Recent Comments

Prev  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  Next

Comments 106001 to 106050:

106001. Kooiti Masuda at 13:51 PM on 24 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        I think that the blanket analogy is less troublesome than greenhouse (glass house) analogy, for a blanket is obviously different from the atmosphere. By the way, I remember some planetary scientists use "blanket effect" as a technical term distinguished from "greenhouse effect". But, I do not remember the precise context. Probably, it is "greenhouse effect" if energy comes primarily from the sun, and it is "blanket effect" if it comes from the interior of the planet (geothermal).
106002. Kooiti Masuda at 13:27 PM on 24 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Help please! I do not find good textbooks of thermodynamics which contain how to interpret radiative transfer as heat exchange. Some books do contain Planck's theory of blackbody radiation, but that is not enough. Even if we are content with the blackbody spectrum, we need to handle different energy flux densities from the thermal equilibrium. We also need to evaluate the effective tempearture of radiation after partial absorption.
106003. Kooiti Masuda at 13:19 PM on 24 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Tarcisio José D'Avila, the value 1368 W/m2 is the energy flux coming from the sun to the unit area of a plane surface perpendicular to the line between the sun and the center of the earth. To get the value of solar energy flux per unit area of the earth's surface, it should be multiplied by the cosine of the solar zenith angle (in other words, the sine of the solar elevation angle), which depends on latitude, season, and time of day. (We are sure that the global and annual average of it is 1/4). There are many textbooks, both meteorological and astronomical, to explain how to calculate it. As for a conceptual reminder, here is an introduction from NASA. http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/inv99Project.Site/Pages/science-briefs/ed-stickler/ed-irradiance.html
106004. archiesteel at 13:16 PM on 24 October 2010
        Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
        @protestant: "Anyway what we know is the temperatures always fell when CO2 was high and still rising for centuries...." It didn't "always fall" - you identified a single instance of this. In any case, that question was already answered: in normal Milankovitch cycles, CO2 is a feedback mechanism - the main forcing is orbital variations, which then cause increased albedo and lower CO2 as temperatures go down. In the current situation, anthropogenic CO2 is acting as a forcing. "CO2 follows the temperature, not the otherway around." Actually, it's both. Look, it's clear your mind was already made up that AGW wasn't real when you came here. You tried to challenge the science, and when presented with evidence of how you're wrong, you start complaining about it. To people like me, who come here to learn, you're just another random Internet contrarian, repeating the same old debunked arguments.
106005. archiesteel at 13:02 PM on 24 October 2010
        Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
        @protestant: Actually, it is the contrarian's arguments that require a lot of cherry-picking and ignore the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW theory. This site is about finding the truth. I encourage you to continue learning about the science and abandon your naive belief in the pseudo-science bandied about by contrarians. If you aren't interested in learning more about science, then I suggest you just go someplace else where your preconceived notions will be welcome, such as WUWT.
106006. David Horton at 09:10 AM on 24 October 2010
        Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
        Do you think, just possibly, "protestant" has missed the point of SkS? His proposition "take in account all of the evidence" seems to fly in the face of the whole web site which is devoted to examining all of the evidence AGAINST global warming. None of which, so far, stands up.
106007. ProfMandia at 08:26 AM on 24 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Be very careful with the blanket analogy. Increased GHGs keep the surface warmer due to changes in radiative transfer and a blanket keeps the body warmer by suppressing convection. They both keep it warmer but for very different reasons. You did note this in your third to last paragraph but it may get lost in translation if somebody carries the message from here. A person, after reading this post, might tell somebody that GHGs act like a blanket to keep us warm. "What do you mean I am wrong, I read this over at Skeptical Science."
106008. muoncounter at 06:42 AM on 24 October 2010
        Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
        #110: "you are answering to every sentence and a paragraph with another link to another "rebuttal" which takes in to account only one side of the evidence" Sorry that you feel frustrated by the references to other pages on SkS. Maybe its because the folks here have already reviewed, discussed, argued over, looked at both sides and come up with rebuttals for a lot of the tired old skepticisms. If you actually read the referenced argument page, you'll see both sides get reviewed (and that's neither cherry-picking a la Goddard nor confirmation bias a la Watts). As for Kulmala, see this comment and its quote from that article.
