Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 Next
Comments 105851 to 105900:
-
Berényi Péter at 06:05 AM on 26 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#52 KR at 02:56 AM on 26 October, 2010 Local effects (more ordered cloud formations, less uniform water vapor distributions, etc., that you have suggested in the past) that are not locally high entropy will not occur What you are effectively saying is hurricanes, supercells or tornadoes (with their more ordered cloud formations, less uniform water vapor distributions, etc.) are impossible. I don't think you mean it.
Although the moderator was kind enough to delete it once, I give it another try. MEP is nothing fancy, really. The underlying principle is the same as for water flowing downhill; it simply follows the steepest gradient available. Note it says a bit more than the 2nd law, which only states water would not flow spontaneously uphill.
In systems like this local entropy fails to win out, somehow. Think about it.
-
robert way at 06:00 AM on 26 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
Protestant, "We already have evidence on 60 year cycles like PDO and AMO after all, which are caused by winds, which are caused by pressure changes in condensation (cloud formation, models ignore this)" The AMO is not caused by this process at all. You should consider reading the literature prior to making grand statements that are vitally flawed. The AMO is a proxy for the strength of the thermohaline circulation (THC). Positive phases indicate a strengthening of the THC and negative phases indicate a weakening of the THC. It occurs over a roughly 70 to 80 year period and is directly linked to sea ice transport through the fram strait. I can give you a more direct explanation if you prefer? Another side note, Judith Curry may be well-known but I would rather get my information from other people than her. There's a reason she's taken such a beating at RC and elsewhere, it is because she is often wrong. Finally, I do agree with one thing you had to say, this post does insinuate that there is a clear forcing and effect. I believe that millennial scale climatic changes are inherent within the climatic system as found by Viau et al (2006) however I don't think they have a cloud origin. I would guess ocean driven with some sort of Solar initiation perhaps. -
nealjking at 04:00 AM on 26 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Berényi: I am not an expert on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. My main exposure to this MEP claim has been through Miskolczki's claim that the MEP ruled out any possibility of the enhanced greenhouse effect at all. I spent some time trying to find out what this meant, but it eventually became clear enough to me that Miskolczki was also not an expert in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and was using this principle, that he did not fully understand, to counter well-known physics that everybody understands. This seems to me not to be the most prudent way to arrive at an understanding of phenomena. Usually, one is better advised to try to extend one's understanding from things well known to things less known. -
Andy Skuce at 03:17 AM on 26 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Thanks for the comments. I replaced "offshore breezes" with different wording that I hope will be unambiguous. I also reworded the latter part of that sentence to make it more clear that at night the observatory samples well-mixed high altitude air from the Central Pacific rather than the lower altitude air that has come upslope from the lower reaches of the island and which may be slightly depleted in CO2 due to the effects of the vegetation there. Some of this will be discussed in more detail in a forthcoming Advanced Version of this rebuttal. -
Bibliovermis at 03:01 AM on 26 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Why should we be happy about explaining, and re-explaining & then explaining yet again, basic, fundamental physical properties to somebody who adamantly insists that these misconceptions are the reason why a well-established field of scientific endeavor is composed of grossly incompetent, corrupt individuals? Yes, the scientific theory of anthropogenic warming can be disproven. Your lack of understanding and refusal to learn is not sufficient. We have been magnimous, but you are wrong - plain and simple. Your conceptions of how heat moves through the atmosphere are indeed utter nonsense. Indignation & insults (e.g. "you're just insecure") do not impart validity. Repeating the same misconception over & over & over is a good way to get people to snap at you. Global warming is how more & more energy is radiated from the planet. No additional energy can leave the system until there is an increase in temperature. The temperature cannot rise without more energy leaving the system. Energy can only leave the system through radiation; convection only moves it around internally. Energy cannot simultaneously cause a temperature increase & remain in the system (i.e. accumulate). -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Berényi - Are you arguing that the climate will (by virtue of many degrees of freedom) increase entropy production in some fashion in order to avoid raising temperatures? Do you have any evidence for such an assertion? Note that if a system could reach a more entropic state by reordering internal components/relationships, but those internal elements would require a less entropic (more ordered) state, local entropy will win out and the system entropy will be the product of the local (internal) entropies. Local effects (more ordered cloud formations, less uniform water vapor distributions, etc., that you have suggested in the past) that are not locally high entropy will not occur. In short, the system is the product of the components, not the other way around. And quite frankly a warmer planet with a higher effective photosphere for portions of the emission spectra is the most entropic solution - at least, according to and supported by the data. -
