Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Next
Comments 101601 to 101650:
-
damorbel at 00:05 AM on 14 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re 177 Riccardo you wrote:- "But i do recognize the best knowledge available at the moment, easily found in thextbooks," If you want to find 'the best knowledge' I cannot do better than recommend you adopt my practice of reading original texts of those credited with being the originators of the science in question. For example, have you read Max Planck 'The Theory of Heat Radiation'; Albert Einstein papers on the quantum effect 1905, 1909, and 1917; G R Kirchhoff 'On the Relation Between the Emissive and the Absorptive Powers of Bodies for Heat and Light'. The really interesting thing about Planck and Einstein is that they freely acknowledge the merit of the work of their predecessors, Kirchhoff in 1862, Planck in 1901 and Einstein in 1905,1909 and 1917. Until you have read these works as a minimum your knowledge and appreciation will be substantially less than mine. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did. Oh, I nearly forgot J.C. Maxwell, a copy of his major work 'Theory of Heat' is available on line for about £6.29 -
CBDunkerson at 23:57 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Damorbel, as I told you in another thread... if you want to prove the textbooks are wrong and you've uncovered the 'True science' you are never going to make your case by ranting on the internet. People will just look at the textbooks and say, 'Well according to this, people have been experimentally proving the existence of back radiation and greenhouse warming since Tyndall first did it in 1858'. That's over a hundred and fifty years of direct scientific practice saying you are wrong. You need to prove otherwise within the scientific community (aka, by publishing evidence to the contrary in science journals and having your findings validated) or you will just continue to be dismissed. -
CBDunkerson at 23:49 PM on 13 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
NQoA writes: "would you be kind enough to send me a couple of links to examples, pre 2005, were the IPCC or friends specifically stated that they expected the sea ice extent to increase, glaciers to increase or record cold temperature to occur post 2005." Wow are you ever dwelling in a fictional reality. How can you look at the frequent up and down short term variations of the data and believe that anyone was ever claiming that would suddenly switch to unidirectional changes... rather than saying that the long term trends would continue to be in the same direction? It's a ridiculous interpretation on its face. That said, there are countless examples of statements about continued variability. Since I don't know exactly who you consider to be 'friends' of the IPCC, let's go directly to the boogeyman in question; "Changes in ice sheets and polar glaciers: Increased melting is expected on Arctic glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, and they will retreat and thin close to their margins. Most of the Antarctic ice sheet is likely to thicken as a result of increased precipitation." IPCC TAR WG II Chapter 16 overview "Whether the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean will shrink depends on changes in the overall ice and salinity budget, the rate of sea-ice production, the rate of melt, and advection of sea ice into and out of the Arctic Basin. The most important exit route is through Fram Strait (Vinje et al., 1998). The mean annual export of sea ice through Fram Strait was ~2,850 km3 for the period 1990-1996, but there is high interannual variability caused by atmospheric forcing and, to a lesser degree, ice thickness variations." IPCC TAR WG II Chapter 16.2.4.1 "Features of projected changes in extreme weather and climate events in the 21st century include more frequent heat waves, less frequent cold spells (barring so-called singular events)" IPCC TAR WG II Chapter 1.4.3.4 So there are the three specific things you wanted to see from before 2005... all in the IPPC Third Assessment Report released in 2001. -
Riccardo at 23:31 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
damorbel "You seem to have a belief system that requires text books to contain 'the truth'". No darmorbel, this is your (ascientific) thought not mine. As I scientists i won't find the truth anywhere. But i do recognize the best knowledge available at the moment, easily found in thextbooks, from where we all should start. You missed this first step and took a weird path. This is confirmed by the rest of your comment and by the previous ones, you missed the first step of a deeper understanding of the current best available knowledge before trying the next step. -
damorbel at 22:55 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re 172 scaddenp you wrote:- "you must have precise definitions of terms like heatflow... When I ask for textbook, then I am wanting you to locate yourself within a coherent theory " That 'heat flowed' i.e. it was some kind of fluid, was the basis of the caloric theory; it fell to bits because no measurements showed that there was in fact anything flowing. I you really are interested you may find in a good library (they may have to order it for you) "The Caloric Theory of Gases - from Lavoisier to Regnault" by Robert Fox; OUP 1971. In this book you will find a fascinating history of 'theories' of heat and the controversy they caused; it really is most interesting. For the rest as soon as you dee the expressin 'heat flow' you should realise that the author is confused and doesn't understand the matter. (I may well have used it myself, it is such a seductive phrase!) -
