Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 Next
Comments 103551 to 103600:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:39 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
DavidCOG... Once a word like this is in the vernacular it's almost impossible to remove. It's there, we have to accept it. BUT what we can do is turn that word's meaning around. With time I believe "climategate" is going to become synonymous with "manufactured scandal." -
h-j-m at 09:37 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Can someone please remove post 43 and change the posting software so that the comment field returns blank after a post is submitted. Thanks. KR, I just saw your post stating: Currently the difference between incoming and outgoing is something like +0.9 W/m^2, hence the observed global warming. I don't know what the correct numbers would be, but don't you think that we might need some of that energy to drive the climate system (winds, ocean currents, rainfall etc.). A lot of chemical processes need energy. Last, but not least is the biosphere of this planet depending on energy. All these energies won't show up at outgoing radiation. I'm not sure but there might be even more to be added to that difference due to the entropy implied in thermodynamics. -
Tom Dayton at 09:33 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-h, see this Global Heat Flows" diagram. -
Marcus at 09:28 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Clearly you didn't understand my previous damorbel, or are willfully misreading it. My point is that Dendrochronology alone should *never* be used as a substitute for *real* temperature data, where it is available, & this divergence issue proves it. As I said, there is strong evidence to suggest that sustained drought can result in a significant reduction in tree-ring size. To claim that Satellite & Ground Based temperature readings are less reliable than tree-rings, though, is arrant contrarian *nonsense*. After *years* of trying to debunk ground-based measurements using the UHI effect, all that the contrarians have succeeded in doing is proving how similar the temperature anomalies at rural & city-based measurements are. That the greatest amounts of warming being detected-in space & on the ground-are actually in areas devoid of cities just further reveals the nonsense of claiming the temperature data to be unreliable. Strange, though, how direct temperature measurements become the Holy Grail for contrarians the moment they think it will "prove" cooling. Can't have it both ways guys! -
Albatross at 09:24 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
David @35, I agree. Personally, I think that "SwiftHack" is a far better description of what actually transpired. -
Albatross at 09:22 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Damorbel @32, For goodness' sakes please stop playing games--you have commented on the dendro data. Please read JMurphy's post @29 made in response to your post @23. Your post @23 set off alarm bells for me too (see my post @26)--JMurphy provided a very eloquent deconstruction of your 'argument'. Interesting that you chose to ignore Murphy's post @29..... -
h-j-m at 09:11 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ned, thanks, that sounds better. It is not the terminology that confuses me but your use of it. As I understand it infra-red is rather large radiation spectrum that then had been subdivided for more precise meaning (near infra-red and thermal infra-red being two of them). Of cause you are right, I should have written "If incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth." But unfortunately so far I have not found any comment about the green house effect on incoming radiation. Sorry, but you are wrong, take a closer look a the solar spectrum diagrams and you will see there is an effect on incoming radiation as well for H2O and CO2. More prominent with H2O but it is there. -
muoncounter at 09:03 AM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
"slope of the 30-year trend in this region is 5 to 6 C/century" So that's where all the 'missing heat' has gone! Ned, you've done it again. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - In regards to energy magnitudes of IR, evaporation, and convection, you are unfortunately incorrect. It's a common misconception, though. Please take a look at Trenberth 2009, "Earth's Global Energy Budget", in particular Figure 1. Surface IR runs at about 396 W/m^2, evaporation/latent heat at 80 W/m^2, thermals at 17 W/m^2, averaged over the globe. IR is the primary avenue of energy leaving the surface. Now, 333 W/m^2 comes back down from the atmosphere as backradiation, along with 161 W/m^2 from the sun, but given that all incoming energy becomes surface temperature, you can't just difference the IR flows. Currently the difference between incoming and outgoing is something like +0.9 W/m^2, hence the observed global warming. -
DavidCOG at 08:34 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
I really wish an editorial decision to not use the word 'climategate' was made. It implies malfeasance and therefore primes the reader to assume the worst. It plays in to the Deniers' hands. 'Stolen CRU emails' - not 'climategate'.Moderator Response: The first post in the series was called "The Fake Scandal of Climategate", but I decided that was too long to repeat in all the titles. I guess what I was getting at was that the true scandal is the unfounded attacks on climate scientists and their credulous repetition by the media. - James -
muoncounter at 08:31 AM on 23 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
#50: "WE have the tools at hand do we not? Let's use those tools." Here's the use of some of those tools from Gossard et al 1999: The authors show that if the total integrated humidity is independently available [for example, from the Global Positioning System (GPS)] and if the surface value of humidity is known, the profiles of humidity are retrievable with good accuracy. Those profiles, shown below, provide evidence that humidity (middle set of curves) decreases sharply with altitude.