        Moderator Response: One of the strengths of this Skeptical Science site is its division into narrow topics (notwithstanding the few exceptionally broad topics). By commenting on the appropriate thread, you not only avoid diluting other threads, you also dramatically increase the chance of people who are interested in your topic seeing your comment, because they will be looking on the appropriate thread, not the inappropriate threads. We encourage you to post short comments on the inappropriate threads on which conversations began, but only to link to your comments on the appropriate threads. You can get the HTML for the link target of your new, appropriately placed, comment by right-clicking on your new comment's date/time tag.
106009. Doug Bostrom at 06:32 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        BTW, it's definitely off-topic here but the orbiting "solar array in space" concept has another issue w/waste heat, namely how to get rid of energy lost through transmission inefficiency. Running the numbers on microwave transmission, for instance, even with a unreasonably good efficiency any useful system would have to radiate enormous quantities of heat. Structure and mechanism to deal w/that thermal problem would seem to make the physics and economics of the whole matter even more difficult, maybe intractable. Putting arrays on the moon would make the radiator mass issue moot but would seem to be pointless as the moon has the same diurnal problem as Earth but even worse, night being much longer.
106010. protestant at 06:26 AM on 24 October 2010
        Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
        Ok, I promise to stop off-topic now. Continue....
106011. Doug Bostrom at 06:23 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        I realize all that, CB, it's a thought experiment. Point is, it's not really science we're arguing about here, but other stuff. Money (or more particularly who gets it), lifestyle, that sort of thing. If something other than CO2 was the issue, we'd see roughly the same array of tactics employed to avoid dealing w/the obvious.
106012. protestant at 06:23 AM on 24 October 2010
        Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
        #106. Go tell that to Kirkby. The initial first run results are off and being published sometimes soon. Just wait and see. For example Kulmalas results are only calculations not empirical evidence. It is just so frustrating, that you are answering to every sentence and a paragraph with another link to another "rebuttal" which takes in to account only one side of the evidence while totally ignoring some very important scientific peer-reviewed results and not providing any evidence why they should be ignored. That is called cherry picking. Being skeptical doesnt mean you have to be only skeptical about the skeptics. You also have to be skeptic about your own opinions, otherwise it leads to confirmation bias. And this is the biggest problem here.
106013. muoncounter at 06:15 AM on 24 October 2010
        Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
        #106: "Kirkbys talk about his project. " Oh, that again. As I said earlier, 'it's cosmic rays ' just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And of course, that's the more appropriate thread for such comments.
106014. protestant at 06:14 AM on 24 October 2010
        Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
        doug, but they explain only a fraction of the spikes. The rest remains unexplained and let me tell you we have no idea what caused them. And until we know we cannot tell we know the forcings of today, or even if climate actually needs a forcing to change. Anyway what we know is the temperatures always fell when CO2 was high and still rising for centuries.... The base tenet for CAGW is that no change occurs if no external forcing is presented. CAGW doesnt take into account the internal unforced variability in cloud cover, which may very well have caused the MWP, LIA and a part of the Modern maximum. Many CAGW-trumpetists claim strong MWP means a more sensitive climate which is simply untrue (as some true skeptics like Judith Curry argue, you REALLY should look at her blog and read the posts&discussions about climate models and sensitivity etc. She takes the uncertainities much better in to account than to the specific results overconfident SkS). If (and propably) it is caused by internal variability, then negative feedback to radiative forcing actually fits in the explanation. 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). No reason not to believe that there are longer cycles aswell (as again, MWP points out). We also have the empirical evidence (Spencer 2007) that more water wapor means more tropospheric clouds (cooling effect) and less stratospheric ice clouds (warming effect). We also have evidence presented by Spencer 2008 and 2010 that longer scale sensitivity analysis leads to a noisy, biased result.
106015. CBDunkerson at 06:02 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Doug #310: If we had that kind of 'limitless' energy then we would be able to put massive solar arrays in space and on the bright side of the moon... which could also provide effectively 'limitless' energy. The difference between a 'waste heat' forcing and a 'greenhouse heat' forcing is that the minute you turned off the fusion reactors the forcing would begin to decline rapidly... they would only cause warming so long as they were running. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, would stay in the atmosphere and continue causing elevated temperatures for centuries. It's questionable whether we'd even be able to get up to 100x our current industrial production / waste heat and thus match CURRENT CO2 warming (let alone future CO2 warming). But if we somehow did find a way to generate that much energy the things we could accomplish would make it unnecessary to produce the waste heat. In any case, the hypothetical is centuries away, could not possibly be achieved with fossil fuels (there aren't enough of them) and would take place in a world with technologies radically different than current. In short, too far afield to possible predict. By then we might have perfected infrared rectifying antennas and be turning 'waste heat' itself into electricity.