quokka at 22:40 PM on 13 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Nothing could illustrate the uselessness of micro generation in combating climate change more than the case of Germany. After spending an astonishing amount of money on PV, there are moves afoot to build 27 new coal fired power stations. The push is coming from the energy companies who clearly believe that is/will be a demand for electricity that all the micro generation in the world will not be able to meet: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472786,00.html -
damorbel at 22:38 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #173 Riccardo you wrote:- "I see, textbooks are full of "wonky ideas"" You seem to have a belief system that requires text books to contain 'the truth'. But of course there are many books and scientific papers about theories (caloric, phlogiston, aether etc.) that have fallen by the wayside, How do you reconcile this fact with your (apparent) belief that books contain 'the truth'; even if only a scientific truth? What my teachers wanted me to do was to separate those ideas that were consistent with the (latest) scientific evidence. The best example in the current discussion is the requirement for believers in the GHE to accept thar the Earth emits (thermal) radiation 'like a black body and is the daft enough to continue by calculating the (pseudo) surface temperature on what they even admit is 'an assumption'*. How ridiculous can you get? Predicting doom on the basis of an assumption must surely be the ultimate unscientific activity. * Try page 2 of 'The Physics of Atmospheres' (3rd ed.) by John D Houghton, where he writes 'the left hand side [of the equation] [is] the radiation emitted by the planet assuming it behaves like a black body at temperature Te.' John D Houghton was a senior figure in the writing of at least the first two of the IPCC Assessment Reports, this is the so-called 'science' in text books about the GHE. -
VeryTallGuy at 21:49 PM on 13 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Ebel, Mars 235/236 You are both right! The adiabatic lapse rate is simply set by the Cp of the gas and g, dT/dZ = -g/cp, see textbook extract at bottom of this post However, it’s also true to say that cooling is a function of pressure loss; the thing is that the pressure loss depends on g. For adiabatic expansion,
The point is that the pressure at any given height is a function of g and gas properties, so the two are coupled.
My understanding is that the real lapse rate differs from this due to latent heat, radiation, lateral mixing etc.
(Extract from Elementary Climate Physics, F.W. Taylor (2005)
sourced from Science of Doom)
-
damorbel at 21:45 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #166 Tom Dayton you wrote:- "If instead the matter is absorbing E and simultaneously emitting only 70% of E, then the matter's net change in energy is an increase of 30% of E (i.e., +E - .7E = +.3E). That last sentence is why the greenhouse gas effect does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics." But this does not represent the GHE 'science'. If the material is, as you say "emitting only 70% of E" then it is colder than the material supplying the incoming photons, of course its temperature will rise! Further you wrote;- "The temperature of the receiving matter has no influence on whether each of those particular air-sourced photons is absorbed. The surface matter blindly absorbs photons from both sources." Yes, that is true. But you mustn't you also recognise that the energy of the photons emitted (by the receiving matter) is a strict function of 'The temperature of the receiving matter'? And this is how the e Yet further you wrote;- "The fact that the source of some of that energy is really hot (Sun) and the source of some of the energy is kind of cool (air) has played no role. Photons do not carry source credentials." This is entirely at variance with observation, it is contrary to the basics of quantum physics, starting with Einstein's observation that the emission of electrons from an illuminated surface did not happen at all unless the light had a wavelength shorter (frequency higher) than a particular value. The energy of a photon is defined by the frequency of oscillation of its source, the equation is E = hf where 'h' is the Planck constant. The 2nd law comes in when two bodies have different temperatures. If the temperatures are the same both bodies emit photons with the same energy. If there is an intermediate reflecting suface or one body is much bigger than the other not all the photons will be absorbed, some of the photons will miss or be redirected by the (partially) reflecting surface, they may even be redirected back to where they came from. However the net result is the same, the high energy photons from the hotter body, when absorbed will increase the energy in the cooler body; the lower energy photons (absorbed by the hotter body) will not be able to compensate the hotter body for its loss of energy contained in the (high) energy photons it has emitted; so the temperature of the cooler body rises and that of the hotter falls until they are equal. In the case of a planet the (warm) surface emits photons; if there is nothing in the atmosphere that absorbs/emits photons they go to deep space at 2.7K. Deep space emits photons at 2.7K that is how we know it is at 2.7K; some of these deep space photons are absorbed by the Earth's surface. If there is a GHG in the atmosphere it emits photons at, let us say 255K to deep space and absorbs some at 2.7K. There is a steady state, the temperatures are stable. The lower atmosphere (288K) will absorb some of the photons emitted by the GHGs (255K) but we know that the balance of temperatures will not rise because the atmosphere would then become more stable because convection currents would be suppressed. When considering the effects of radiation on the atmosphere you must not forget that there is one heating/trapping effect that does what I describe and is plain for all to see; it is the formation of the stratosphere due to the absorption of solar UV by O2 and O3; the consequent rise in temperature causes a classical inversion which stops convection, greatly reducing the turbulence found there. If there really was a rise in temperature due to a GHE, it would also show itself by producing an inversion. -
