Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 Next
Comments 101951 to 102000:
-
Bob Guercio at 07:55 AM on 7 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
VeryTallGuy - 161 I went too fast with post 171. This is what I meant to say: I think that you are suggesting that I leave the phrase "Since power is energy per unit time" out of my writeup. Am I correct? If so, I'm tending to agree with you. Bob -
scaddenp at 07:53 AM on 7 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
Temperature proxies for tropics - isotope data from forams in sediment core for ocean temps. (Used everywhere). Stalactites from cave systems. Lake productivity from sediment core. All proxies have problems of one sort of other usually with both temperature and age calibration so need to understand proxies in terms of constraining possible models. As coral - killing coral is easy but the carbonate skeleton is preserved. And you assume wrong about how they work. The method is based on oxygen isotopes and Sr/Ca ratios. Use google scholar for detail. -
Bob Guercio at 07:53 AM on 7 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
VeryTallGuy - 161 2) From your link "Since power is energy per unit time, the energy content of IR radiation can be indicated by its IR spectrum which is a graph of power density as a function of frequency." I'd suggest the unit time bit here is unnecessary and confusing - we are not looking at dynamics. The ordinate of the graph is "watts/meter square wavenumber". I think that you are suggesting that I leave the phrase "Since power is energy per unit time". Am I correct? If so, I'm tending to agree with you. Thanks, Bob -
David Horton at 07:47 AM on 7 December 2010A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
I read this "debate" with a strong sense of deja vu. It could stand for any thread on climate change on any blog anywhere in the last ten years. An accurate description and analysis of one of the many lines of science associated with global warming. All of which are dismissed, one at a time, or in various combinations by a denier. The denier wants to ignore the obvious link between the known effects of CO2 in the atmosphere; the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years, and especially the last thirty or so, as a demonstrated consequence of burning fossil fuels; and the rapidly rising temperatures and associated ecological and geographic consequences in exactly the same period. Instead, ignoring all that, the denier has some pet theory that, by an incredible coincidence, just happens to produce exactly the same effects in precisely the same time period. I mean, it is just amazing that some other minor and hypothetical process could achieve that and give us the excuse to do nothing whatsoever about decreasing GHG emissions, isn't it? -
littlerobbergirl at 07:45 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
excellent. just what we need, scientists who can communicate. shame he isnt prettier (hmph...and shame it matters) but at least our dana is prettier than theirs... -
archiesteel at 07:23 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
@ClimateWacher: "Bad for ignoring the significance of the HCO." How did he ignore the significance of the HCO? Oh, right, he didn't. We know the North Hemisphere was probably a bit warmer in the HCO, however there is no evidence the entire world was - it falls within the margin of uncertainty, that old double-edged sword. :-) In any case, projected temperatures - even the more optimist scenarios - will go well above HCO temperatures. The fact temperatures are going near HCO levels at this time, while they should be well under according to natural cycles, supports AGW theory. If anything, professor Alley's responses were still too wordy (bald spot excepted). When the (very partial) congressmen started his nonsense about Mars experiencing the same climate change as we do, he should have simply said it isn't. When demagogues make statements which they can't prove, you can simply call them on it. This puts the burden of proof on them, and since they *can't* support that position (due to a lack of facts) they'll simply stop using it as an argument. Simple falsehood should be challenged simply, with the science to back it up if needed. This is why sites such as this one are so useful! :-) -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:15 AM on 7 December 2010A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
archiesteel, can you point to some analysis that dismisses combinations of factors? Each one was dismissed in isolation in Dana's old thread, but that doesn't mean they can't combine in ways that radically change the climate. When you say "wishful thinking" are you implying that my scenario is impossible? Or just very unlikely? -