Albatross at 02:43 AM on 26 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Peter @129 and 133, Thanks for this Peter-- I realise that it is easy for me and others to talk hypotheticals, but another story entirely to actually track down the data, undertake the analysis and then write it up. Great work. Peter "My summary based on the best available evidence is that Summer Arctic temperatures are increasing slightly, the Lansner chart contains errors and any conclusions based on this chart are likely to be incorrect. Based on your findings and those of Screen and Simmonds (2010) I concur with that assessment. "I have concluded that "pixel counting" is not an appropriate method for analysing trends or data in this case. The Lansner chart has large differences from the correct DMI values and it appears the conversion of numerical data to images and then pixel counting from these images is easily capable of creating bad data." FWIW, I would concur with that assessment as well. It seems that the alleged "cooling" is an artifact of a combination of issues with the DMI data and Lansner's methodology and/or analysis. I would also like to second what Doug wrote @133. It may be worth bringing this to the attention of DMI as well...the poor match that you show between ERA-interim and DMI (for the melt season) is rather troubling. Just one example in addition to the "step" issues, something odd seems to have happened with the DMI data between 1991 and 1995. -
CBDunkerson at 02:43 AM on 26 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
muoncounter #331: "In order for your argument at 317 to work at all, you must accept the points (its warming, its not the sun, etc) made in 325." I dunno. I've yet to meet a dedicated 'skeptic' who isn't capable of passionately believing three or more contradictory things at the same time. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:22 AM on 26 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Re: chrisd3 (8) As a former nautical cartographer, I didn't realize that it wasn't common knowledge about such breezes. You and Kevin McKinney should share sailing backgrounds sometime. -
michael sweet at 02:07 AM on 26 October 2010Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
Dan, The issue that I have with your argument is that sea surface temperature is determined by the interaction of the atmosphere and the ocean. Your proposal suggests that global warming is caused by the ocean heating the atmospehre. What heats the ocean? Since both the ocean and the atmosphere are warming the heat has to come from somewhere. CO2 heats the atmosphere. The heated atmosphere heats the ocean. The energy to heat both comes from the sun. Your equation works because the ocean is heated by the atmosphere. Since the two are linked you observe this link with your calculation. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - No, not insecure, just tired of the same disproven skeptic arguments being brought up again and again.. oh look, and again. Increased thermal radiation affects the contributions of anthropogenic heat flux, and it affects the contributions of greenhouse gases. The same rules apply in all cases. Energy changes lead to temperature changes, and thence to radiation changes that tend to balance out the energy change. The 4th power of temperature relationship with energy is the negative feedback that limits temperature changes. However, GHG's are two orders of magnitude larger, and hence have a much larger effect. I'm quite frankly puzzled as to why you continue to think that AHF dominates global warming. Anthropogenic heat flux = 15 TW/year Greenhouse Gas entrapment = ~1550 TW/year Now, which of these will dominate climate effects? -
RSVP at 01:48 AM on 26 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR #330 When you snap "incorrect" and "utter nonsense", it makes you appear insecure. If I am the one thats all messed up, you could be a little more magnanamous. I may be completely wrong, and if so, at least in being wrong, it would be just that much more proof that AGW is a good theory. You should be happy to proove me wrong, not upset. Besides, I am not sure what you have to worry about? There is still 20,000 experts out there that have signed on who would have to be convinced. AGW is an entrenched theory with a lot of backers. One might ask if it is even possible to disprove at this point, assuming it were completely flawed. Seriously, I am perfectly aware that "Radiated energy increases as the 4th power of temperature". What I find strange is how increased thermal radiation is used to undermine the contribution of waste heat, while the basis of GHG heating depends on jsut the opposite. Conclusion. Calm down, be happy. Besides, as far as every reading this, you are winning, (and won before the discussion even began given the rule set). -
Riccardo at 01:46 AM on 26 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
chrisd3, the Mauna Loa Observatory is already high enough to be a good place to measure background CO2 concentration, unless air coming from lower elevations "contaminate" the readings. At night, or whenever there's no upslope wind, there's no reason for concern. Whether the air comes from higher up (which is often true) or from the same level is irrelevant. -