So I have to wonder: Averaged over the entire atmospheric column to the height of the troposphere, how much of a contribution to total heat content can a few hundred meters of surface humidity represent?
I note further from my local weather reports that relative humidity does indeed rise in the evenings, but each morning my car's windows are covered with condensation. That suggests to me that water goes into the air and comes out of the air, with an overall equilibrium around the cycle. So why should there be any net heat gain?
-
Paul D at 08:30 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Link to the paper that John McManus has referenced: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GB003699.shtml -
Paul D at 08:25 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
John McManus@30. The issue you raise as Phil says, is different to temperature. Actually what you have pointed out is that CO2 isn't 'plant food' for many species. Which contradicts another skeptic meme. -
Ned at 08:23 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-m, forget about the terminology, which is just confusing you. Here's what you originally wrote: "As incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth. " But incoming and outgoing radiation are in completely different wavelength ranges. CO2 absorption affects one of these ranges, but not the other. Thus, your assumption that they must be "equally affected" is understandable but wrong. OK? -
damorbel at 08:21 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #26 Albatross "You completely misunderstand the role of the dendro data, what it constitutes, and what is represents." Interesting comment since I have not made any comment on the dendro data, only on the remarks in the Russell report about the CRU presentation where they 1/combine the data from different locations 2/using different methods 3/without explanation. The Russell Review said that 1/ and 2/ were perfectly feasible but they could not support 3/ -
damorbel at 08:17 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #36 "Are you attempting to be funny?" Give the guy in #34 a break! Perhaps he is thinking of a candle in a deep freeze, you might find a candle in a deep freeze was too hard to get it lit! -
damorbel at 08:11 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #31 #32 KR "Thermal IR, on the other hand (5-30 micrometers) does not pass through the atmosphere very well, due to greenhouse gases." In a sense you are correct. Very little heat gets into the atmosphere by radiation from the surface because the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is not very great, not only that, transfer of heat into gasses by radiation depends not only on temperature difference but the type of gas (all gasses absorb and emit some radiation) but the density is important also, more gas, more absorption and emission. Most heat gets into the atmosphere by evaporation from the sea, a lesser amount by convection over land and sea. Once in the atmosphere most heat is radiated into deep space by CO2 and H2O. Some heat is radiated directly from the surface into deep space via the 'windows' in the combined spectra of CO2 and H2O. All the heat leaving the planet goes by these 'radiation into deep space' processes, there is no other way! The temperature difference between the atmosphere of planet Earth and deep space is very large, about 200K and given that the heat tranfer is proportional to T^4 then radiation becomes very effective. -
h-j-m at 08:10 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR, thank you for mentioning the energy level, it just comes in handy. Ned, if you don't agree to the widely accepted definition of IR radiation then I don't know how talk to you. Now, if you look at the Science of Doom page you will find: As a proportion of total solar irradiance # Total energy from 0 – 0.75μm 54% – all energy up to infra-red # Total energy from 0 – 4μm 99% – all “shortwave” Now that leaves us 99% - 54% = 45% of total solar irradiance in the infra-red range. I would hardly call that minuscule. If you think that you can not compare radiation in this range with that of thermal infra-red then you are perfectly right. The main difference is, as KR has pointed out that the energy of a particle gets higher the shorter the wavelength. So you can figure out what's the difference between a infra-red photon at 1500 nm trapped by water vapour and one at 10000 nm trapped by CO2. -
Phil at 08:08 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
John McManus @30 The dendrochronology records are used as proxies for temperature, not CO2 levels. -
Bibliovermis at 07:55 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Are you attempting to be funny or do you honestly think that there are some lights that you can't see because of the temperature surrounding the bulb? -
damorbel at 07:49 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #34 Daniel Bailey. "the energy from the lights coming from the cold interior". Nice try! What kind of lights? Oil lamps, LEDs, lasers, gas discharge, gas incandescent, electric incandescent, fluorescent, quartz halogen? You will have to be a bit more specific! -
robert way at 07:17 AM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Ned, I would like to say I was just about to post in the forum on this subject and opened the page and there it was haha. Yeah it's really interesting and i've looked at some of this sort of stuff in the FAR past but what I find most prominent is that the rates of warming between the two warm periods are significantly different. It really supports the conclusions identified by glaciologists about how quick ice cap and glacier recession have been in the Canadian Arctic. Great on clear climate code to have recognized this. I imagine this won't be in the newspapers back home though... -