106016. mbayer at 05:58 AM on 24 October 2010
        Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
        Come on 'protestant'. The physics.org website does not have any denier candidates shortlisted. Do you think this is just selection variability or that there is a scientific trend on physics.org? SkepticalScience does very well in the voting, and is head to head with Sixty Symbols.
106017. Doug Bostrom at 05:43 AM on 24 October 2010
        Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
        Protestant, an example from the rebuttal: The dramatic spikes are the strong negative forcing from volcanic eruptions.
106018. Riccardo at 05:38 AM on 24 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        protestant virtually all the skeptic scientists agree, just some blogger/blog commentrs don't. Definitely you're not alone :)
106019. protestant at 05:33 AM on 24 October 2010
        Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
        Not going to vote for John Cook. I could vote him, if he just would take in account all of the evidence, not just the ones that match to his preconceived notions. At this state, this site is only skeptical on skepticism, not much on anything else.
106020. Doug Bostrom at 05:29 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        An interesting thing to consider would be, what if we'd thoroughly cracked fusion energy and were effortlessly liberating something like 3X the energy KR describes in his comment at 301, energy being finally "too cheap to meter," with demand escalating rapidly to spawn even higher levels of dumped energy? Now picture what would happen if one were to try to build a scientific case suggesting that all of that heat would only leave the planet once the planet had warmed to a new rough equilibrium temperature, that increasing demand would drive that "rest temperature" upward still further. Would any model be good enough to overcome opposition to ending the big party? For my part I've a feeling we'd be seeing a close analog to the present argument over CO2, employing many of the same objections.
106021. protestant at 05:26 AM on 24 October 2010
        Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
        #100: You asked for evidence for Cosmic Rays and climate correlation, there you go, a plot from Bond et al: http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/702/cosmicrays.jpg This graph was originally presented in Jaspers Kirkbys talk about his project. Here is the pdf: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/kirkby_cern_slideshow09.pdf Another study: http://tinyurl.com/27l3a2c plus many others. And yes, CLOUD is an experiment on cosmic rays and cloud formation. And yes, it doesnt measure TSI. But as you might know, if there is lesser clouds on solar maximums due to cosmic rays, it means also more sunlight is being let in. #101. Again, the "rebuttal" doesnt address my argument. Surely, warming with positive feedbacks will stop at some point. But how can the system cool, without having a forcing which is STRONGER than co2+positive feedbacks? Decreasing CO2 cant be the cause of cooling since something had to cool the SST first. CO2 follows the temperature, not the otherway around. @moderators: Sorry for offtopic, but just had to answer some commenters who answered to mine. Since the main topic is sooo large it is sometimes hard to stand in just one small subtopic. Since everything is related to everything. At least at some point you should be able to debate the subject in a larger context?
        Moderator Response: The idea of ocean warming being the cause of the observed trend in CO2 is discussed on the "Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?" SkS blog post.
106022. archiesteel at 05:22 AM on 24 October 2010
        It's the sun
        @oxymoron: you're welcome. I knew sooner or later you'd come around to the side of reason. :-)
106023. Riccardo at 05:20 AM on 24 October 2010
        Newcomers, Start Here
        David Wrathall mine was just a guess, you'd better ask how they evaluated temperature before giving my possible interpretation on what he (the Dutch meteorologist) did. As for commenting there, well, there are hundreds of blogs around and no one can follow them all. Dr. Wilson ended one of his comments (the very point where i didn't continue reading) with "Here endeth the first lesson."; he's not going to learn anything, anyway. And finally, each skeptic has his own view in contraddiction with others; untill there's no alternative theory it's impossible to follow them all.
106024. oxymoron at 05:19 AM on 24 October 2010
        It's the sun
        archiesteel #721: Thanks. You've given me all the evidence I need.
106025. Trueofvoice at 05:18 AM on 24 October 2010
        The science isn't settled
        Mistermack, Stating "A bit of warming isn't [bad]", is called argument by assertion. You aren't going to get very far by engaging the commenters on this site with logical fallacies.