cjshaker at 07:09 AM on 7 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
I am curious as to how we study the impact of the 100,000 year glacial cycles in the tropics, ie - what temperature proxy data do we use? The wiki on the temperature record offers some information on other proxy data. It appears that coral growth rates are used to estimate temperatures in tropical regions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record I assume that they are measuring coral growth rates based on calcium carbonate deposits, which will slow down as CO2 increases, and will slow down as the temperature changes, up or down. Even changes in salinity will affect their growth rate. Seems like it would be hard to get high quality temperature proxy data from coral growth rates. Given how fragile coral is, I'm amazed that they survive at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral "Seaweed/Algae can destroy a coral reef. In the Caribbean and tropical Pacific, direct contact between ~40 to 70% of common seaweeds and coral cause bleaching and death to the coral via transfer of lipid–soluble metabolites.[26] Seaweed and algae proliferate given adequate nutrients and limited grazing by herbivores. Coral die if surrounding water temperature changes by more than a degree or two beyond their normal range or if water salinity drops." Chris Shaker -
michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 7 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Scaddenp, I think your resource was useful, I read it to the end. I agree with you that it is very difficult to find unbiased data. My point to Quokka was that your source said that nuclear needed to run at high outputs to be ecomonic. Since your source is biased pronuclear I presume they are correct on this point. I think your reference helped the debate as you describe. -
scaddenp at 07:06 AM on 7 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Providing spnning reserve for a nuclear plant of economic scale is common argument against nuclear in a small market like New Zealand. Nonetheless, my son's debating team owes this and the other solution thread, plus BNC, a big thank you for winning his high school inter-school debating competition taking the affirmative on "NZ should build nuclear power". -
SRJ at 06:51 AM on 7 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Re: 104: Typo error, the second trend estimate is for extent not area -
SRJ at 06:48 AM on 7 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
# 103 Global sea ice is declining at a statistical significant rate. My results from fitting a linear trend to the data from NSIDC: Global sea ice area, linear trend: -0.0334 ± 0.0129 Global sea ice area, linear trend: -0.0367 ± 0.0112 Units are mio. square km pr year, the trend are given with AR1 corrected 95% confidence intervals. For more info check my post earlier in this thread -
archiesteel at 06:44 AM on 7 December 2010A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
@Eric: again, I see no compelling evidence that such mechanisms could overcome the current anthropogenic warming. It seems to me you're suffering from wishful thinking here, and are not evaluating the science in an impartial manner. "The control knob for the ice age changes is GCR" Actually, Milankovitch cycles are the main culprits for ice ages, not GCR. Sorry, but so far the evidence you've presented in favor of GCRs as a main driver of climate doesn't even come close to challenging the evidence against them. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:33 AM on 7 December 2010A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
#78 archiesteel, Here's one link www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Tin_rev.pdf and there are many more. There are two points to consider, first that any of these factors in isolation can be "proven" to be a nonfactor over the last 30 years using linear trends. Second, combinations of these factors particularly with GCR will create enough warming and cooling to explain the paleo temperature record. The control knob for the ice age changes is GCR, with help from CO2 and solar factors. Since the solar factors are not considered in models and not part of the paleo record, they cannot be ruled out.Moderator Response: Link fixed -
Billhunter at 06:29 AM on 7 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Philippe Chantreau at 03:45 AM on 7 December, 2010 "There is no such thing as combined polar ice, because these are asynchronous occurences. The evolution over time of the true global sea ice coverage is what matters. And can you elaborate on the year round Arctic albedo idea?" So what is your point? Global sea ice coverage is global sea ice coverage. The fact they are asynchronous doesn't seem to be making any point. -