nealjking at 01:39 AM on 26 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#48, Berényi Péter; #49, Kooiti Masuda: TonyWildish is not talking about the emissivity of the gas, but the "effective emissivity" of the Earth. So the whole discussion about Kirchoff's law, etc., has nothing to do with what he's talking about. He's just saying that the Earth will "have a harder time" tossing off radiation at a specific frequency if the absorption coefficient of the atmosphere at that frequency increases. "Emittance is proportional to the product of emissivity (a dimensionless number) and the fourth power of absolute temperature." This is not quite true: the T^4 law relates to the total power integrated over all frequencies, in a case when there is no frequency-specific filtering (like absorption lines): this doesn't apply to cool gases, which have line spectra. In these situations, what is more relevant is the Planck distribution, which is multiplied with the absorption spectrum to get the emission spectrum. Maximum entropy production: I am not very familiar with this "principle," and have no clear reason to believe in it. The only other time I've heard of anyone trying to apply it to atmospheric processes was when Miskolczi was trying to disprove the possibility of the greenhouse effect. I didn't believe it then, and I have no reason to believe it now. -
muoncounter at 01:27 AM on 26 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
#326: "Not sure why you say this?" In order for your argument at 317 to work at all, you must accept the points (its warming, its not the sun, etc) made in 325. Like it or not, you're an AGW guy now. "There is no waste heat sunset." Nor is there a waste heat correlation. Your calculation says all energy consumed directly warms the atmosphere; temperature anomalies should correspond with historic energy consumption (see EIA energy consumption tables). You picked one year's energy consumption; over the longer term, how well do temperature anomalies track energy use? Your model makes a testable prediction. In order for your model to be taken seriously (although most others here have already said it should not), it still must be checked against observations. Sunrise, sunset. -
Berényi Péter at 01:20 AM on 26 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#49 Kooiti Masuda at 22:42 PM on 25 October, 2010 For entropy production in the climate system, see Ozawa (2003) (Unfortunately I do not find a free copy) Dear prof Masuda, here is a copy of the paper you are referring to. Reviews of Geophysics, 41, 4 / 1018 2003 doi:10.1029/2002RG000113 THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE SYSTEM: A REVIEW OF THE MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION PRINCIPLE Hisashi Ozawa, Atsumu Ohmura, Ralph D. Lorenz & Toni Pujol Unfortunately their claim "On the contrary, absorption of radiation is essentially a linear process; its rate is given by the flux of radiation multiplied by the absorptivity of the material under consideration. There can be no feedback mechanism for the strength of the flux or the absorptivity in this process. Radiation can therefore be seen to be just an energy source for the climate system." is not a valid one, as absorption of radiation clearly depends on things like clouds, snow cover, foliage and airborne dust. Looks like there can be feedback mechanisms after all, as distribution of many absorbers are determined by climate. Their omission of the factor 4/3 from the standard expression of radiation entropy is strange. Also, total entropy production is the difference between entropy of outgoing (reflected/dispersed short wave and emitted thermal) radiation and that of incoming sunlight. The MEP, being a pretty universal principle covering all steady state open thermodynamic systems with sufficient degrees of freedom, should not differentiate between internal modes of energy transfer in a way they claim. -
chrisd3 at 01:19 AM on 26 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Daniel #7:onshore breezes are those winds that normally flow toward the land from the sea
Quite right. As a former sailor, I'm quite ashamed that I didn't even notice that, and even repeated it. The sentence should say "onshore" rather than "offshore." But still I don't think it's the onshore/offshore direction that brings air down from the upper atmosphere. -
Stu at 01:17 AM on 26 October 2010Mauna Loa is a volcano
Good stuff Dan, and good article Andy. The comments at American Thinker are just... argh! So boneheaded! Still, I wont judge all Americans by that - just the ones who let American Thinker do their thinking for them ;-) -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - "If the atmosphere were to always radiate more and more in a way that exactly compensated any positive changes in heat, global warming wouldnt be possible" Incorrect. The Earth doesn't radiate more unless it warms, thus positive energy changes cause global warming. Cause >> effect: Positive energy changes >> global warming >> increased radiation >> steady state Claiming that this relationship disproves global warming is utter nonsense. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - "I understand the theory as modeled by a solid blackbody the size of the Earth": Not quite what I said, and that's worth clarifying. The Earth is a 'graybody', not a blackbody, with notches in the emission spectra from among other influences greenhouse gases. Radiated energy increases as the 4th power of temperature, scaled by the emission spectra of the body in question. Graybodies never emit as efficiently as theoretic blackbodies, but they certainly do emit. Starting from a rough equilibrium, with the Earth radiating the energy it absorbs from the sun (known value) at current temps, an average increase of 0.015°C to 0.034°C emits an additional 15 TW/year (plus climate sensitivity scaled feedbacks) to space, thus reaching a new state of equilibrium between energy in/energy out. And once equilibrium is reached the system ceases to change due to that forcing. The "λ" in the sensitivity equation is exactly that - sensitivity to energy perturbations. This ranges from a low pushed by some sceptics (Lindzen and Choi, for example), to fairly high values given by loosely bounded upper limits. See Figure 4 of "How sensitive is our climate" to see a good discussion of this range. So no, "I get the sense as applied to the effects of GHGs that its value reflects the assumption that GHG are the main cause of the observed global warming and in this sense the operation is basically both subjective and circular" is incorrect. This is sensitivity to any forcing that adds energy to the climate system, which is why it applies to TSI variations, aerosols, GHG's, ice albedo, etc. Oh, and to anthropogenic heat flux... -
Daniel Bailey at 00:34 AM on 26 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Re: Offshore/onshore breezes The accepted understanding is that onshore breezes are those winds that normally flow toward the land from the sea during daylight hours, as the land will typically be much warmer during the day. At night, the land loses its heat through radiative processes, and the winds change to downslope: the sinking cooler air moves toward the sea, moving offshore from the land to the sea. The Yooper -
RSVP at 00:33 AM on 26 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Bibliovermis #327 If the atmosphere were to always radiate more and more in a way that exactly compensated any positive changes in heat, global warming wouldnt be possible, no matter what the source. Waste heat is warming the air and in general convectively. This does not make the best launchpad for radiation. -
Riccardo at 00:07 AM on 26 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
chrisd3 "at night, the prevailing winds are offshore breezes" i guess he means going offshore, although you're right that usually it is intended the other way around. Yvan Dutil the Mauna Loa Observatory is at 11,135 ft which should be something like 3300 m (will the descendants of the anglo-saxons ever convert to the SI units? :)). It should be high enough. -
Yvan Dutil at 23:46 PM on 25 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Well, in Mauna Kea and Mauna Lea, plant stop at 3000 m. This the normal height of the boundary layer. At night, this layer is normally much thiner due to reduction of convection. Astronomer make use of this and put telescope on the top of Mauna Kea for that reason. Actually, on top of Mauna Kea, the air flow is coming strait from the pacific ocean. This is why it is so stable, which provide a good seeing. Similar situation occur in Mauna Loa but since the altitude is lower, the effect is less obvious. -
muoncounter at 23:34 PM on 25 October 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
#9: "first report doesn't make sense" I don't expect headlines in newspapers to make sense. As you say, the headlines and blogposts that 'The Ice Age Cometh' will indeed be all over the place. Whatever happened to the old idea that Arctic melting flooded the North Atlantic with cold, fresh water, thereby shutting off the northwards-flowing Gulf Stream? Has that mechanism fallen out of favor these days? -
The Skeptical Chymist at 23:34 PM on 25 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
Speaking of the strength of the greenhouse effect and what would happen if you took out all the C02, the good folks at NASA have just published a paper in Science looking at precisely this question. The Science paper is here but for those who can't access it there are good discussions on the NASA GISS website (including most of the figures from the Science paper) here and here. The answer seems to be that while C02 (and other GHGs like methane) make up around 25% of the greenhouse effect, without them water vapor crashes out of the atmosphere, leaving a planet with an average temperature of -21dC. It might not be a completely snowball earth though, the equator may get enough heat to keep the oceans at a balmy 1dC. Interesting stuff, but the take home message is spelled out in the title of the paper: "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" -
Kooiti Masuda at 22:42 PM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
I agree to the 2nd to 5th paragraphs of #48 by Berényi Péter (#48), but I disagree to the last two paragraphs. Excuse me, I cannot fully write my reasoning right now. For entropy production in the climate system, see Ozawa (2003) (Unfortunately I do not find a free copy). The authors suggest that the principle of maximum entropy production seems to be applicable to fluid motion processes, but not to the whole climate system including radiative processes. -
chrisd3 at 22:18 PM on 25 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
the prevailing winds are offshore breezes, which bring clean air from high in the atmosphere down to the observatory Is that accurate? Offshore breezes bring in air from the direction of the ocean, but not necessarily from "high in the atmosphere." I think you're mixing up the onshore/offshore pattern with a slightly different diurnal pattern. During the day, the wind at Mauna Loa tends to be upslope (upward from the island), while at night the wind tends to be downslope (downward from the atmosphere). Changes in temperatures drive both patterns, but it's the downslope effect, not the offshore effect, that brings down air from higher in the atmosphere. That's been my understanding, anyway. -
