Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Next
Comments 101251 to 101300:
-
archiesteel at 11:09 AM on 14 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@quokka: why are you talking about Joe Romm? I didn't. Now, if you are claiming I believe "The only possible solution is individual action", then you are using a strawman argument. I certainly do *not* think that the only possible solution is individual (considering that many see me as a Socialist, that'd be suprising). I do think that our Energy problem is so severe we must both act individually *and* through our governments for large-scale projects. The economy will profit either way. "when the cost of other low emissions technologies would almost certainly be higher." That is opinion, not fact, and it clearly ignores any participation of microgeneration in the mix. "Such a proposal should be wholeheartedly supported." Right. That's a pipe dream, and you know it - it would take considerable effort to deal with the NIMBY effect for so many stations. Again, it will be easier to sell nuclear along with renewables than instead of them. "It is not I who is being "illogical"." A strawman argument is a logical fallacy. You can deduce the rest. -
archiesteel at 10:56 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
@damorbel: the question was quite clear, actually. "the hard thermodynamic fact that destroys the AGW/GHE" Stop acting as if you've made that case, because you haven't. It's quite simple, really. Let's try to break it down in yes/no questions, shall we? Photons from the sun heat the surface of the Earth through thermal radiation. Do you agree with this? Assuming you agree: when object increase in temperature, they emit IR energy, as described by black body theory. Do you agree with this? Note that "the surface" as an object is a bit of an oversimplification (see sensible heat and latent heat transport), but you get the idea, right? Assuming you agree: this IR radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, who are mostly "transparent" to visible light (i.e. they absorb photons in the IR range more than they do those in the visible light range); similarly, non-greenhouse gases such as O2 and N2 are mostly transparent to IR-range photons. Do you agree with this? Assuming you do: in order to maintain thermal equilibrium, greenhouse gas molecules re-radiates the IR energy in a random direction (i.e. in every direction, when considering large amounts of molecules). Do you agree with this? Assuming you do: some of the re-radiated IR energy will escape to space, some will get back down to the surface, and some will be captured by other greenhouse gas molecules, continuing the absorbtion/re-radiation cycle. Do you agree with this? There you go: five simple yes or no questions. Be forewarned that any attempt to circumvent the questions, divert the debate or start playing silly semantics will be met with the scorn and/or ridicule it deserves. -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
In reference to my previous post, the Fallacy Of Division in the G&T paper is completely clear in their Figure 32, page 78, where they draw an incorrect heat transfer diagram - and claim it to disprove thermal radiation. This is both a strawman argument and a Fallacy Of Division. Completely bogus, sad to say. -
quokka at 10:46 AM on 14 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
406 archiesteel I would remind you that I am NOT the one posting here who has a financial interest in making a sales pitch. "absolutist" assertions thatThe only possible solution is individual action. The fact that you will save money and be more comfortable is gravy.
can reasonably be interpreted in only one way - micro generation. The assertion is nonsense, not based on evidence and intellectually indefensible. Let me repeat, I am NOT the one making a sales pitch here and I am NOT ascribing to others positions that they do not hold - read what was posted before making accusations. The whole "argument" about a mix of generation technologies is facile. There has been a mix in the past, there is currently a mix and without a shadow of a doubt there will be a mix in the future. As always, the devil is in the detail and the composition of the mix is the crunch point - it much be reliable from an engineering point of view and it must not be too expensive, otherwise it will never happen. Joe Romm is one who pushes this mix of technologies argument ad infinitum and states that nuclear will be part of his mix. But when a republican senator proposes 100 new nuclear power plants for the US Romm launches a broadside by reproducing a piece blathering on about jobs, college places and most astonishingly cost when the cost of other low emissions technologies would almost certainly be higher. Not once are CO2 emissions and the fact that the proposal, if realized, would make another 20% of US generation capacity very low emission mentioned. Those nukes would displace baseload coal and reduce US emissions from electricity generation by 30% or more. Such a proposal should be wholeheartedly supported. It is not I who is being "illogical". -
scaddenp at 10:39 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