cjshaker at 06:29 AM on 7 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
Mostly, I've been able to find temperature proxy data from the ice cores. I've read about temperature proxy records from tree rings. Any good pointers to background on other temperature proxy data? How do we get temperature proxy data from the tropics? Thank you, Chris Shaker -
cjshaker at 06:24 AM on 7 December 2010Ocean acidification isn't serious
Rob: Do we have good temperature proxy data from the tropics? Sea floor cores, or such? Do the glacial cycles show up there, too? Chris Shaker -
RickG at 06:02 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
@ caerbannog 11 I don't know. From what I viewed Rohrabacher's attention-span was somewhat less than 15 seconds. It seemed that within 5 to 10 seconds of Alley beginning to answer one of Rohrabacher's questions, Rohrahacher begin trying to rebut him. At leastLordChristopher Monckton this time to testify. That's some progress. -
caerbannog at 05:52 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
What's with this 30 second limit?! Rohrabacher offered Alley just 15 seconds, and Alley countered with 30. 15 seconds is probably more in line with Rohrabacher's attention-span, though. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:50 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
I love the part in the testimony when Pat Michaels is trying to make a response to Alley by talking about the HCO and you can get glimpses of Alley with his finger on the top of his head, nodding up and down. This entire panel discussion is well worth watching. It's about an hour and 20 mins but the whole thing is great. You can find it here on the C-Span site. -
dhogaza at 05:47 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
We're doomed ... even Rohrabacher's haircut fill me with feelings of dread for the future ... -
Bob Lacatena at 05:24 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Sorry, but there's a glaring flaw in this post. Tom Lehrer's The Elements is far more nerdy than The Geoman. -
muoncounter at 05:21 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
#108: My concurrence and $3.00 might get you a cup of coffee, although I make no guarantees. You did note that I concurred because I knew the Big Lake is anomalously warm. If you like spaghetti charts, look here. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:15 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Hi Ned... Just so you know, that link you posted requires a log in. -
Ned at 04:52 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
TOP, Lake Superior has warmed quite a bit over the past century, and ice cover is now about half what it was a century ago. A century of temperature variability in Lake Superior There has been a lot of work done on global lake ice records, e.g. by Magnuson et al. I know a bunch of the people involved; if I get a chance I'll try to write up a summary some time. -
actually thoughtful at 04:49 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Hmm. Given that muoncounter concurs that Lake Superior is a good proxy for GHG (that is two votes in favor!) - take a look at the TOPs link: http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/superior030603.htm But look at temperature year 2006-2008 - you can actually SEE the warmer winters this post is all about. Very cool (and OK - really scary!) -
Ganesha at 04:47 AM on 7 December 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Wow, Ned. That was extremely well done. Congrats. -
ClimateWatcher at 04:45 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Good for the bald head analogy. Bad for ignoring the significance of the HCO. -
Daniel Bailey at 04:43 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Re: TOP (104) Sorry, TOP, you just tripped my nonsense-meter with your whole comment:"So far December 2010 is running below normal temperatures. "
Since the remainder of the comment entirely deals with Marquette and Lake Superior, let's see what 2010 looks like:
Hmm, above normal Winter @ Spring temps, with the remainder of the year largely within the seasonal noise/variation. Including December. "In fact if you look at Marquette Michigan's temperature graph from 2008 on you will see normal to below normal temperatures dominating during the deep winter months when the jet stream prevents warmer air from the south intruding. "
OK, let's finish this exercise, starting with 2009:
and 2008
Seems to me pretty much more of the same: weather falling largely within historical norms.
