Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 Next
Comments 103651 to 103700:
-
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? -
Ned at 03:59 AM on 23 November 2010Woody Guthrie award to The Science of Doom
Well, I see that Science of Doom has just passed the award on to Nick Stokes (over at Moyhu). I think that was an excellent choice by SoD. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:54 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Ken Lambert @9.... Hmmm... So, they were "hiding" data known to be erroneous by replacing it with "real temps?" I'm a little confused here. Do you have a particular argument with the real temps? Do you think tree rings present a more accurate indicator of modern temps than do thermometer readings? -
CBDunkerson at 03:51 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damorbel #18: "...you can have any insulator you like but it cannot reverse the direction of energy tranferring from a warm surface to colder one." Which would only be relevant if there wasn't this thing called the Sun constantly transferring energy to the planet's surface. Decrease the rate at which that energy leaves the system (by adding greenhouse gases) and you get incoming energy + retained energy... which is obviously greater than incoming energy alone. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:47 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re damorbel: You have me a bit mystified; reading over my comment at 12 and then yours at 18 I fail to see what point you're trying to make. If you have one, please rephrase it so that my slow gray matter can understand it. Thanks! -
JMurphy at 03:34 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
1999 Report... -
JMurphy at 03:27 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel wrote : ""Not true" What's not true? the text isbasically one of a number (no. 23) of distinct conclusions produced by the Muir Review, do you disagree with that?" Sorry I didn't spell it out. When you wrote that "the Russell review concluded that the opus in question was misleading because it did not reliably present the evidence derived by the investigators researches", that is not true. It DID present the evidence. The picture was deemed misleading because, although one of the series was truncated post 1960 and proxy and instrumental data were spliced together, neither of those procedures were made plain, either within the figure itself (as a caption, for example) or within the text contained in the report. 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. As for the WMO Report (a short annual document produced within the World Climate Data and Monitoring Programme), the figure in question was the frontispiece of the 1990 Report and it can easily be found if you search. But, to make it easy for you, here it is. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:23 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re damorbel: You were not singled out (else I would have directed you to read the report); read my preface to my comment. But while I have you on the line, #23 makes it clear that the WMO figure was misleading because it should have been better explained. So, other than being taken to task for sloppy record keeping anf for having a kind of crappy attitude, just what do you think the Review found CRU guilty of? (BTW, emails all are backed up on servers, as Wegman is to find out) -
damorbel at 03:14 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #12 Daniel Bailey, as you say "No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body." And "It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction." It is this "net energy flow" from hotter place to colder one that means that it is losing energy in and cooling down, not just 2nd Law but 1st Law also. Just incase you thinking of saying that CO2 slows down the heat transfer rate like an insulator (which it isn't); you can have any insulator you like but it cannot reverse the direction of energy tranferring from a warm surface to colder one. -
DSL at 03:11 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"So far I am unaware that any unidirectional insulator exists or is even possible." (sound of a vinyl record scratching to a halt) 1. Infrared radiation is emitted by the surface. 2. The radiation--or, rather, radiation at certain frequencies--eventually makes it into the stratosphere and is absorbed and emitted in all directions by molecules of CO2, H20, and CH4. 3. Some of the radiation is eventually emitted into space, because that's one direction. 4. Other directions include all versions of "sideways"--and perhaps right into another molecule of CO2. 5. Down is also another direction. The radiation eventually reaches the top of the atmosphere and is emitted into space (the only way it can leave). The visual, though not physical, analogy is the pinball machine. The atmosphere is a huge pinball machine, and GHG are bumpers (gravity has little effect in this machine). The more bumpers the machine has, the longer, on average, the ball takes to reach the boundary. Another analogy is the dam. The atmosphere is a dam. It doesn't block water, because the water eventually reaches the top and flows over, but when the water reaches the point of flowing over, the same amount of water that flows into the lake behind the dam equals the same amount of water that flows over the top. Yet there is the fact of the lake. And if we build the dam higher, then the lake gets deeper, but eventually the same amount of water will once again begin to flow over the top. We live in the lake. CO2 does not absorb UV radiation, so incoming solar radiation isn't slowed by it. -