"Trapping heat needs an insulator, material with a relatively low thermal conductivity, such as an expanded polystyrene container or a vacuum flask. This insulating material slows the rate of heat transfer in or out of the container. If your flask is made of transparent material, heat will also transfer out of (or into) the flask by radiative process. This radiative process can be reduced by coating the flask surfaces with a highly reflective material." More wierdness. "Insulator" in terms of GHE is more of conceptual term and I dont like it. GHGs are NOT a conductive insulator, never have been postulated to be and far as I can see, you are the only one insisting on this understanding of the word "insulator". In the more general sense of an impediment to energy transfer, then GHG are insulators but the mechanism of impediment has nothing whatsoever to do with the conductive properties of the atmosphere. But this has been explained to you before... You are persisting with idea that textbook thermodymanics postulates that GHE is due to conductive-like heat transfer from bodies of different temperatures. This is also not true. If your notions cannot explain the results of a laboratory experiment and yet textbook thermodynamics, dont you think its time to start reading? -
scaddenp at 10:30 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
A few minutes reading the framework would dispel that notion" The framework has this:- No it is not. You are jumping around. The framework I referred to is the way that "heat flow"/"heat transfer" is introduced in thermodynamics theory. Reading that would dispel the idea that modern thermodynamics is trapped in caloric theory. Instead of jumping around, do you that an experiment is arbitor between textbook physics and your odd ideas? There is no further point to this discussion unless you do. -
Riccardo at 10:09 AM on 14 December 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
It would be a gift to have a very low solar activity for the next decade. Though it would just be a delay, after that warming would kick in again, only faster. -
alan_marshall at 10:01 AM on 14 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
I suggest the text "This climate sensitivity of an additional 1°C warming" should be reworded "This minimum climate sensitivity of 2.2°C warming", as the term "climate sensitivity" refers to both direct and indirect effects of a doubling of CO2. I still worry that we may be underestimating the climate sensitivity. For example, as far as I know the models do not factor in the release of methane from deposits of methyl hydrate. Also, ice core data reveals spikes in temperature between ice ages and interglacials averaging more than 10 degrees C, even though the spike in CO2 between ice ages and interglacials is less than 100%. -
Phila at 09:50 AM on 14 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
Ron Crouch #64 But who am I to question Roy's science, after all, as he states, everybody else is wrong and only he is right. The last time I paid any attention to Spencer, he was scolding other climate scientists for treating his claims about an 0.5 percent change in cloud cover over the last 30 years as speculative. He actually complained that his colleagues wanted to know what might cause such a change. He really doesn't seem to get that the burden of proof is on him, and that people who make commonplace requests for evidence are not modern-day Inquisitors. Roy is quite aware of this. I wonder if he is. It's amazing what people can forget or overlook when they need to. -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
damorbel, everyone else - Lets, just for a moment, return to the topic of this thread. Critics (exemplified by G&T, as linked in the initial topic) have argued that the atmospheric greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They have argued this claiming that "heat cannot flow from colder to warmer" (correct, where 'heat' is the sum of energy flows), while blatantly ignoring the fact that thermal radiation from a colder atmosphere can reduce the sum energy flowing from the warmer ground/water, causing the surface to heat until it's thermal radiation once again equals the incoming visible radiation. This conflation of 'heat flow' with basic radiative dynamics is the basis of the entire "2nd law objection" error. They claim the part (thermal IR from cold to warm) is the whole (summed energy flow, or 'heat flow'), and in this they are sadly incorrect. This is the Fallacy Of Division. Greenhouse gases, by absorbing/re-radiating thermal IR at various frequencies, redirect just under 50% of that IR back to the ground (backradiation, easily measured, and quite well established over 50 years ago), which means that the amount of radiation from the surface to space is reduced at any particular temperature, as per the previous paragraph. Heat transfer (defined as sum of energy) is from the warmer ground to the atmosphere and to space. But it's less efficient when greenhouse gases are present, requiring the ground to be warmer, to radiate more, to be in equilibrium with incoming visible light. This is entirely in line with the first and second laws of thermodynamics - there is no contradiction, the greenhouse effect follows the laws of physics. damorbel - You've jumped around (intentionally or otherwise) from red herring to red herring. You too are guilty of the Fallacy Of Division. However, you have correctly noted that objects absorb photons within their absorption spectra, regardless of the source. Therefore an object (of any temperature) can receive energy from another object (of any temperature), with the 'heat flow' determined by the summation of those energies. The GHE changes the summation at the surface of the Earth, and balance can only be maintained with a higher surface temperature than would be present otherwise - it's really no more complicated than that. If you have issues with anything I have said in this post, please say so - I can point you to where each part of this has been measured and demonstrated repeatedly over the last few centuries. Note, however, that I will call out strawman arguments or red herrings. -