Daniel Bailey at 07:05 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re damorbel: On the cell right now, so I'll leave you with this to chew on for now: How then, when in the freezer section of a grocery store, can one see the energy from the lights coming from the cold interior of the display cases? Also, Google back radiation (Hint: Science of Doom website or over at Chris Colosse's place). -
Ned at 07:00 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
More reply to h-j-m, who wrote: Are you saying that solar IR radiation does not heat the earth? If so, then why should visible light be able to do so? The very, very small amount of solar IR radiation does heat the Earth. But it's dwarfed by the much larger amount of visible light. Let's put some numbers to this. Assume we have 100 units of incoming solar radiation, distributed as follows: * 99 units of visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR * 1 unit of longwave IR Outgoing radiation from the Earth is also 100 units (because it's in balance with the incoming radiation from the sun), but distributed as follows: * 0 units of visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR * 100 units of longwave IR Now, let's say you introduce some substance into the atmosphere that absorbs longwave IR but transmits visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR. That will slightly reduce the 1 unit of downwelling solar irradiance, producing a tiny cooling effect. On the other hand, it will also reduce the 100 units of emitted terrestrial longwave radiation, producing a much larger warming effect (about 100 times larger, in fact). -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - Excellent post, very correct in all respects. And at equilibrium the energy radiated to space equals the energy received from the sun. In reference to greenhouse gases - these slow the transport of energy from the surface to space. They effectively reduce the emissivity of the Earth, meaning that for the same energy radiated the Earth has to be at a higher temperature, as per the Stefan–Boltzmann law, where power radiated scales with emissivity (e) and T^4.
Power = emissivity * SB constant * area * T^4
-
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-m - Visible light has more energy per photon than IR does. UV has even more. There's plenty of energy in the visible portion of sunlight to heat the earth. And the atmosphere is almost totally transparent to visible light. Thermal IR, on the other hand (5-30 micrometers) does not pass through the atmosphere very well, due to greenhouse gases. -
damorbel at 06:47 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #19 Daniel Bailey. Energy can only flow from a high temperature place to a lower temperature place. The surface of Earth is always hotter than the atmosphere above. As you say there is a net transfer of energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere, that is to say the upper atmosphere, which loses energy to deep space at 2.7K, is a net gainer of energy from the surface. The energy the upper atmosphere gains energy (net) from the surface preventing the (upper atmosphere) temperature from dropping to the (2.7K) temperature of deep space. The surface, as you may now realise, is a net radiater of heat to the atmosphere via longwwave IR radiation; the surface loses a lot more heat by convection of air and evaporation/condensation of water. To keep the surface temperature (more or less) stable the surface gets heat from the Sun via many different routes. The tropics are where most of the Sun's heat comes in, heating the atmosphere and sea water. This tropical heat is transported to the poles by air and water currents. Some of this heat is radiated directly from the tropics and some at intermediate distances on the way to the poles. Of course some heat also arrives from the Sun away from the tropics. The whole business of heat transport is governed by local and global temperature differences, starting with the 5780K of the Sun and finishing in deep space at 2.7K. There are a number of curiosities; it is posible using a magnifying glass or a mirror to make a local concentration of the Sun's energy on a spot but the maximum temperature you will get is 5780K. If you use an arc lamp with a temperature >5780K to boost this spot and your lens is still focussed on the Sun, the Sun will now be heated, just a little, by your lamp. -
Ned at 06:45 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The point is that there pretty much is no solar IR radiation. It's minuscule compared to the visible / near-IR range. Look at the graph from SoD I posted in the previous comment. To go back to the beginning of this discussion, you said "As incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth. " The point is that incoming and outgoing radiation are in completely different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus they aren't equally affected by greenhouse gases. Does that explanation help? -
h-j-m at 06:35 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I don't get it! Are you saying that solar IR radiation does not heat the earth? If so, then why should visible light be able to do so? Or do you mean that incoming IR radiation does not get absorbed by green house gases? Then the diagrams both of wikipedia as well as from Science of Doom show that as well. So, what's your point guys? -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:11 AM on 23 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