Berényi Péter at 21:36 PM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#41 TonyWildish at 02:07 AM on 25 October, 2010 you can think of it as effectively lowering the emissivity of the earth at certain frequencies, by lowering the transparency of the atmosphere to those frequencies No, you can't. In fact by lowering atmospheric transparency, you increase emissivity. That's Korchoff's law of thermal radiation. If the atmosphere would be in thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, if it were isothermal, lowering its transparency would increase not only emissivity, but also its emittance, so adding a small amount of GHG to a perfectly transparent atmosphere (let's say made of Nitrogen and Argon) would decrease its temperature (something like that is happening to Earth's stratosphere). However, the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, just in a more or less steady state with a continuous flow of energy going through it, associated with a steady rate of entropy production. If there's already some GHG content in such an atmosphere, the upper layers tend to cool faster (because they are more "visible" from space), which is why they are kept at a lower temperature. If you increase GHG content (as we have seen, also increasing emissivity by the very same act), the "photosphere" (the layer from which IR photons have a chance to escape to space unimpeded) goes higher, that is, to a colder place. Emittance is proportional to the product of emissivity (a dimensionless number) and the fourth power of absolute temperature. In some cases the latter one decreases more than the increase in the first term, so their product also decreases. But by decreasing the emittance, entropy production rate also decreases (while internal entropy contents of the system increases). Now, open systems with many degrees of freedom tend to assume a state of maximum entropy production (with minimum entropy contents, that is, a tendency to maintain internal order). So to prove increasing GHG contents of the atmosphere decreases overall IR emittance indeed, it is not enough to show photosphere rises to a higher layer in a narrow IR band, you also have to demonstrate the climate system has no way to reconfigure itself (even with its gazillion degrees of freedom) to a state which restores entropy production rate to its former value or at least makes it decrease less than indicated by first order GHG calculations. If you fail to do so, a negative feedback is likely (which makes AGW scare moot). -
JMurphy at 21:34 PM on 25 October 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
That first report doesn't make sense, muoncounter. Firstly, we have no direct evidence of temperatures going back that far, so how can it be judged the coldest in 1000 years ? Secondly, isn't the Little Ice Age meant to be the coldest period over the last 1000 years (according to proxies), i.e. 3-400 years ago ? Thirdly, wasn't there a Medieval Warm Period at various times and places, about 1000 years ago - again, according to proxies ? Overall, I bet the so-called skeptics are drooling at the possibility of this coming to pass, despite the fact that they will have to rely on the veracities of the instrumental temperature records and the proxy records, and ignore the LIA and MWP - just so they can scream : 'Ice-age is coming !' Perhaps this will be another good example of their incoherence. -
Nick Palmer at 20:23 PM on 25 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
Shoot this down if you want, but I think the sceptics obsession with the MWP proves that they are Lovelock/Hansen style "alarmists" (or would be if they thought about it...). The most "sceptical" of those credible scientists, quoted by the denialist element (Lindzen et al), reckon that their purported low climate sensitivity will lead to less than 1 degree C for a doubling of CO2, which would take us (globally)in due course outside the peak of the (probably) local MWP. Surely the most fervent deniers must accept that, if it was as fertile and lush and lacking in ice as they claim, then also surely the albedo of "fields of corn" Greenland and elsewhere, such as Northern Russia and Alaska etc would have been a lot lower. If they accept that a small amount of increase from the previous cooler era lead to a fertile darker surfaced Greenland etc then they must accept that ice sheets are very much more prone to radical melting and disappearance due to small temperature changes than hitherto suspected in which case they must realise that their beliefs must mean there is a very large positive feedback that melts ice quickly although they would also have to explain why the rise in the MWP was not much larger if the planetary albedo was so much less too. So, if they believe in the denialist/Singer version of the MWP, they must expect Greenland to melt rapidly leading to a greater albedo feedback that mainstream climate science does not expect for a long time. Deniers are alarmists! -
Doug Mackie at 18:42 PM on 25 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
New Zealand's NIWA have been collecting atmospheric CO2 data since 1970 and CH4 since (I think) the late 80's. Long story but local denialists are in denial about the local atmospheric temperature data but are mostly silent about CO2. -
Berényi Péter at 18:26 PM on 25 October 2010Are we too stupid?