Composer99 at 09:50 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
damorbel: You were asked two questions in Philippe's post #208. Both of them are quite clear - if you wanted you could answer both of them with just 'yes' or 'no'. One of them appears to be a request that you clarify your central position on this thread. You answered neither of them in your post #209. Indeed, your answer reads like a diversion rather than an attempt to address the question. As has been put to you on several previous occasions, the hard fact is that backradiation and other greenhouse-effect features can be, and have been, empirically measured. So to be frank, it appears that the issue at hand continues to be your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. All the more so since you insist (on this comment thread, at least) on arguing at a purely conceptual level, with no evidence to support your claim other than assertion. If you can provide either (A) some empirical measurements, preferably published in peer-reviewed journals, showing that the empirical measurements demonstrating a greenhouse effect are false, or (B) documents, preferably also published in peer-reviewed journals, showing that the methods used to collect the empirical measurements demonstrating a greenhouse effect are fatally flawed, then perhaps you will make some progress here. -
damorbel at 09:48 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #210 Philippe Chantreau You wrote:- "Since you're a stickler for words, let's kepp it tight. Heat content is what is measured by temperature" Not remotely. The tiniest particle has a temperature, its 'heat content' may be microscopic while its temperature can make it glow any colour you like. You wrote also:- "The other question is this: Do you argue that there can be no energy (any and all kinds) transfer between the atmosphere and the surface because the atmosphere is colder than the surface?" That is far too general ('any and all kinds'!) but if you confine the transfer to thermal processes (including radiation) the answer is yes, I do argue that, it's what the 2nd law is all about. -
damorbel at 09:36 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re 207 scaddenp You wrote:- "A few minutes reading the framework would dispel that notion" The framework has this:- "Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. Trapping heat needs an insulator, material with a relatively low thermal conductivity, such as an expanded polystyrene container or a vacuum flask. This insulating material slows the rate of heat transfer in or out of the container. If your flask is made of transparent material, heat will also transfer out of (or into) the flask by radiative process. This radiative process can be reduced by coating the flask surfaces with a highly reflective material. The critical factor in this matter is that reflection 'traps' heat, not absorption/emission; GHGs do not reflect radiation to any measurable extent, certainly no more than O2 and N2. If you are interested in highly effective 'trapping' of radiation, you only have to check optical fibres used to transmit data accross oceans, some are able to contain (trap) IR radiation for 100s of kilometers before a repeater is needed. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:32 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Since you're a stickler for words, let's kepp it tight. Heat content is what is measured by temperature. The question is very clear, let me rephrase it: do you dispute that these gases absorb and emit IR in the stratosphere and that their radiative properties affect the temperature of the stratosphere? The other question is this: Do you argue that there can be no energy (any and all kinds) transfer between the atmosphere and the surface because the atmosphere is colder than the surface? -
damorbel at 09:08 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re 208 Philippe Chantreau You wrote:- "CH4, H2O and CO2 are present in the stratosphere where thay absorb and radiate IR. Their radiative effects are part of the total stratospheric heat budget. Do you dispute that?" I suggest your question is unclear. Heat is measured by temperature, the basic rule of 2nd law of thermodynamics. A heat budget would just say that heat transfer is from the hotter location to the colder, the hard thermodynamic fact that destroys the AGW/GHE. -
archiesteel at 09:05 AM on 14 December 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
@muoncounter: it seems the cooling trend that is supposed to disprove AGW is always just a few years away... -