Berényi Péter wrote "Problems arose not because of hasty induction, but some vagueness and much hand waving in its deductive structure..." Yes, because Darwin's theory of evolution is almost entirely inductive in nature (which was, rather obviously, the whole point in using it an example) it is hardly surprising that the deductive structure is rather lacking. Given that it rests almost entirely on inductive foundations, is it science or not? -
john mcmanus at 05:54 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
CBC's Quirks and Quarks had an interesting segment Saturday. The paper is, Tree Ring Evidence for limited direct C02 fertilization of forests over the 20th century, by Ze'ev Gedalof, in Global Biochemical Cycles. The finding that world wide, only 20% of trees showed changes with C02 level rises. Further, the growth differences were unprdictable for species and location. This randomness makes one think that not using suspect data may be good science. -
Ned at 05:04 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-m, you should definitely check out the post that DSL links to. Note, in particular, this graph:
Courtesy Science of Doom
What that shows is that there's almost no overlap between the spectral ranges of downwelling solar irradiance and upwelling terrestrial thermal IR radiance.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the transparency of the atmosphere to longwave radiation, but not to shortwave radiation. This is how the greenhouse effect works, in a nutshell.
-
DSL at 04:56 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Here's a breakdown, h-j-m. -
JMurphy at 04:55 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel wrote : "The IPCC adopted the thesis that the planetary temperature was rising monotonically "as demonstrated by the dendrochronological records", this wasn't (and isn't) true. The dendrochronological records showed a decline of the temperature as measured by this method." The only part of that paragraph that is in any way correct is "this wasn't (and isn't) true". "The IPCC adopted the thesis that the planetary temperature was rising monotonically..." No they didn't. "...as demonstrated by the dendrochronological records..." Is someone supposed to guess where this quote comes from ? If so, after a GOOGLE search, I have discovered that it comes from you here. Or did you have another source ? "...this wasn't (and isn't) true." Correct. "The dendrochronological records showed a decline of the temperature as measured by this method." What all the records ? Are you sure ? Perhaps you'd better post a few links to some. -
Paul D at 04:51 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Ken Lambert: "Another apologia intended to rationalize the clear meaning of 'hide the decline'. It means what it says." Nothing ever means what it says. Why? Because when we read something, we impose our prejudices on it. -
Albatross at 04:49 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
JMurphy @25, I second that. But mark my words, they wil be screaming "censorship" from the rooftop. These zombie arguments seem, IMHO, a form of passive-aggressive trolling. -
Albatross at 04:46 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Damorbel, You really need to please, please read up more on this. You completely misunderstand the role of the dendro data, what it constitutes, and what is represents. The multiple inquiries all figured it out, what is preventing you from doing so? I can post links to some papers if you like. -
Ned at 04:44 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ah, perhaps you were confused by the label "infrared" on that graph? It's referring to the near-IR and shortwave IR range. Not the thermal part of the spectrum where the Earth and its atmosphere emit radiation. -
JMurphy at 04:43 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Phila wrote : "A lot of "skeptics" seem to feel that assertion is the same thing as evidence. It isn't. In fact, the statement in question "means what it says" within a context and tradition you refuse to understand, let alone acknowledge, because doing so would rob you of the flimsy weapon you're waving around." You could almost understand the so-called skeptics getting excited and flustered, etc. when the emails first came out, because they are easily excited and flustered and they thought they had just discovered the silver bullet that was going to kill the scary AGW monster. Most people reserved judgement, of course, but we had to give the so-called skeptics the opportunity to blow off a bit of steam - in the hope that, after the event, they would realise there was nothing to get excited about and, maybe, that they would feel embarrassed about the fuss they made. Maybe, even, it would make some of them more careful, and less trusting of those who were making wild claims. Sadly, most of them took it in their stride and either tried to ignore what had happened or diverted onto other myths and legends they still believed in. In the end, though, those who are still trying to make capital out of this (even after all the explanations and enquiries) are either too deep into denial to be able to come out and admit that they will never accept AGW, no matter what; or they are taking the p**s, not acting in good faith, or wilfully trying to subvert and divert any argument just for the hell of it. I think this website should be more aware of such tactics (maybe you are ?) and not allow false and baseless assertions be made time and again by the same posters. PS This is not a call for censorship, before any poor, unfortunate, conspiracy-believing skeptic thinks it is : it is a call for honest, good-faith, credible debate. -
