power from increased CO2 5 times more powerfully than each 1 W/m^2 of power coming in from the Sun. -
scaddenp at 12:03 PM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
"3.7 W/m^2 is the total absorbed or captured power for a doubling of CO2, correct?" NO! It is not. 3.7W/m2 is the equivalent radiative forcing you would get from double CO2. eg. Doubling CO2 would give you the same impact say a solar forcing of 3.7W/m2. This confusion and insistence on halving it is getting in the way. All of the absorption, re-emission in all directions, re-absorption etc etc has to be done in the complex RTE codes. (eg you can find a MODTRAN calculator here). Net result is an intensity out which is used to calculate the radiative forcing. "power" is also a slightly confusing term to use - usually used in context of energy conversion. Here we are talking about an energy flux. -
RW1 at 11:48 AM on 22 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: Post 144), The amount of power from the Sun that hits the surface and is re-radiated as LW infrared is about 238 W/m^2. However, the total power at the surface is 390 W/m^2 - not 238 W/m^2, because GHGs and/or clouds are absorbing and re-radiating some of that 238 W/m^2 back toward the surface, which in effect, is delaying or slowing down the release of the 238 W/m^2, causing the surface to be warmer than it would be; or causing the surface power flux to be 390 W/m^2 instead of 238 W/m^2. The gain represents the increase in surface power or increase in surface temperature as a result of there being GHGs and clouds in the atmosphere. In effect, the gain factor of 1.6 means that due to the greenhouse effect, it takes about 1.6 W/m^2 of power at the surface for each 1 W/m^2 of power to leave the system, offsetting each 1 W/m^2 entering the system from the Sun.
Prev 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Next