muoncounter at 08:43 AM on 14 December 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
#98: Eric, thanks for that link. Its actually not a bad paper, but it makes no mention of clouds or cooling. They do forecast that the next sunspot max (in 2014-15) will be roughly 1/3 of the sunspot peak in 2000, ie, that we have entered a 'grand solar minimum' in 2008. Let the cooling begin! Oh, wait, it should have started already. Ironic that this paper by Russians was given at a cosmic ray meeting in the hot summer of August 2010. -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:04 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
CH4, H2O and CO2 are present in the stratosphere where thay absorb and radiate IR. Their radiative effects are part of the total stratospheric heat budget. Do you dispute that? Between the claims on historical elements and all the rest, it seems that your argument is that the atmosphere can not radiate any energy toward the surface because it is colder, is that what you are actually trying to defend here? -
Daniel Bailey at 07:44 AM on 14 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Re: stefaan (24) Thanks; I'd known that, but didn't want to prejudice you in any way. Makes one wonder, tho... The Yooper -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:28 AM on 14 December 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Henry justice, that paper is here: http://ecrs2010.utu.fi/done/posters/session1/1.62_Stozhkov.pdf IMO it is an oversimplification to equate solar activity with a particular cooling from low clouds. The way I see it (in the cosmic ray thread) is that the extra cosmic rays reduce warming amplification whatever the warming sources might be. They do this by creating more atmospheric blocking, by clouds, and probably other effects. So IMO what will happen is CO2 warming will be less amplified, or not amplified at all. I'm not so sure that there will be cooling. -
muoncounter at 07:28 AM on 14 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
#24: All well-known deniers. Nice work on the Phoenix CO2 dome, though. -
scaddenp at 07:27 AM on 14 December 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Whether the authors are right are not (wonder if they are friends of the other russian solar scientists losing the bet with Annan on global warming), the article shows effect of such a minimum will be small compared to GHG forcings. And of course when such a minimum ends... -
stefaan at 07:27 AM on 14 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Besides, its probably a bit off topic, but you have a look at this co2science organisation : chairman : craig d. Idso president : sherwood b. Idso vice-president : Keith e Idso a nice family business :) -
muoncounter at 07:26 AM on 14 December 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
#94: "Cosmic ray flux will increase and lead to more clouds. further cooling ..." That is still highly unsubstantiated; some would say, debunked, here. Cosmic ray flux was at a high during the most recent solar minimum through end 2009; where were the clouds? Where was the cooling? As for the rest, are you reading Landscheidt? -
archiesteel at 07:25 AM on 14 December 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
@Henry Justice: "The trigger for the initiation of sunspots is the falling of celestial bodies (comets, asteroids and others) from the Oort cloud and Koiper belt onto the Sun." There is no indication whatsoever that a comet falling into the sun will trigger sunspots. I don't think you realize what the size difference between a comet and the sun is. Also, it is unlikely a comet would ever get through the ultra-hot corona to reach the sun's(relatively) cooler surface. There is also no solid evidence we are heading to a new Maunder minimum, and that this will somehow offset the current warming trend. Was the article in question peer-reviewed? (I saw there was a reference to a Willie Soon, which makes it highly suspect in my view.) After all, we should expect to be as skeptical of such claims as you seem to be about established science -
archiesteel at 07:12 AM on 14 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
@RickG: I get posts deleted here regularly because I get off-topic sparring with tro..."skeptics". I don't mind, those are the rules and I admit I do tend to be combative when confronted with the same debunked argument over and over again (that, and "skeptics" who hide their pseudo-science behind a wall of jargon, formulas and appeals to sources that do not actually support their views). The moderators here do a great job, even if I'm sometimes on the receiving end of their moderation stick. I'm completely fine with that. -
archiesteel at 07:08 AM on 14 December 2010Climate's changed before
@tobyw: interesting study, but right now we haven't seen any increase in vegetation due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere (so far, it's been the opposite), so I'm a bit skeptical about this expected negative feedback. -
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