Ned at 04:42 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-m, that graph doesn't even show the longwave infrared region -- it only goes to 2.5 micrometers. The wavelengths corresponding to emitted thermal radiation from the Earth are in the 8-14 micrometer range. -
Albatross at 04:40 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Phila @21, I think it is time to start ignoring KL and the other 'skeptics' here...really what is the point? They are not making any substantive contributions to these threads, but just parroting myths and fallacious contrarian speaking points. Is it really almost 2011? Their minds have clearly long ago been made up, and a truck-load of facts would be unable to sway their belief system by even an infinitesimal amount. I suppose directing the 'skeptics' here to articles published in the scientific literature of the divergence problem.......and the fact that is, IIRC, limited to one set of dendro data (Yamal) from Eurasia. I can provide some references if others are interested. This exercise is a fascinating, but scary, insight into denialism and the propensity of "skeptics" to entertain conpsiracy theories. Not sure whether or not that was the intent of Wight's posts, but it sure is working beautifully. It is also illustrating beautifully how the 'skeptics" are desperately clinging onto long-debunked myths to reinforce their misguided beliefs. Quite sad really. -
damorbel at 04:36 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #18 "The report in fact states that it is NOT misleading to curtail reconstructions or to splice data - just that it should be made clear. Here is a link to the full report, for reference." That really isn't good enough. The IPCC adopted the thesis that the planetary temperature was rising monotonically "as demonstrated by the dendrochronological records", this wasn't (and isn't) true. The dendrochronological records showed a decline of the temperature as measured by this method. In order to maintain this dendrochronological fiction, the instrumental records were substituted for the dendrochronological ones in the 20thC part without identifying that they were quite different since the method and location of the measurements were different; like was not being compared with like. This sort of 'stuff' is wildly unscientific since the method of doing measurements is just as much part of the record as the actual measured values in any scientific research. The Muir Russell inquiry was bending over backwards not to cause damage to fellow academics by giving them as much benefit of the doubt as possible but they could not in conscience fail to note the glaring inconsistencies in the work of CRU and by extension the reports of the IPCC. The inquiry members knew full well that the consequences of such an omission would have destroyed their own reputations, they were only too aware of what would happen if the did not cover all aspects of the affair should their report be examined in detail like I am doing now.Moderator Response: It was right to give the CRU scientists the benefit of the doubt. The accused is always innocent until proven guilty. - James -
h-j-m at 04:32 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ned, what I am seeing is this: Solar Spectrum Though I don't know what you are looking at. -
How significance tests are misused in climate science
Berényi - From the John Stewart Mills reference you provided: "We have found that all Inference, consequently all Proof, and all discovery of truths not self-evident, consists of inductions, and the interpretation of inductions: that all our knowledge, not intuitive, comes to us exclusively from that source." and: "We shall fall into no error, then, if in treating of Induction, we limit our attention to the establishment of general propositions. The principles and rules of Induction as directed to this end, are the principles and rules of all Induction; and the logic of Science is the universal Logic, applicable to all inquiries in which man can engage." Mills quite correctly limits the purest use of "induction" for generalization from the particular to the universal. He also notes a major limitation on induction, the question of "enough proof": "Why is a single instance, in some cases, sufficient for a complete induction, while in others, myriads of concurring instances, without a single exception known or presumed, go such a very little way toward establishing a universal proposition? Whoever can answer this question knows more of the philosophy of logic than the wisest of the ancients, and has solved the problem of induction." Perhaps significance testing? Darwin did a great deal of data collection - look up "Darwin and snails" for some examples. There is indeed a metaphysical difference between our approaches, Berényi - you seem to treat the universe as a purely mathematical problem, with the idea that we can have exact knowledge, and that induction is somehow not part of science and our investigations. I, on the other hand, feel that we but see through a glass darkly, one that sometimes has bugs spattered on it, and our science is a series of improving approximations of what goes on in the universe, complete with averages, parametric expressions, and other methods for handling complexity without complete knowledge. And hence significance tests (just to tie this fairly wild excursion back to the topic) are useful to determine how confident you are in what you think you know. Just remember - deduction is exact within the limitations of the premises. But it cannot teach you anything you don't already know. For that, you must use induction to create new premises. Only induction can teach you something new. -