averageguy at 21:39 PM on 13 December 2010Climate's changed before
To look at the chart below and claim we are a primary driver of climate is nonsense. The next time the climate turns cooler - are we supposed to retool again to produce massive emissions of CO2? http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png -
HumanityRules at 21:38 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
Archisteel I put my laziness to one side for a while to read the Trenberth paper (linked in #13). I got a question on that and it's relation to Dessler's method. Hope it ain't too dumb or skeptic or whatever. I'm really unsure whether it's a valid question but hey no harm just jumping in. Can I ask a dumb question? Does the changing atmosphere-ocean heat flux during ENSO make a difference to the scatterplot in Desslers paper? My uneducated climate science brain says it'll introduce a bias to the scatterplot but I don't see anywhere in the paper where it says it's been accounted for? Is the magnitude of the recharge and discharge of heat in the tropical Pacific Ocean large enough to make a difference? I get the feeling from the Trenberth paper that it is. -
stefaan at 21:12 PM on 13 December 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
If you look at this site : http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html it appears to me that the MWP was worldwide a warm period and not limited to the northern part of the globe or am i missing something? -
Ebel at 21:10 PM on 13 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
@ mars at 19:52 PM on 13 December, 2010 This is not true. The cooling does not follow from the increase in potential energy, but from the pressure decrease during rapid ascent. -
Riccardo at 20:54 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
darmobel oh, I see, textbooks are full of "wonky ideas", so we need to start from scratch to invent new science. It sounds great, we're going to get the Nobel price for this. Just a bit conceited but, who knows, it might work. Did your teacher also tell you why you should question textbooks? Because they're full of "wonky ideas" or because it's the process required for a deeper understanding? Probably this discussion should be moved to a different thread, something like "new ideas for the new millennium science" and continue here with the wonky old science. -
RSVP at 20:50 PM on 13 December 2010Ice data made cooler
archiesteel #41 When you say "bad science", are you referring to badly intended ideas, or simply ideas containing error? Considering how many people died for "bad science", whether it had to do with test pilots crashing, rockets that blew up on the launch pad, bridges that colapsed etc., it appears that trial and error makes up an important part of the scientific process. All this is getting way off topic, so to brings things back on track, I believe the issue had to do with some minor details surrounding a climate model. Even if the model never incorporates them, it isnt a bad idea to know whether some variables should or should not be ignored. This can only provide more confidence in the model, not less. On the otherhand, there is nothing to stop someone from extending the investigation (behind the scene if deem necessary) and when this issue is clear, take the steps necessary to make the appropriate modifications. I am not sure what is "bad" about that. -
Paul D at 20:38 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
HR: "Checking the bible to see what's the right and wrong thing to say isn't to everybodies taste." Again, a provocative statement. You complain, but at the same time provoke. -
Paul D at 20:35 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
HR: "I don't worry about the caliber of what I say, it's surprising how quickly somebody here will jump all over you correct you when they think you're wrong. " Why do you find that surprising? If you hadn't noticed there is a political campaign to undermine science, climate science in particular. Your screen name is provocative, without you yourself making a comment! -
scaddenp at 20:34 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
damorbel - the theory of thermodynamics is set down as a large coherent body of knowledge and as a mathematical model, built up from the ground of measurement axioms. Within the body, you must have precise definitions of terms like heatflow on which the mathematics depend. The theory gives you the power to predict experiments which for a textbook case is verified countless times. When I ask for textbook, then I am wanting you to locate yourself within a coherent theory, so I can match terms into the mathematical framework. That gives us a basis for definition and also for discussing the foundational experimental work that the mathematics models. If you are doubt the theory of thermodynamics and present your own eccentric interpretations, then lets find the point of departure from the standard work. I'm used to Callen and derivatives but also more foundational works. What is your foundation? -