damorel - the idea that text book use of heat flow (you can call it heat transfer or whatever) implies that the text book writer is confused about the historical "fluid" theory is ridiculous in the extreme. A few minutes reading the framework would dispel that notion. The standard, textbook theory of thermodynamics gives us a predictive framework. If your eccentric ideas fail to predict the outcome of an experiment and the textbook method does, then do you accept that you need to change your ideas? At the moment you are clinging to a false notion of GHE based as far as I can see on an incoherent thermodynamic framework. The argument can progress if we can discuss an experiment where your notions produce a different an answer to standard textbook ones. -
archiesteel at 07:03 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
I also would like damorbel to answer the counter-arguments presented to him rather than dismiss them off-hand. So far, he has failed to make a compelling case to support his bizarre interpretation of accepted science. -
Henry justice at 07:01 AM on 14 December 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
We are now in a repeat Dalton Minimum. There is a very good chance that afterwards by 2020, a grand Maunder like minimum will begin. Cosmic ray flux will increase and lead to more clouds, further cooling the Earth. Long term solar activity minimums have occurred in the past when the center of mass of the solar system (the Sun and external planets without Jupiter) was outside of the Sun. The trigger for the initiation of sunspots is the falling of celestial bodies (comets, asteroids and others) from the Oort cloud and Koiper belt onto the Sun. The gravitation of fields of the Sun and planets govern the motions of these bodies and direct these celestial bodies to the Sun's surface. When the center of mass of the solar system is outside of the Sun most of these celestial bodies do not fall on the Sun and a long-term solar activity minimum begins. The maximum value of Rz is predicted not to exceed 50. See ref: New Maunder Minimum in Solar Activity and Cosmic Ray Fluxes in the Nearest Future, Stozhkov and Okhlopkov, 3-6 August, 2010, 22d European Cosmic Ray Symposium, Turku, Findland.Moderator Response: A duplicate copy of this comment was deleted from the thread "Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?" Please do not post multiple copies of the same comment. Thanks! -
archiesteel at 06:59 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
@damorbel: "I am intrigued to know how contributions based on the scientific arguments presented by the IPCC or their lead authors for preventing AGW can be described as political." Simple, it was because of your unsupported claim that any energy alternative leads to financial catastrophe (ignoring the fact that inaction will lead to much bigger financial woes. In particular, these words: "much more expensive 'wild (or supposedly renewable) energy sources, all of which will have a devastating effect on the environment." There is no evidence that alternative energy sources (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro, etc.) have "devastating effects" on the environment, especially when use of fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas, etc.) *already* has a deleterious impact on the environment. What you said was not a scientific statement, but a political one that has no basis on objective reality. Perhaps it's time for you to re-evaluate your motivations and start understanding the science rather than spout off incorrect arguments in an arrogant assault on established science.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Archiesteel - Well put! -
Composer99 at 06:43 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Oops, I should note that contra my comment #203 greenhouse gas distribution is not exclusively limited to the troposphere. Mea culpa. -
Composer99 at 06:41 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
damorbel: What does O2 absorption of Sun-sourced UV-spectrum EM radiation in the stratosphere have to do with tropospheric greenhouse gasses (CO2, CH4, H2O, &c.) absorbing surface-sourced infrared-spectrum EM radiation, or with your claim that the latter process is nonexistent on account of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (or at least your interpretation of it)? -
damorbel at 06:34 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Moderator Response: [muoncounter] I am intrigued to know how contributions based on the scientific arguments presented by the IPCC or their lead authors for preventing AGW can be described as political. When geoengineering is under consideration it is essential to run the scientific arguments to their proper conclusion.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] This thread is on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect. Subjective remarks on the economic effects of rising CO2 or comments on geo-engineering are off-topic. Keep that in mind if comments disappear. -
stefaan at 06:23 AM on 14 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Hi, Well if i have some time, i will look at the refs they give, cause a popular method is giving good refs but in a completely wrong way... -
Daniel Bailey at 06:16 AM on 14 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Re: stefaan (21) Hello again, sir! I felt you were in agreement with the science end of it, but wanted to provide a framework of a response for the other readers to see. A logical evidenciary chain builds credibility. :) As to:"I think they just gave the data that fit their story in this case."