Esop at 04:19 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
#14 (Arkadiusz): since you are on the topic of tricks, do you or professor Weiner have any comments on the fact that Spencer and Christy for years used a trick (not compensating for drift) to understate the warming signal in the satellite data, in order to fit their theory of no warming. (they later claimed it was by accident, but seing how the 2010 data are again being tweaked repeatedly to bring anomalies down, that seems less likely than before). -
Ned at 04:17 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-m, only a tiny fraction of exoatmospheric solar irradiance is in the thermal infrared range. The vast majority of it is visible and near-IR. I have no idea what you think you're seeing, but if it differs from what I just said, then you're probably misunderstanding something. -
Phila at 04:15 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Ken Lambert: Another apologia intended to rationalize the clear meaning of 'hide the decline'. It means what it says. A lot of "skeptics" seem to feel that assertion is the same thing as evidence. It isn't. In fact, the statement in question "means what it says" within a context and tradition you refuse to understand, let alone acknowledge, because doing so would rob you of the flimsy weapon you're waving around. Clinging to this absurd narrative in 2010 requires logical contortions, wishful thinking and misinterpretations of data that go far beyond anything in the stolen, cherrypicked Climategate e-mails. It's also funny how "skeptics" always seem to ignore the Nature part of this "trick." Presenting one's methodology clearly in the pages of the world's foremost science journal seems like a pretty careless way to run a global conspiracy. As I see it, beating the dead horse of Climategate is simply an attempt to "hide the decline" in respectable counterarguments against AGW. It's a more aggressive, and sillier, way of saying "I got nothin'." -
h-j-m at 04:12 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ned and DSL, Before writing my post I checked the irradiative composition of sunlight. I would advise you to do the same before posting a reply. -
Berényi Péter at 04:02 AM on 23 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
#75 KR at 10:33 AM on 21 November, 2010 that is how the theory of evolution came about, and it is inductive reasoning You do not have to believe every single word Darwin had put down in his Autobiography like "I worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale". In fact he did not do such a thing, he was much more the follower of John Stuart Mill in this respect. Here is the first paper on (Darwinian) evolution. You can check for yourself how much of it is based on sheer induction as opposed to a quick hypothesis deduced from a few undeniable universal facts like creatures, given the opportunity, are capable to increase their numbers exponentially in an ever changing environment with finite resources and they are similar to (but not identical with) their progenitors. That's all. Jour. of the Proc. of the Linnean Society (Zoology), 3 (July 1858): 53-62. On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection Charles R. Darwin & Alfred R. Wallace In a sense Erasmus Alvey Darwin, Charles Robert Darwin's brother was right in his letter of 23 Nov 1859 stating "In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts wont fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling" (upon reading Origin). The plethora of facts in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life supporting this theory can all be considered failed falsification attempts. That is, they're not needed for the derivation of the theory, but turned out to be consistent with it. The original factual base of the theory stands unchallenged to this day.- We still have not found a single species that would not increase its numbers exponentially in a favorable environment
- No environment is known that would be stable on a geological timescale
- No environment with infinite or exponentially growing resources is found (except the environment of human society, due to ever shifting technological definition of "resource").
- No species is found where offspring and progenitor are either strictly identical or dissimilar (if the entire life cycle of the species is taken into account)
-
It's the ocean
h-j-m - Your questions and proposed experiments (here and here) specifically attempt to disallow circulation and current effects. Currents (wind driven, salinity/thermal density driven) are primary mixers of the oceans, and redistribute surface temperatures elsewhere at varying rates. Studying a system without currents will not tell you much about the oceans. The oceans receive solar radiation and back IR, giving up energy via conduction/convection, evaporation, and IR (in increasing order of magnitude). The atmosphere is heated by conduction/convection, evaporation, solar and surface IR. At the top of the atmosphere all exchange is via EM, where the atmosphere is optically thin enough to actually radiate the IR to space. I'm failing to see what your issue with ocean heating is. Perhaps you could restate your concern?
Prev 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 Next