h-j-m at 02:53 AM on 23 November 2010It's the ocean
I think that any discussion about Bolzmann's law is rather off topic here as it is obviously not about heat transfers which I erroneously assumed. Anyway I am still waiting for a reply on my main point that I outlined in detail at my post #26. -
Ned at 02:44 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-m, almost all incoming solar irradiance is at short wavelengths where the atmosphere is (mostly) transparent. In contrast, almost all outgoing emitted radiation is at longer wavelengths, portions of which are absorbed by CO2, water vapor, CH4, and other greenhouse gases. This difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is essential to understanding how the greenhouse effect works. If you want to know more, a good place to start is Science of Doom, which has an excellent series of posts explaining the fundamentals of the greenhouse effect. -
damorbel at 02:35 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #11 JMurphy "Not true" What's not true? the text isbasically one of a number (no. 23) of distinct conclusions produced by the Muir Review, do you disagree with that? "I'm afraid, since this is to do with a picture on the front page of a WMO report from 1999. It in no way affects the report itself" What am I supposed to understand from that? WMO generally do not hide their docs behind a paywall, a link should be available - please! Daniel Bailey #13 What was the point of all that text? You don't make anything of it and links are available. Intellectual snowballs like that indicate to me an unwillingness to engage on the matter under discussion. -
h-j-m at 02:32 AM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
If I get it right the greenhouse effect works as an insulator and diminishes the heat loss of the earth. So far I am unaware that any unidirectional insulator exists or is even possible. Therefore the greenhouse effect has also to diminish the incoming energy from the sun which heats the earth. As a portion of the incoming energy gets converted into forms of energy that are not radiative (kinetic, chemical, electric) that is not trivial the logical conclusion is that the incoming radiative energy needs to exceed it's outgoing counterpart. 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. -
JMurphy at 01:18 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "And “one more” conclusion: if the CRU had obviously, in some cases, such defective data (it is not their fault?), why they work (errors ?) As easy pass "screen" review process? ... and why these works - papers; have become the basis for the IPCC report ?" I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here but if you have some information about that "defective data" and those "errors", or those "papers", could you be more specific and clearly state what they are. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:09 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
And “one more” conclusion: if the CRU had obviously, in some cases, such defective data (it is not their fault?), why they work (errors ?) As easy pass "screen" review process? ... and why these works - papers; have become the basis for the IPCC report ? According to me, these errors are not the result of "natural scientific process" (which tries to convince us here) Their cause lies in the lack of knowledge of scientific methodology, indeed: "go for shortcuts." When something good "fit" to our theory, We simply verify this theory a less; or do not accurate ... Professor Weiner known in Poland and the U.S. expert on the "theory of scientific research", says that for the “sake of science”, the skeptics in the process of falsification of scientific theory (in each case) ..., really: They can do EVERYTHING (!), that: History of Science teaches us, that any attempt to restrict this process: they were ALWAYS to the detriment of science ... (note particularly good for # 11 and # 12) Dear supporters of AGW theory, if you're right, you have to its just enough to "accurately" to prove - it's easy ... No more "shortcuts" and "tricks" - literally and figuratively. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:07 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
It has become evident from the dogma of many commenting here that the findings of the Muir Russell Commission, as documented in The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, July 2010, has gone unread (as well as the rest of the report, in all likelihood). Just so no-one can claim furthermore to be unawares: 1.3 Findings 13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. 14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. 15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. 1.3.1 Land Station Temperatures 16. On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis. 17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various independent organisations which we consider highly improbable. 18. On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU's responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive. 19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU's work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication. 1.3.2 Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis 20. The central implication of the allegations here is that in carrying out their work, both in the choices they made of data and the way in which it was handled, CRU scientists intended to bias the scientific conclusions towards a specific result and to set aside inconvenient evidence. More specifically, it was implied in the allegations that this should reduce the confidence ascribed to the conclusions in Chapter 6 of the IPCC 4th Report, Working Group 1 (WG1). 