I believe you have the right of it. Not all have the ability to overcome cognitive bias and have the strength of mind to logically go where the data takes one, regardless of presuppositions. The Yooper -
stefaan at 06:09 AM on 14 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Hi Daniel, I think the theory about GW is rather solid. In my opinion there are only 2 possible attitudes towards the effect of (extra) CO2 - it has little or no effect (this demands of course that you reject the idea of the natural greenhouse effect). Although even most "climate skeptics" reject this point of view, its often encountered in popular media. An argument which is often found in this discussion is that 'the moon is 60 K too hot' but its never accompanied by any proof - or you recongnize the existence of the natural greenhouse effect and then its impossible for me to understand how people can think that doubling the amount of CO2 wont have (almost) no effect Nevertheless its often difficult to sepparate the wheat from the chaff especially when i see rather well documented sites like the co2science site i gave earlier. I think they just gave the data that fit their story in this case. best regards stefaan -
Daniel Bailey at 05:54 AM on 14 December 2010Climate's changed before
Re: tobyw (146) There has been some discussion of the Bounoua et al study on another thread, specifically comments 15-24 located here. But thanks for the heads-up! The Yooper -
damorbel at 05:53 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #199 CBDunkerson you write :- "damorbel #198:Numerous people, including me, have repeatedly shown you conclusive proof... " In #198 I asked who you thought are the scientists who have moved on from Tyndall. My personal concern in this matter is not the historical side but how modern physics handles the arguments put forward by the IPCC when they are advising governments to change the basis for energy supply to much more expensive 'wild (or supposedly renewable) energy sources, all of which will have a devastating effect on the environment. Half of the IPCC thesis is that the Earths albedo reduces the surface temperature when some simple physics familiar to all shows that this simply isn't true. The other half of the IPCC thesis is that gases that emit/absorb infrared can change the heat distribution in the atmosphere. On this last I have cited the stratosphere where the temperature profile really is modified by absorption. But the planet with a very nearly pure CO2 atmosphere, Venus, does not have a stratosphere like the Earth with its characteristic temperature inversion. Surely if GHGs absorbed IR in the same way O2 absorbs UV there would be some trace of temperature inversion but I don't think you will find any.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You were asked politely in #193 to keep your politics to yourself. Yet you continue in #198, #201. Next political rant is gone -- and all the prior ones go, too. -
Alec Cowan at 05:52 AM on 14 December 2010Ice data made cooler
@RSVP #40 It's not negating anything you could posibly post, as you could post things that are right. For instance, you took my advice to look at partial pressures and quoted Henry's Law (You see, nobody is telling you that is wrong) but still you don't catch the difference between an ion and a di-gas. But it remains, among other things, the set of problems related with arithmetics that your post #29 shows (it is still there for everyone to see). As I say, I won't give the solution nor point the several mistakes for you, and I think everybody else are of the same opinion. I'm only going to point your mistakes and give you some hints as suggesting you to reconstruct the reasoning in post #29 on paper with simple diagrams and paying attention to what you take and what you add here or there, understand the % you are talking about, and then get the data and apply it to your now carefully weighted formulas. I'm sure you agree that we all -including you- must avoid giving answers to people who don't want to ask directly what they clearly ignore and pretend instead pull out information by promoting dialogues like: "-Water boils at 500° - No, it boils at 100°C - Yes, as water boils at 100°C, the sky is brown - No, the sky is blue ..." -
Phila at 05:52 AM on 14 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
it's surprising how quickly somebody here will jump all over you correct you when they think you're wrong. What's even more surprising is how quickly people return to their errors after being corrected. Sometimes it's almost like the discussion never happened, and everyone has to go back to square one. -
Ron Crouch at 05:48 AM on 14 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
I wouldn't spend much energy trying to figure out what Roy Spencer's position is really supposed to be as it relates to Andy's paper. I'm afraid that Roy is somewhat narcissistic. Trying to engage the likes of Spencer and Lindzen in meaningful dialogue is simply an exercise in futility. In Roy's own words: " First, we skeptics already know your arguments …it would do you well to study up a little on ours. And second, those of us who have been at this a long time actually knew Galileo. Galileo was a good friend of ours. And you are no Galileo.". Neither is Roy, but he looks good on TV. I've read all the exchange and there is certainly the insinuation by Roy that ENSO is driven by clouds. But who am I to question Roy's science, after all, as he states, everybody else is wrong and only he is right. I find it hard to believe that Roy took the time to break from his politicizing at Cancun to even read Andy's paper. And as has been indicated in discussion, it was totally absurd of Roy to criticize the timing of the release of Andy's paper as these paper's are submitted and the author(s) have no control over the timing of the release, and Roy is quite aware of this. Amazing how people turn to dirty pool when their backs are against the wall. -
Phila at 05:44 AM on 14 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
I'll make an easy statement, too: put up or shut up. Seriously. Go show Dressler where he's wrong. Seconded. Talk's cheap. Stop casting petty aspersions and show your work. As for the people who are complaining about comment moderation at RC, I don't see that RC's commenting policy is all that different from SkS. It's more inconsistent, probably, but it also tends to be more tolerant of "skeptical" conspiracy-mongering and ad hom. Certainly, outright trolling disrupts more threads there than it does here. Still, even if this complaint were accurate, you could avoid having your comments deleted by submitting strictly rational and respectful criticisms of Dessler's methodology. Implying that your criticisms will be deleted makes it seems as though you're simply avoiding a real test of your pet theories. You're fortunate to be have an opportunity to engage with Dessler. Make use of it. You might learn something. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:37 AM on 14 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Re: stefaan (19) Appreciate the response. As a scientist, I'm sure you appreciate the value of peer-review in discerning the wheat from the chaff. As such, the purpose of the IPCC Working Group 1 is to establish the consensus of the available peer-reviewed literature in the field of climate science. From the IPCC, an overview of the past 1,200 years:
Examples of regional variability over that time period:
The IPCC's summary statement on the MWP: "The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR. On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr. Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based temperature estimates for individual years means that it is more difficult to gauge the significance, or precedence, of the extreme warm years observed in the recent instrumental record, such as 1998 and 2005, in the context of the last millennium."