#135 KR at 08:50 AM on 23 October, 2010 with tongue firmly in cheek - We could always convert our automobiles to nuclear power In the same vein, a wind powered car is even better. Just imagine the fun a storm could do on a highway in a morning rush.
-
Bibliovermis at 18:26 PM on 25 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
You've earlier acknowledged that anthropogenic heat radiated away from the planet. You are again claiming that it never leaves the planet. Why doesn't solar heat? -
RSVP at 17:24 PM on 25 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR #324 "Raising the temperature 0.015°C to 0.034°C is sufficient to radiate 15 TW/year to space (i.e., all of the anthropogenic heat flux), " I understand the theory as modeled by a solid blackbody the size of the Earth. Or am I wrong about that too? Perhaps you could clarify whether you are referring to raising the temperature of the Earth's surface or its soupy atmosphere? I assume you mean the surface since you are saying that "the temperature" is actually being raised. (Or the third option: The hypothetical raising of temperature. But please lets not go there, unless it is absolutely essential to further delay enlightenment.) As far as dT / λ = dF. I am sure the equation is useful, but lambda most likely needs to be adjusted to account for whats really happening. I get the sense as applied to the effects of GHGs that its value reflects the assumption that GHG are the main cause of the observed global warming and in this sense the operation is basically both subjective and circular. muoncounter #325 "RSVP is coming around" Not sure why you say this? In #317, using published data and applying simple calculations, I have provided a conservative estimate that shows we are dumping enough energy in the environment to raise the atmosphere .1 degree C every year, which is 100 times the "forcing" that is attributed to GHGs, which essentially inverts the debate in terms of numerics. There is no waste heat sunset. It keeps on trucking night and day, year after year. -
Marcus at 16:07 PM on 25 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
David Horton, the station in question is on Cape Grim-as I recall-& they've been operating since the 1970's. They're seeing a Keeling Curve as well. So that's a total of 5 measuring stations all showing the exact same things-yet some denialist will *still* try & argue the case with you! -
David Horton at 16:02 PM on 25 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Might be worth adding that being in the middle of the ocean means in effect that the observatory is sampling well-mixed air. What about the samples from Tasmania - is it on one of the islands? Not sure how many years but it would add another geographic centre to the graph. -
Alexandre at 13:54 PM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Tarcisio #42, I speak Portuguese and I have a background in Electronics. Sorry, you cannot just magically multiply energy by antenna gain. If that was the case, I would very gladly prescribe re-transmitting the energy of our big Brazilian hydroelectrical powerstation over and over through the world as a definitive solution to the world's carbon-free energy problem. -
Yvan Dutil at 13:23 PM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
This is my very dump stupid explanation than even an engineer can understand: Without atmosphere the temperature of the sky would be roughly 3K or -270 C. The presence of the atmosphere make the sky much hotter. -
muoncounter at 12:35 PM on 25 October 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
And now for something completely different: Coldest winter in 1000 years is on the way The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Experts dispute record weather forecast Although La Nina has a global influence on weather, its direct influence is limited only to the tropical Pacific region, and its influence on the weather in the mid-high latitude regions is indirect and complicated, according to the report. -
MattJ at 12:19 PM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
This article is great! I am particularly pleased to see how the many discussions of the blanket analogy in this forum have taken such excellent fruit in this article. But I do have to wonder: how exact is that translation of Clausius's original words? I wonder because the 'generally' does not sound right. The word I remember (from Pauli's formulation of Clausius's original words) is 'spontaneously'. This makes much more sense, and lends itself to precise interpretation much more easily. But precise interpretation is exactly what is so sorely missing from so much discussion of the 3 laws of thermo, especially when rebutting this ridiculous fallacy. -
mistermack at 12:04 PM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, I'm leaving it there. I can't be doing with all this emotional stuff. Bye. -
archiesteel at 11:55 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: I criticized your behavior, and your insulting insinuations against people who choose to study climate science. I did criticize your arguments, but it can get pretty frustrating when one side gives the appearance of not wanting to debate in good faith. People here have been quite patient with you, perhaps you should show the same consideration to others and not take such an adversarial tone, especially when every one of your arguments have been successfully rebutted. The goal of this site is not to provide "great reading," it's to present the actual science to those who want to learn more, and to counter the disinformation and bad science spread by a vocal minority on the Internet. As far as the consensus goes, I think I made my position clear in the other thread. -