21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). 22. On the allegation that the phenomenon of “divergence” may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers. 23. On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. 24. On the allegations in relation to withholding data, in particular concerning the small sample size of the tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula, CRU did not withhold the underlying raw data (having correctly directed the single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and that this delay can rightly be criticized on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe that CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but on which their publications relied, was archived in a more timely way. 1.3.3 Peer Review and Editorial Policy 25. On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication. 1.3.4 Misuse of IPCC Process 26. On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld. In addition to taking evidence from them and checking the relevant records of the IPCC process, we have consulted the relevant IPCC review Editors. Both the CRU scientists were part of large groups of scientists taking joint responsibility for the relevant IPCC Working Group texts, and were not in a position to determine individually the final wording and content. 1.3.5 Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 27. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance. 1.3.6 Other Findings on Governance 28. Given the significance of the work of CRU, UEA management failed to recognise in their risk management the potential for damage to the University's reputation fuelled by the controversy over data access. 1.4 Recommendations 29. Our main recommendations for UEA are as follows: Risk management processes should be directed to ensuring top management engagement in areas which have the potential to impact the reputation of the university. Compliance with FoIA/EIR is the responsibility of UEA faculty leadership and ultimately the Vice-Chancellor. Where there is an organisation and documented system in place to handle information requests, this needs to be owned, supported and reinforced by University leadership. CRU should make available sufficient information, concurrent with any publications, to enable others to replicate their results. 1.5 Broader Issues 30. Our work in conducting the Review has led us to identify a number of issues relevant not only to the climate science debate but also possibly more widely, on which we wish to comment briefly. 31. The nature of scientific challenge. We note that much of the challenge to CRU‘s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication. We believe this is necessary if science is to move on, and we hope that all those involved on all sides of the climate science debate will adopt this approach. 32. Handling Uncertainty – where policy meets science. Climate science is an area that exemplifies the importance of ensuring that policy makers – particularly Governments and their advisers, Non-Governmental Organisations and other lobbyists – understand the limits on what scientists can say and with what degree of confidence. Statistical and other techniques for explaining uncertainty have developed greatly in recent years, and it is essential that they are properly deployed. But equally important is the need for alternative viewpoints to be recognized in policy presentations, with a robust assessment of their validity, and for the challenges to be rooted in science rather than rhetoric. 33. Peer review - what it can/cannot deliver. We believe that peer review is an essential part of the process of judging scientific work, but it should not be overrated as a guarantee of the validity of individual pieces of research, and the significance of challenge to individual publication decisions should be not exaggerated. 34. Openness and FoIA. We support the spirit of openness enshrined in the FoIA and the EIR. It is unfortunate that this was not embraced by UEA, and we make recommendations about that. A well thought through publication scheme would remove much potential for disruption by the submission of multiple requests for information. But at the level of public policy there is need for further thinking about the competing arguments for the timing of full disclosure of research data and associated computer codes etc, as against considerations of confidentiality during the conduct of research. There is much scope for unintended consequences that could hamper research: US experience is instructive. We recommend that the ICO should initiate a debate on these wider issues. 35. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One of the most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of the blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance. This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence. The Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand. That said, a key issue is how scientists should be supported to explain their position, and how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms, where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised. 36. Openness and Reputation. An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide no defence. Like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century. 37. Role of Research Sponsors. One of the issues facing the Review was the release of data. At various points in the report we have commented on the formal requirements for this. We consider that it would make for clarity for researchers if funders were to be completely clear upfront in their requirements for the release of data (as well as its archiving, curation etc). 38. The IPCC. We welcome the IPCC‘s decision to review its processes, and can only stress the importance of capturing the range of viewpoints and reflecting appropriately the statistical uncertainties surrounding the data it assesses. Our conclusions do not make a judgement on the work of IPCC, though we acknowledge the importance of its advice to policy makers. The Yooper -