Source: IPCC WG1 Chapter 6.6 . Weigh that against the CO2Science position statement on global warming, formulated in 1998. As a scientist, I'm sure you also appreciate the need to first weigh all of the available evidence before formulating an explanation that best explains all of that evidence. And to revise that explanation as newer data becomes available over time. The science says one thing about the human attribution of CO2 and its effects (known since the days of Tyndall and Fourier). CO2Science says another. What does your skeptical scientist mind say? The Yooper -
damorbel at 05:32 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #197 Philippe Chantreau you write :- "Damorbel, are you suggesting that CO2, CH4 and H2O are not present or do not absorb/emit in the stratosphere? Why would that be?" I don't think any of the gases you mention are responsible to a great extent for absorbing UV in the stratosphere. It is O2 (diatomic oxygen) that absorbs UV at 200microns and below; this creates two separate (monatomic) oxygen atoms which then react with O2 (diatomic oxygen) to form O3; which is actually triatomic oxygen or perhaps more familiar with the name ozone. -
CBDunkerson at 05:28 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
damorbel #198: "The troposphere is colder than the surface below it, nobody contests this. That is all that is neccesary to destroy the hideously expensive CO2 reduction policies required to save us from AGW." Numerous people, including me, have repeatedly shown you conclusive proof to the contrary. Your refusal to see (or address) those proofs is "all that is necessary" to demonstrate that you cannot make your case. -
damorbel at 05:19 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #196 CBDunkerson you write :- "you rewrote this as me citing just Tyndall." Feel free to add who you like, I cannot do this for you. Meanwhile, if you think name dropping like this is a substitute for arguments, then what about Boltzmann, Joule, Clausius, Kelvin and many more who made remarkable contributions to thermodynamics. You will be hard pushed to discover anything of substance in their work that supports the strange predictions of AGW. The troposphere is colder than the surface below it, nobody contests this. That is all that is neccesary to destroy the hideously expensive CO2 reduction policies required to save us from AGW. -
tobyw at 05:00 AM on 14 December 2010Climate's changed before
New NASA computer model shows plants slow warming by 0.3C-0.6C when CO2 is doubled against the predicted 1.94C globally. No mention of atmospheric sulfur (a source of particulates which help form rain) having declined from a peak in 1970 to 100-year lows in 2000. Don't you love it when they use data that stops 10 years ago in a current article? Far too much data is left out of models to assure accuracy, IMHO. Worse still, there is no mention of missing/incomplete data, only mention of major consensus. -T . http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html 'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming. The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled. Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate. "This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming," Bounoua said. -
stefaan at 04:58 AM on 14 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Hi Daniel, I am a bit familiar with the most common explanations about GW and as i scientist i am find the arguments in favor of an antropogenic gw effect more convincing than the against-arguments. However, in a discussion about the MWT someone gave me the linkt i mentioned here. If those data are correct (and they appear to be so as they are collected from lots of different articles) the MWT seems to have been a global warm period. So, what I think that the explication can be : - MWT was indeed a global warm time so there is something wrong with the graph you gave me - The data sets given in that cited ref are almost 80 % situated in the northern hemisphere and so dominating the overal view (although even the points on the southpole display a warm period) - the results are cherry picked to display a wrong image - the results are not cherry picked but just (intentionally or not) wrong... best regards stefaan -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:56 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
"The stratosphere is formed by O2 & O3 absorbing UV coming from the Sun which heats it, giving it its characteristic temperature profile." Damorbel, are you suggesting that CO2, CH4 and H2O are not present or do not absorb/emit in the stratosphere? Why would that be? There is a considerable body of litterature showing that they are present and absorb/emit as expected.
Prev 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Next