"Both freeze overs where documented in March. "
Depends on what your definition of freeze-overs of Lake Superior is? Is it 90%+? Then I'd agree with you. By local definitions? Not since around 1980 has Lake Superior frozen over. But what do I know, I only live in Marquette. Oh, did I forget to mention that? Then I probably forgot to mention this: Lake Superior reaches record temperature by mdr on Aug. 20th, 2010. Indeed, I've commented on local warming elsewhere on this site, including here. Note: You can monitor water temps of Lake Superior here. Oh, and Lake Superior shipping usually only shuts down for winter maintenance on the Soo Locks (in January, for about 2 months, I believe). Otherwise, a year-round event with modern icebreakers. Back in the 40s and 50s, ice limited operations to an 8-month shipping season. The Yooper -
Albatross at 04:39 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Hi all, I agree, Rohrabacher is not interested in learning inconvenient truths. Alexandre's quote sums it up. And yes Alley is brilliant, and to say he is passionate about his work would be a gross understatement. Despite his questionable singing skills, my family (even the toddlers) really enjoyed his video: I hope that worked. -
muoncounter at 04:36 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
#104: "Lake Superior is a good proxy for GHG warming" Indeed it is. See the Canada thread, where our own correspondent from the UP (aka The Yooper) confirms that the Great Lakes are anomalously warm. Please do not quote 'weather reports' from WUWT after they were caught in this fraud. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:26 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Richard Alley is just absolutely brilliant. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:23 AM on 7 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Camburn @ 364... "Yes, you can alter the rate of the reaction by the placement of the fuel rods." Here is some data on that. It is technically possible and France in particular is building this into their plants due to their high reliance on nuclear. But load following is not the same as spinning reserve. Because the upfront capital costs of nuclear are so high, and they have relatively low operating costs, the best use of nuclear is to run it all the time. Load following raises costs and can only really effective during the first half of the fuel cycle life. Spinning reserve is what is required for the system to respond to any spikes or losses, or what you would be running off peak unused. The other aspect I hadn't understood about spinning reserve was that the system requires enough spinning reserve to make up for loss of the largest plant on the grid. If the largest unit goes down the rest of the grid has to be able to respond. That means, even during peak hours enough spinning reserve has to be maintained to back up for potential shut downs. -
BillWalker at 04:17 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Don't you just love the way Rohrabacher interrupted and changed the question every time Alley got close to giving him an answer he didn't like? -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:09 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
30s might just be the reference period for the attention span of most representatives, and their constituents as well... -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:06 AM on 7 December 2010A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
Camburn @ 64... If you go back and read the Phil Jones interview you'll see that he says that it has warmed during that period at a rate of 0.12C/decade but is just short of the 95% statistical significance level. So, I'm assuming having a 93% confidence level of warming for you means "no warming." -
Paul D at 04:04 AM on 7 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Tom: "The Ville @162, Bob's description is correct. The vibrational modes of atoms within a molecule enter into the equation as the heat capacity of the molecule, and not as temperature. This is discussed at the Wikipedia article on heat capacity" Thanks for that. I can see I have more work to do on a certain project. -
robert way at 03:56 AM on 7 December 2010How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds
Figured this might be of interest too http://theweek.com/article/index/206686/6-global-warming-skeptics-who-changed-their-minds Climate Crocks has a link on there showing one of them saying his reasoning for changing his mind. -
Ned at 03:56 AM on 7 December 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, re: your belief that the temperature of a planet is independent of its albedo: ---------------------- (1) Almost all incident solar radiation on the planet is shortwave (visible/near-infrared). (2) An increase [or decrease] in the planet's albedo causes it to absorb less [or more] energy from the sun. (3) This causes the planet to cool down [or heat up]. (4) As the planet cools down [or heats up], it emits less [or more] longwave radiation, because of the T4 term in the Stefan-Bolzmann equation. Eventually, the planet reaches a new equilibrium whereby incoming and outgoing radiation are once again balanced, but with the planet at a lower [or higher] mean temperature. ---------------------- None of that has much to do with the greenhouse effect -- it would all be true even on a planet with no atmosphere at all. The only connection seems to be that your confusion about planetary radiation balance is deeper and more fundamental than just the parts relating to greenhouse gases. OK, so what about the subject of this thread? Re: your belief that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics: ---------------------- (A) The planet is heated by absorbing shortwave