quokka at 20:28 PM on 13 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@402 actually thoughtfull Nonsense of the first order. Climate is not going to be saved by the well heeled indulging in micro generation. Not now, not in ten years, not in 20 years, not in 50 years and not in 100 years. Never ever. Period. The climate problem is an industrial problem and requires solutions on an industrial scale - and quickly. Individuals do not build GW scale power stations - but that is what is needed. The US deployed 140 MW of PV in the first 11 months of 2010 and over 6000 MW of new coal. Assuming a generous 20% capacity factor for PV and 80% for coal, it would take 28 years of PV deployment at this rate to equal the output of just one 1GW coal fired power station. This is the harsh reality that the purveyors of the micro generation nonsense would rather hide. You cannot solve the climate problem without getting rid of coal. Micro generation will NEVER get rid of coal. Maintaining otherwise is sheer fantasy - backed by no evidence whatsoever. You either want to tackle the climate problem or you don't ...... -
Stephen Baines at 20:27 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
"Checking the bible to see what's the right and wrong thing to say isn't to everybodies taste. I'm much happier to jump in and be shown to be wrong. " I think John would be first to tell you, this site ain't the bible. It's a resource. A damn good one. You should try it some time. -
Stephen Baines at 20:14 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#170, damorbel, now you're getting sloppy. You actually you can't find whatever you want in a textbook. I challenge you to find one that explicitly states or implies that the greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the second law. The equations will always say the same thing (pretty much along the lines of Tom's post above). It's not even that complex...just an energy budget. People do the same calculations when they balance their checkbook. Freedom of opinion is good, and you're welcome to it. But in science talk is cheap. If you are going to dismiss centuries of painful experiment, careful theory and thorough debate out of hand, then I am afraid the onus is on you to actually redo the experimental and theoretical work yourself. Only then will you be have something to contribute. Good luck with that. -
mars at 19:52 PM on 13 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Re my comment at 228 It has just occurred to me that of course work is done when a parcel of air is lifted to a higher altitude which must be equal to MGH. That is Mass X Gravity X Height so that means the temperature drop per KM will work out as the same number as G provide of course the air is not saturated. This must be true for any planet. -
damorbel at 19:10 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #165 Riccardo you wrote:- "As I alread said, check any textbook. Or you think you know better than textbooks?" I'm quite sure you can find whatever you want in a textbook, lots of 'scientific' theories are published in text books, there many many books published with wonky ideas, a sure sign is when there is no evidence presented, typically 'heat is energy in transit' which by any standards is a meaningless, self-defining statement. One of the benefits of my education was the poor view taken by my teachers of the availble textbooks; we were encouraged to question all matters and our teachers responded (sometimes!) to challenges. scaddenp, this response should cover your #164 also ("This discussion would manage a great deal less misinterpretation if using an agreed text book"). -
Michele at 18:56 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
@ archiesteel: you can disagree with me on this subject but I refuse to turn the talk into a row. -
archiesteel at 16:45 PM on 13 December 2010Ice data made cooler
@RSVP: I accept your admission that you have indeed no credibility on the matter, and have lost the argument. The question is, after being shown wrong so many times, why are you still here re-hashing the same old debunked arguments? Unlike wine, bad science does not get better with age... -
HumanityRules at 16:45 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
52 archiesteel *sigh* I don't worry about the caliber of what I say, it's surprising how quickly somebody here willjump all over youcorrect you when they think you're wrong. -
HumanityRules at 16:26 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
"There exists the search function in the upper left of each page as well as the Arguments page. I used both myself for more than a year before commenting here for the first time." Checking the bible to see what's the right and wrong thing to say isn't to everybodies taste. I'm much happier to jump in and be shown to be wrong. -
Ebel at 16:19 PM on 13 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
addition to #176
The same pressure difference = same number of molecules
200 mbar - about 11 km altitude
Pressure difference across the height of an air layer with CO2 in which the initial intensity of a vertical infrared beam to 1 / e is dropped (Lambert.Beer)
The Comparing the two charts above give the narrow spike at 15μm (= 666cm-1). There, is much absorbed, emits a lot, but according to the temperature. Therefore, the bright peak due to the narrow tip of the ozone area.