mistermack at 11:46 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, you took to criticising the person, not the argument, in your previous post. That's what I meant. I would just say to you, it's a bit like religion. It doesn't matter what you believe, or me. Nor what we say. It won't change the fact. Either warming is mostly man-caused, or it isn't. Nothing I say will change that. If you want to achieve a comment section with everone agreeing, it's not going to make great reading. But at least you will have a consensus. -
archiesteel at 11:40 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
@mistermack: not all evidence rests on model, some can be directly observed and/or reproducible in a lab (the actual greenhouse properties of CO2, for example). Similarly, the fact that we are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined without resorting to models. Now, as far as models go: you're welcome to demonstrate how the models are inaccurate, and produce your own models to explain the observed data. Until then, don't be offended if I'd rather accept the actual science presented on this site rather than the vague allegations and half-baked arguments you keep throwing around. In the meantime, why not check out the Models are unreliable page? -
mistermack at 11:29 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
Responding to Response to 261, I looked, it doesn't contain any evidence of a human link, but I clicked on the fingerprint link, to the "it's not us" argument, which is probably the closest to an evidence page as there is. It's good reading, a lot more relevant than anything else I've found on here. At the end of the day though, the evidence still boils down to models, models of where the warming should be detected, followed by this is the warming we detected. ( etc ). If you accept the models are true, you can claim plenty of evidence. If you regard the models as needing confirmation, then the evidence needs confirmation. I can't help but conclude that the models were inspired by the data, so you shouldn't call it evidence if the data matches the models. If the consensus is the result of the evidence, then it seems to depend on the data and the models matching up, which is hardly surprising. -
DaveMcRae at 11:14 AM on 25 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
I think I voted as well - ta Doug#4 And yes to Les#7 -
archiesteel at 10:30 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "Archie, you're just basically resorting to adhominems now" Yeah, that's what contrarians usually say when they're out of arguments... "I'm only interested in evidence." ...but only as far as it reinforces your position, it seems. Everyone here treated you nicely and patiently provided counter-arguments, which you choose to ignore. "You can hardly speak of me having an agenda, and then make ad hominem comments." I (and others here) have been quite patient with you, even when you made an ad hominem attack upon basically everyone who chooses to study in Climate Science, so spare me the fake outrage. "That's a sign of someone who can't debate, and doesn't really understand what he's talking about, but still want's the last word. A clear sign of someone with an agenda." Wait, are you talking about yourself now? It sure can't be me because: a) I can debate just as well as any other poster here; b) I try to only talk about things I understand, and have no problem admitting when I'm wrong (I've done that a couple of times on this very site); c) doesn't feel the need to have the last word any more than you. As for my agenda, it's quite simple: I'm interested in learning more about Climate Change (I learned tremendously here, because unlike you I came with an open mind), and I don't like when I hear the same debunked theories against AGW again and again, especially when we know who's behind the disinformation - not saying you are, of course. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and think you're actually just wrong. I apologize if you feel insulted, and I assure you I mean nothing personal by my criticism. I simply ask you in good faith to look on the evidence presented on this site and not simply dismiss it off-hand. That's still the best thing about this place. :-) -
muoncounter at 10:14 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
#242: "most "experts" are apologists for the concensus:" Let's accept that philosophy for a moment, postulating that it must work both ways. So W@tts and G*ddard and Jo#ova and all the other so-called 'experts' who've bought into the consensus (31000 scientists agree) that AGW is a scam are mere apologists. You can't have it both ways. But in reality, I would rather live in a world that values consensus among experts -- or at least one that values expert discussion of disagreements with logic, observation and sound science rather than name-calling and petty vitriolics. Because this is what you get when there's no consensus. -
nealjking at 10:14 AM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Tarcisio, Google-Translate is not providing a translation of your Portuguese adequate to the task of explaining what you are saying. Perhaps you can find a colleague who can clarify the output and render it into English that we can understand? I often use Google-Translate for German/English, and it takes some effort to make the English comprehensible. Quite often it misses an important word, "nicht", thus giving the exact opposite meaning of the original!
Prev 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 Next