radiation from the sun. (B) The planet loses heat by emitting longwave radiation to space. (C) Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will reduce the flux of outgoing longwave radiation within their absorption bands. (D) This reduction in OLR causes the planet's temperature to rise. (E) As the temperature rises, more OLR is emitted outside the greenhouse gas absorption bands. (F) Eventually, the total emitted radiation once again balances the incoming solar radiation, but with a proportionately lower amount in the absorption bands, a higher amount outside the absorption bands, and a higher mean temperature of the planet. ---------------------- It's all perfectly straightforward, and there's no violation of the second law of thermodynamics anywhere in there. So where does this mistaken idea about violation of the 2LOT come from? As far as I can tell, it's within step (D). It's pretty clear how this process warms the atmosphere. But how can it warm the surface? After all, the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, and the net transfer of energy should be from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. This is the line of reasoning used by most of the 2LOT-skeptics. But that line of reasoning is mistaken, and the greenhouse effect is perfectly capable of warming the surface without violating any laws: ---------------------- (D.1) In accordance with the Stefan-Bolzmann law, the atmosphere emits longwave radiation. (D.2) Some of this radiation goes outward to space, and is lost to the planet's system. Some of it goes inward towards the surface. (D.3) This downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the planet's surface. (D.4) The absorption of this downwelling radiation reduces the magnitude of the net flux of longwave radiation leaving the surface, making the surface warmer than it would have been if it were not surrounded by an atmosphere that includes greenhouse gases. ---------------------- That's a bit more complicated than the previous two descriptions, but there's still no violation of the second law (or any other law). The net heat flux is from the surface to the atmosphere; it's just a smaller flux than it would have been if the atmosphere weren't there (or didn't contain greenhouse gases). What gets really convoluted are the attempts to force this description into something that would violate the second law, by those who are convinced that it must do so. Generally, these involve asserting that the second law doesn't just mean that the net flow of radiation has to be from the surface to the atmosphere, but that there can be no radiation at all flowing in the opposite direction. When people claim this, they think they're preserving the second law, but they're actually going far beyond what the second law says, and breaking some other part of physics in the process (perhaps the Stefan-Bolzmann law, perhaps the first law of thermodynamics, or perhaps something else). This is all completely uncontroversial among physicists, earth and planetary scientists, and others who deal with radiation balances in their work. There is no fertile ground for AGW-skepticism here. A rational AGW-skeptic will accept this, and ground her or his skepticism in some other part of the landscape (climate sensitivity is low, the impacts won't be negative overall, the costs of mitigating AGW would be higher than the costs of adapting to it, or whatever). -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:49 AM on 7 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Even using your artificial ways of looking at the data, there is more than just significance. A significant negative change means just that it is statistically signficant. If there is a negative change that is also significant but much larger, the difference between the two will be a negative change that will still be statistically significant. Considering how large the difference is between the Arctic loss and the Antarctic "gain" it is quite easy to see that the difference will inevitably be a statistically significant loss. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:48 AM on 7 December 2010A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
Quick note on Camburn's use of Wood for Trees charts. He uses 1995 to 2010. You actually need to enter 1995 to 2011 to get the fully current data set. -
actually thoughtful at 03:46 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
TOP I think you are invoking a few weather events. So I am countering with weather events from your source: Here is 2010 data - started El Nino, ended La Nina. Note that there are record highs set. That the temps are in the normal to high band, and not in the low band. Note that no new record lows were set. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/mqt/KMQT2010plot.png We could do this all day long, and not learn a thing about climate change. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:45 AM on 7 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
There is no such thing as combined polar ice, because these are asynchronous occurences. The evolution over time of the true global sea ice coverage is what matters. And can you elaborate on the year round Arctic albedo idea? -