-
archiesteel at 16:11 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
@HR: "The first thing I ever posted on RC was deleted. Same was true at Rohm's website." If it was of the same caliber as the stuff you post here, I can't say I'm surprised, or even disapprove. As the moderator indicated, there's plenty of ways for newcomers to learn the science - not that you are a newcomer by any stretch of the imagination... -
dana1981 at 15:42 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
HR #49 - again, the article doesn't say Lindzen fiddled or cherrypicked. It says the way he analyzed the data left it open to fiddling or cherrypicking. He could have just chosen a random start and end point, but 'fiddling' with the data to choose a different start and/or end point would give a different result. The method is what's being criticized, not necessarily how he used it. muon #46 - if you argue that some factor besides CO2 is causing warming (like a cloud 'internal forcing', in Spencer's case), that's how you get away with low sensitivity and the 0.8°C warming thus far. I'm not sure how Lindzen explains it - frankly I don't think he does. -
Ebel at 15:40 PM on 13 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
@ Chris G at 08:32 AM on 13 December, 2010. Sorry my English is not good (automatic translation) It results in the following outline of the greenhouse effect in 5 points: 1. The atmosphere is divided into two parts, in essence, bottom the troposphere with a lot of convection, where the weather is and where we live, and top the stratosphere without convection, with a possible move the border between the two spheres. 2. The temperature gradient in the troposphere is (almost) constant - even when changing the thickness of the troposphere. This consistency is result of convection. 3. The almost constant optical thickness of a changing stratosphere. This constancy is due to radiation and is due to the scaling (scaling) of the radiation transport equation for change in optical thickness with change in concentration of CO2. 4. If the temperature gradient exceeds a certain threshold, the air can not stay calm and stratification becomes unstable - and the convection is the characteristics of the troposphere 5. In the steady state (ie, even though time passes, the state no changes) does mean the heat of the earth just as great as the heat absorption - would otherwise be the temperatures change constantly. But this would contradict the stationarity. These 5 points provide a basic sensitivity of the average surface temperature as a result of changes in concentrations of CO2. Addition: The thicker troposphere has a greater temperature difference between top and bottom, and this greater temperature difference is so distributed to warming bottom and cooling top, that the total radiation of the Earth is equal to the total absorption. -
BBHY at 15:32 PM on 13 December 2010It's only a few degrees
If you take a tray of ice cubes and let them warm until they are partially melted, then they will be at a balance point where only a small change in temperature will make them either all melt or all freeze. The Earth is also partly ice and partly water, at a similar balance point. -
HumanityRules at 15:15 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
47 archiesteel The first thing I ever posted on RC was deleted. Same was true at Rohm's website. In fact I got into an email exchange with Rohm were he used exactly your reasoning. But how do you expect people entering the debate to know "the same old debunked "skeptical" argument" from a legitimate concern or question? As you say RC can do what they want. And like you I have no problem with them alienating people.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] There exists the search function in the upper left of each page as well as the Arguments page. I used both myself for more than a year before commenting here for the first time. -
HumanityRules at 15:07 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
dana1981 & dhogaza "it criticizes the method they used as one which can be fiddled to cherrypick convenient starting or ending points." Cherrypicking suggests intent (in the fiddling). Can you accidentally cherrypick? I suppose as long as you both think Lindzen is an honourable guy (just his method is weak) then I guess everything's OK. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:43 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Damorbel, although I brought up the subject, I don't want to be picky on words to the extreme. I think you make some valid points but I don't see that they are worth an argument. In the principles, I find nothing on which we disagree. If you don't like "flow", how about "net energy transfer"? As long as we know what our words mean, we can communicate. The problem with G&T associated blog discussions is that too many people use heat when they mean thermal energy, or energy, and do not realize that there is a difference between net and other energy transfers. Then they create a 2nd law violation where there isn't any. It matters little regarding the subject at hand. Tom summarized things rather well. My point was about what I see as an intrinsic inconsistency in Awol's reasoning. One can not say "I admit that there is energy transferred between the atmosphere and the surface" and at the same time deny that this makes the blackbody temp of the surface higher than it otherwise would be. Now, that would seem to be a true violation of the 2nd law! Whether or not it can be "directly" measured (whatever Awol meant there) would be a function of the measuring equipment, not of thermodynamics. As long as the net energy transfer is still in the right direction, there is no violation. -
robert way at 14:18 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
I'm gonna be honest sometimes I think RC crosses the line with their moderation and inline comments... -
scaddenp at 14:15 PM on 13 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Crowley_Hyde_2008.pdf 3.7W/m2 (well lets say 3.5-4W/m2) - no sensitivity involved in this number at all. These are sum of direct forcings from anthropogenic emissions. Read that section of the IPCC carefully. Number matches pretty much the measurement from Evan 2006. There are two parts to acceptance of milankovitch theory. 1/ there is the observation that ice-age matches the milankovich forcings at 65N to an extraordinary degree. If milankovitch forcings are not involved, then there is a major problem explaining the observations. 2/There is the explanation (models) explaining how an orbital forcing with a very small global forcing value can produce large-scale global climate change. I would say 1/ is incontrovertible and that the broad features of 2/ are well established. There are however numerous detail aspects of 2/ that remain active research areas. I would also say that none of the problems in the details are relevant to the question of climate over next 100 years. The feedbacks are very slow and in the case of the all-important GHG feedbacks, completely overwhelmed by human emissions. -
Composer99 at 13:55 PM on 13 December 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
AWoL @ 155: I had prepared a rather detailed response, and mis-clicked on "click for tips &c." when I meant to preview the post. So consider this the poor cousin alternative. So I'll just suggest checking out the threads on this site: - Empirical evidence for warming. - Empirical evidence of human causality. And I believe any further discussion on CO2 as a trace gas should occur in a thread such as this one. The great thing about this blog is its reliance on - and its frequent refernece to - the peer-reviewed literature in the various threads regarding the evidence surrounding AGW. I brought up quantum & relativistic physics as examples of areas which often require starkly non-intuitive thinking to bring understanding, the sort of thinking where relying on instinct can lead one astray. I am sure there are many excellent sources of information on them, both online and in print. -
Camburn at 13:22 PM on 13 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
scaddenp@48. The Milankovitch theory does have problems. Do I think it is wrong? From my research, and this was yes....dated....I came away with thinking it was not wrong nor correct. I have not read the Crowley paper and would be most interested in reading it. The level of proof a few years ago was quit thin. In ref to the 3.7W/m2....I am not comfortable with that number. I know it is cited in IPCC, but it is also reflective of what the sensativity is. And that is still a wide open question. -
Camburn at 13:17 PM on 13 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
scaddenp: Do you have an open link to Crowley? Thank you Yooper. -
muoncounter at 13:16 PM on 13 December 2010Positive feedback means runaway warming
#31: "The rate of release from hydrate deposits is limited by ..." Nothing limited about these numbers: Gas escape features off New Zealand: Evidence of massive release of methane from hydrates Multibeam swath bathymetry data ... show gas release features over a region of at least 20,000 km^2. Gas escape features, interpreted to be caused by gas hydrate dissociation, include an estimated a) 10 features, 8–11 km in diameter ... If the methane from a single event at one 8–11 km scale pockmark reached the atmosphere, it would be equivalent to ∼3% of the current annual global methane released from natural sources ... Full paper, with graphics, available here. -