106026. archiesteel at 05:17 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        @RSVP: "What is more of a shame is the distraction from the real discussion, especially what appears to be pure provocation" So why do you keep generating such distractions? Why do you keep posting messages that basically amount to flamebaiting (an aggressive form of provocation)? "that is best ignored, although it can be difficult." Well, that is true. We should ignore your attempts at provocation, but that *is* difficult. The point is that anthropogenic waste heat represents 1% of anthropogenic greenhouse warming. No amount of snide remarks and strawman arguments from you (i.e. standing downwind from a forest fire) will change this.
106027. Doug Bostrom at 05:13 AM on 24 October 2010
        CO2 lags temperature
        Sentient, can you provide a link or citation for Tzedakis' paper? Can't find it, would like to take a look. BTW, mistermack might want to read sentient's post so as to get a better understanding of how tracking insolation for a single day is actually employed. Reevaluate what's "worthless," your remark versus the science.
106028. RSVP at 05:10 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        KR #301 Thanks for the answer.
106029. RSVP at 05:10 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        pbjamm #302 "It really appears to me that you are being argumentative rather than arguing." Well it's a shame it appears that way, but I am being asked to justify things that to me are fairly obvious. For instance, there are those that would just as well hang out downwind from a forest fire than upwind, or assume the plume of ash and gases from Iceland that stretched all the way to the Baltic, (now maybe it was just only Scotland, very sorry), contained no latent heat whatsoever, etc. What is more of a shame is the distraction from the real discussion, especially what appears to be pure provocation, that is best ignored, although it can be difficult.
106030. protestant at 04:48 AM on 24 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        At least once I agree with SkS. This is some point where some skeptics are horribly wrong. Not including me.
106031. sentient at 04:46 AM on 24 October 2010
        CO2 lags temperature
        You know, in science, there was once this thing we called the Theory of Multiple Working Hypotheses. Anathema (a formal ecclesiastical curse accompanied by excommunication) in modern climate science. So, in juxtaposition to the hypothesis of future global climate disruption from CO2, a scientist might well consider an antithesis or two in order to maintain ones objectivity. One such antithesis, which happens to be a long running debate in climate science, concerns the end Holocene. Or just how long the present interglacial will last. Looking at orbital mechanics and model results, Loutre and Berger (2003) in a landmark paper (meaning a widely quoted and discussed paper) for the time predicted that the current interglacial, the Holocene, might very well last another 50,000 years, particularly if CO2 were factored in. This would make the Holocene the longest lived interglacial since the onset of the Northern Hemisphere Glaciations some 2.8 million years ago. Five of the last 6 interglacials have each lasted about half of a precession cycle. The precession cycle varies from 19-23k years, and we are at the 23kyr part now, making 11,500 years half, which is also the present age of the Holocene. Which is why this discussion has relevance. But what about that 6th interglacial, the one that wasn’t on the half-precessional “clock”. That would be MIS-11 (or the Holsteinian) which according to the most recently published estimate may have lasted on the order of 20-22kyrs, with the longest estimate ranging up to 32kyrs. Loutre and Berger’s 2003 paper was soon followed by another landmark paper by Lisieki and Raymo (Oceanography, 2004), an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores, which stated: “Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.” To bring this discussion up to date, Tzedakis, in perhaps the most open peer review process currently being practised in the world today (The European Geosciences Union website Climate of the Past Discussions) published a quite thorough examination of the state of the science related to the two most recent interglacials, which like the present one, the Holocene (or MIS-1) is compared to MIS-19 and MIS-11. The other two interglacials which have occurred since the Mid Pleistocene Transition (MPT) also occurred at eccentricity minimums. Since its initial publication in 2009, and its republication after the open online peer review process again in march of this year, this paper is now also considered a landmark review of the state of paleoclimate science. In it he also considers Ruddiman’s Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis, with Rudddiman a part of the online review. Tzedakis’ concluding remarks are enlightening: “On balance, what emerges is that projections on the natural duration of the current interglacial depend on the choice of analogue, while corroboration or refutation of the “early anthropogenic hypothesis” on the basis of comparisons with earlier interglacials remains irritatingly inconclusive.” As we move further towards the construction of the antithetic argument, we will take a closer look at the post-MPT end interglacials and the last glacial for some clues. An astute reader might have gleaned that even on things which have happened, the science is not that particularly well settled. Which makes consideration of the science being settled on things which have not yet happened dubious at best. Higher resolution proxy studies from many parts of the planet suggest that the end interglacials may be quite the wild climate ride from the perspective of global climate disruption. Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it: “In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.” Hearty and Neumann (Quaternary Science Reviews 20 [2001] 1881–1895) abstracting their work in the Bahamas state: “The geology ofthe Last Interglaciation (sensu stricto, marine isotope substage (MIS) 5e) in the Bahamas records the nature of sea level and climate change. After a period of quasi-stability for most of the interglaciation, during which reefs grew to +2.5 m, sea level rose rapidly at the end ofthe period, incising notches in older limestone. After briefstillstands at +6 and perhaps +8.5 m, sea level fell with apparent speed to the MIS 5d lowstand and much cooler climatic conditions. It was during this regression from the MIS 5e highstand that the North Atlantic suffered an oceanographic ‘‘reorganization’’ about 11873 ka ago. During this same interval, massive dune-building greatly enlarged the Bahama Islands. Giant waves reshaped exposed lowlands into chevron-shaped beach ridges, ran up on older coastal ridges, and also broke off and threw megaboulders onto and over 20 m-high cliffs. The oolitic rocks recording these features yield concordant whole-rock amino acid ratios across the archipelago. Whether or not the Last Interglaciation serves as an appropriate analog for our ‘‘greenhouse’’ world, it nonetheless reveals the intricate details ofclimatic transitions between warm interglaciations and near glacial conditions.” The picture which emerges is that the post-MPT end interglacials appear to be populated with dramatic, abrupt global climate disruptions which appear to have occurred on decadal to centennial time scales. Given that the Holocene, one of at least 3 post-MPT “extreme” interglacials, may not be immune to this repetitive phenomena, and as it is half a precession cycle old now, and perhaps unlikely to grow that much older, this could very well be the natural climate “noise” from which we must discern our anthropogenic “signal” from. If we take a stroll between this interglacial and the last one back, the Eemian, we find in the Greenland ice cores that there were 24 Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, or abrupt warmings that occurred from just a few years to mere decades that average between 8-10C rises (D-O 19 scored 16C). The nominal difference between earth’s cold (glacial) and warm (interglacial) states being on the order of 20C. D-O events average 1470 years, the range being 1-4kyrs. Sole, Turiel and Llebot writing in Physics Letters A (366 [2007] 184–189) identified three classes of D-O oscillations in the Greenland GISP2 ice cores A (brief), B (medium) and C (long), reflecting the speed at which the warming relaxes back to the cold glacial state: “In this work ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to 60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated to changes in CO2 concentration. We have observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why cycles not coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles) rapidly decay back to the cold state. ” “Nor CO2 concentration either the astronomical cycle change the way in which the warming phase takes place. The coincidence in this phase is strong among all the characterised cycles; also, we have been able to recognise the presence of a similar warming phase in the early stages of the transition from glacial to interglacial age. Our analysis of the warming phase seems to indicate a universal triggering mechanism, what has been related with the possible existence of stochastic resonance [1,13, 21]. It has also been argued that a possible cause for the repetitive sequence of D/O events could be found in the change in the thermohaline Atlantic circulation [2,8,22,25]. However, a cause for this regular arrangement of cycles, together with a justification on the abruptness of the warming phase, is still absent in the scientific literature.” In their work, at least 13 of the 24 D-O oscillations (indeed other workers suggest the same for them all), CO2 was not the agent provocateur of the warmings but served to ameliorate the relaxation back to the cold glacial state, something which might have import whenever we finally do reach the end Holocene. Instead of triggering the abrupt warmings it appears to function as somewhat of a climate “security blanket”, if you will. Therefore in constructing the antithesis, and taking into consideration the precautionary principle, we are left to ponder if reducing CO2’s concentration in the late Holocene atmosphere might actually be the wrong thing to do.
        Moderator Response: Your comment likely will spark discussion that belongs on the thread We’re heading into an ice age. So will you please copy it into a comment on that thread? Then post a new comment on this thread, simply pointing to your comment's new home. When you have done that, I'll delete this original comment from this thread. Thanks.
106032. RSVP at 04:29 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        archiesteel #303 "I want to see you post an example that clearly illustrates what you claim" As I was saying earlier RSVP #292 "...if it isnt found on the internet, it cant be true." muoncounter #304 "1320 MW" Since ALL that energy is going straight up, lets just hope the IR detector has some major filters in place.