TOP at 03:27 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Would we expect this once in twenty year event twice in 6 years if GHG where causing an increase in winter temperatures. So far December 2010 is running below normal temperatures. http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/superior030603.htm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/07/lake-superior-is-freezing-over/ Now Lake Superior is a good proxy for GHG warming because it is not connected with any ocean currents, thermo-haline systems, underwater volcanism and such like. It is a fresh water lake that is very deep and has a very small out flow. It is not near any large population centers and is relatively unpolluted. Winter shipping is nil. The description of the 2003 freeze over is a situation in which GHG would be expected to play a very big role in preventing a freeze over. Almost no wind and high pressure which means clear sky. Radiation is the dominant force here. Both freeze overs where documented in March. In fact if you look at Marquette Michigan's temperature graph from 2008 on you will see normal to below normal temperatures dominating during the deep winter months when the jet stream prevents warmer air from the south intruding. -
actually thoughtful at 03:14 AM on 7 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
??Arhiesteel Wow! I have no idea what your other supposed "misinterpret" is all about - but this one is right here in black and white. . Now, I think in general we don't disagree - but reread your first post. Here is the where you are getting hung up: You say - "(assuming everyone is debating in good faith)" but your original quote was: "Also, you don't get to determine if you are right or not. That's not the nature of a debate - otherwise everyone would be right, as no one would claim to be incorrect." If everyone is arguing in good faith, you will get the results I describe above (post 365)- no misinterpretation here (I have no idea what your other "misinterpretation" was). Quite frankly I resent the implication that I am misinterpreting your post. If I didn't get what you were saying, please try again -I would like to understand. But your wording makes it appear I am not arguing in good faith - nothing is further from the truth. -
VeryTallGuy at 02:58 AM on 7 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Bob 165 That was exactly the point I tried to make earlier up the thread - that at very low CO2, where tropospheric absorbtion isn't significant, you'd expect increased absorbtion in the stratosphere, hence increased temperatures ie for x Co2 concn radiation coming through from surface in the CO2 window = (1-x) absorption in the stratosphere = x Total warming effect = x(1-x) ie heating at low conc, net cooling at higher concs -
TOP at 02:54 AM on 7 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
#47 muoncounter My first point is that in the tropic band the majority of heat absorbed from the sun is absorbed in the ocean because the ocean comprises the majority of the earth's surface in that band. And CO2 energy absorbtion doesn't have the same effect over the ocean that it does over land because the ocean re-radiates almost nil energy via radiation. Solar radiation that goes in the water stays in the water unless released through evaporation and convection. You can see this by following the tracks of hurricanes using sea surface temperature. So my second point is that solar radiation that is absorbed by the ocean in the tropics can be transported northward without regard to CO2 effects. As far as see ice formation under the ice, I say this because I have seen it. I watch too much TV. NOVA had a penguin with a camera go under the ice. You could see the ice crystals accumulating under the antarctic ice shelf. The little fish the penguins eat live amongst the ice crystals. The commentator also made a comment to this effect. -
archiesteel at 02:53 AM on 7 December 2010A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
@Eric: " there is no GCR counter to AGW in the past 30 years, but there could certainly be GCR warming in the late 20th century or possibly recent GCR-based cooling offsetting some warming." There is no indication this will happen, or that it will be significant enough to counter AGW. Until you provide some evidence, we'll have to remain skeptical about your unsupported claims. "But GCR is not the story here, it is all the factors spelled out in How-we-know-the-sun-isnt-causing-global-warming.html which constantly fluctuate and add and subtract from the AGW warming. By not including them in either paleo studies or in the models that create clouds, we can't say anything about their effect on sensitivity. They can't be ignored just because they were canceled out over the past 30 years." Which factors are you talking about, exactly? It really sound as if you're grasping at straws here, like your fellow skeptics damorbel, Camburn and RSVP. I don't even know why we're arguing anymore, as you guys clearly have nothing. -
archiesteel at 02:48 AM on 7 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@actually thoughtfull: "I disagree with this. If someone can provide good information that is from a credible source and makes sense I would be HAPPY to say "I was WRONG!" That has nothing to do with what I said. Did you even read what I wrote? I said one cannot claim they are right in a debate - it is for others to judge if your argument has merit or not (assuming everyone is debating in good faith). That's twice you've appeared to misinterpret my posts. Please stop. -
Tom Curtis at 02:44 AM on 7 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
The Ville @162, Bob's description is correct. The vibrational modes of atoms within a molecule enter into the equation as the heat capacity of the molecule, and not as temperature. This is discussed at the Wikipedia article on heat capacity As the caption of a nifty graphic puts it:"Molecules undergo many characteristic internal vibrations. Potential energy stored in these internal degrees of freedom contributes to a sample’s energy content, but not to its temperature. More internal degrees of freedom tend to increase a substance's specific heat capacity, so long as temperatures are high enough to overcome quantum effects".
Prev 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 Next