scaddenp at 13:01 PM on 13 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Yes, Camburn, (though your source may be dated), but I was asking for problems where there are not multiple workable answers to the problem and merely difficulties constraining which works best. This is common issue in paleo sciences. Personally I think Crowley has nailed transition problem. Again, are you seriously looking at the milankovitch cycle and glaciation and saying you think milankovitch theory is wrong? Also, what relevance do you think any of milankovitch forcings have to climate in human terms? How much effect do you get from 0.25W/m2 change in one part of globe over one hundred years from orbital variation compared to 3.7W/m2 over whole globe in same time period? -
archiesteel at 13:00 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
@HUR: "I think the point is that people are concerned about the censorship over at RC" Deleting troll posts is hardly censorship. There's no law forcing private websites from cleaning out their comments sections. Some websites just have lower tolerance for trolling, that's all. And, in case you wonder, I *do* consider that repeating the same old debunked "skeptical" argument is trolling at this point. -
muoncounter at 12:52 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
#44: "he thinks sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C for 2xCO2" But there's already been an ~0.6C increase since the 70s, with nowhere near a doubling in CO2 (1970=325ppm, 2010=388ppm). How are they getting away with what is the equivalent of 'voodoo economics'? #45: Eric, you're correct! -
Daniel Bailey at 12:33 PM on 13 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Re: Camburn (44) Helpful tip:1. If your intent is to engage intellectually gifted people (yes, that lets me out) and 2. Spark meaningful dialogue on areas you feel have large areas of uncertainty
then you may want to re-think your approach a bit. Visitors who pose questions framed with thought, and with cited sources, get a lot more interaction and positive attention. Or you could keep on posting unsupported assertions. Being a glass-half-full person, I opt for positive dialogue myself. I feel I get much better and informative conversations that way (and therefore learn more). Your Call. [ - Edit: OK, I see you added some bits. If you would delineate your position relative to the consensus on each, and also let on where you base your differing opinion (what source do you have for that), you'll find a more helpful and fulfilling interaction. End Edit - ] The Yooper -
Camburn at 12:31 PM on 13 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Ok: 1.The 100,000 year problem 2. The 400,000 year problem 3. The stage 5 problem. 4. The transition problem. And these are only a few of the problems. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:25 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
muoncounter, it's only a nitpick but only the current interglacial was named the Holocene (I have no idea why). They named the prior one the Eemian. I'm sure they have strange names for the rest of them too. -
scaddenp at 12:14 PM on 13 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Now what exact problems are you talking about? The issues that I am aware of have to do with multiple possible solutions to unconstrained problem (eg sources of CO2, 100,000 year problem) rather than an inability to provide explanatory power. And these are hardly being ignored (look at any issue of Quaternary Science) - just not enough data yet to tie things down. While I know that correlation doesnt equal correlation, the match of the milankovitch cycles to ice-age cycle is so striking that surely you arent suggesting that these arent the dominant forcing? The fine details of the mechanism are another story. -
dana1981 at 12:03 PM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
muoncounter #42 - yes, that's a common argument against the Lindzen theory. If climate sensitivity is really 0.3-0.5°C as Lindzen claims (the former on Watts' blog, the latter in LC09 linked in the article), then glacial-interglacial transitions are pretty much impossible to explain. It amazes me that any climate scientist can argue sensitivity is so low with a straight face. Spencer is more reasonable, I believe he thinks sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C for 2xCO2. -
dana1981 at 11:58 AM on 13 December 2010An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
I've read both Spencer's blog and the email exchange between Spencer and Dessler, and honestly I can't figure out what Spencer is trying to argue. He says Dessler is wrong, but never clearly explains why. He claims it's an oversimplification to say that he's claiming cloud changes cause ENSO, but he never clearly explains his theory. Basically it seems to boil down to "Clouds are complicated beasts". Well gee, thanks for clarifying! But the bottom line is that if cloud changes aren't causing temp changes via ENSO changes, then they're acting as a temperature feedback, and Dessler's approach is correct, because ENSO is dominating the short-term temp changes.
Prev 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Next