kdkd at 00:36 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
KL #9 "'hide the decline'. It means what it says [...] Jones mindset was simply that tree ring data which ran contrary to the theory (which means generally warming) would simply be hidden." This interpretation is clearly utterly incorrect, as noted by the fact that you do not properly define what is meant by the 'decline' - I'm guessing that you are aware that doing so would be an explicit acknoledgement that your case does not stand to scrutiny. The 'decline' is the divergence between the proxy record and the instrumental record for a particular point in the time series. While alternative data could be used for this point in the time series, typically this would take more space to explain in the paper, and distract [1] from the findings, which are clearly pretty robust. On the other hand your post is an excellent apologia for the intellectually bankrupt so-called-sceptic mindset. Why are you wasting your time with this? Is it because you like wasting other people's time, or is it a deep seated psychological denial? [1] Some time ago I worked for someone who likes to spell everything out in mind-numbing detail in the papers that he writes . His acceptance rate is pretty poor, his writing is turgid, and generally it's difficult to understand the message that he's trying to get across because of his obsession with dealing with every minuted detail. Much better to deal with more condensed works where the reviewers have an understanding of the kinds of tricks needed to keep work to a manageable length. -
JMurphy at 00:16 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel wrote : "Since the decline was neither "made plain" nor "clearly described in either the caption or the text", it is clear that the Russell review concluded that the opus in question was misleading because it did not reliably present the evidence derived by the investigators researches." Not true, I'm afraid, since this is to do with a picture on the front page of a WMO report from 1999. It in no way affects the report itself. One example of this was the cover art on a WMO 1999 report which, until last November, was completely obscure (we are not aware of any mention of this report or this figure before November in any blogospheric discussion, ever). Nonetheless, in the way of these things, this figure is now described as ‘an icon’ in the Muir Russell report (one of their very few mistakes, how can something be an icon if no-one has ever seen it?). In retrospect (and as we stated last year) we agree with the Muir Russell report that the caption and description of the figure could indeed have been clearer, particularly with regard to the way proxy and instrumental data sources were spliced into a single curve, without indicating which was which. The WMO cover figure appears (at least to our knowledge) to be the only instance where that was done. Moving forward, nonetheless, it is advisable that scientists be as clear as possible about what sorts of procedures have gone into the preparation of a figure. But retrospective applications of evolving standards are neither fair nor useful. Real Climate -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:06 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Professor Phil Jones sums up (by “one sentence”), today, Climategate: “Hopefully they will remember me for the scientific papers I have written rather than the emails.” Errors must not be "intentionally manipulating" - in such an important case - simply should not be at all. I recall only the most important, what Professor Jones said earlier ( BBC. February, 2010): “He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics - a decision he says he regretted.” “... not cheated over the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.” “He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made. But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.” [Here I added: “Scientists agree that the past 40 years of tree-ring data are unreliable temperature proxies, and some argue that using them in older temperature reconstructions, as Jones has done, could understate past warm periods, including the MWP ... (Nature News)”] “He said many people had been made sceptical about climate change by the snow in the northern hemisphere - but they didn't realise that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville showed it had been the warmest January since records began in 1979.[!??]” “His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones' strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: "There is some truth in that.” “He strongly defended references in his emails to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures.” “These phrases had been deliberately taken out of context and "spun" by sceptics keen to derail the Copenhagen climate conference, he said.” So much more or less significant errors, however, claims (not just a "trick"), as usual, Professor Jones (and “by” the professor - Sc. S.) was (to today) only to skeptics - guilty ! ...; and: “I [Jones] did wonder why they [scientists - colleagues] didn't go to the media and say the same things they were saying to me.”
Prev 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 Next