106033. Doug Bostrom at 04:18 AM on 24 October 2010
        DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
        Peter, you ought to think about updating your main post w/that "reanalysis." A shame to have it buried in the 3rd page of comments... Nice work. BTW, if you're looking for a decent chart/plotting package without any encumbrances, take a look at gnuplot if you've not already done so.
106034. archiesteel at 03:58 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        @muoncounter: thanks for this convincing demonstration.
106035. muoncounter at 03:33 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        #300: "command hot air to blow straight up" Here's a graphic illustration that all this waste heat discussion is just so much hot air: The 1320 MW power plant Joliet 29 is shown as the light blue cluster in the upper left-center in the upper image (visible and NIR); the waste heat, both from its structures and its cooling pond, are shown as white-red in the lower (ASTER) thermal image. Within the confines of the pond, the false-color IR has gone back to green, which is only slightly warmer than the heat signature of the nearby environment. Also note this plant's CO2 emissions in 2006: 6.5 Megatons. Unlike this waste heat and all the hot air it has generated here, that CO2 is still out there.
106036. David Wrathall at 03:31 AM on 24 October 2010
        Newcomers, Start Here
        Thank you archiesteel and Riccardo, your comments explain both the extreme narrowness and misleading nature of this source. On the basis of this I could and will (if necessary) respond to Wilson Flood on the BANC website. However, I think it would be far more effective if you could post a response on the site if at all possible. Wilson also says this: "Carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy only at specific wavelength bands. Once all the energy at that wavelength band is absorbed adding more gas has no effect whatsoever. There is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere such that all the energy at the centre of the band is absorbed." I guess there's already evidence to refute this assertion somewhere on this site. If you're aware of it, I'd really appreciate a link to it or your take on it if possible. Many many thanks for your responses. David
        Moderator Response: CO2 effect is saturated
106037. archiesteel at 02:54 AM on 24 October 2010
        The science isn't settled
        @mistermack: please read the "It's not bad" article. At least now you're acknowledging that AGW is real. It took some time to get you to admit it, but your last sentence leaves no room for interpretation.
106038. archiesteel at 02:51 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        @RSVP: "You keep insisting I produce a map and that I claim something about maps existing" I didn't ask for a map, I asked for the map-like projection you mentioned. You know, like when you said: "So instead of the effect you describe, as seen from a map, there is typically a large smudge or plume that emerges around an urban center that tapers eastward... heat that is gradually dispersed but never lost" I want to see you post an example that clearly illustrates what you claim. And no, the middle image above doesn't count, as it does not include city limit, and it seems to be an averaged measurement. You also don't have wind patterns indicated. I'm still waiting. "Again, your insistence in all this is just a way to detract from the topic at hand" No, I'm just trying to keep you accountable, which you are trying to avoid by any means necessary. "Congradulations! You are king of the hill." Sorry, but you lost the debate days ago. You're just trying to squirm your way out of it, and it's kind of sad to watch.
106039. muoncounter at 02:48 AM on 24 October 2010
        CO2 lags temperature
        #181: "A tiny CO2 rise, following 800 years after a miniscule rise in insolation due to the Milankovitch cycle, just doesn't fit the bill. At the depth of the ice-age, a high proportion of the sun's energy is being reflected back into space anyway." Your remarks convey a very one-sided sense of scale. A tiny CO2 rise? Look at the CO2 graph you posted in #178: 180ppm at LGM, 280 at the graph's t=0 and 390 now. Those are not tiny changes. A high proportion of solar energy reflected back to space? This requires that you understand how the LGM changed the total albedo of both the sum total land area and the oceans basins. From Broccoli and Manabe 1987: ... both the ice sheet and CO2 effects are found to be required in order to produce sufficient cooling on a global basis. ... the loss of heat energy due to the reflection of solar radiation by Northern Hemisphere continental ice is almost entirely compensated by a reduction in the upward terrestrial radiation from that hemisphere.
106040. archiesteel at 02:44 AM on 24 October 2010
        DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
        @FLansner: when accused of pixel counting, you pointed to graphs and suggest we eyeball them as confirmation of your thesis. Basically, you just proved the accusation. Instead of eyeballing, which can be misleading, why not do as Peter did and use actual data to produce charts using the appropriate software?
106041. pbjamm at 02:40 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP - It really appears to me that you are being argumentative rather than arguing. I have read this entire thread and am still unclear what it is you are trying to say. @300 - "Actually if you take a look at the center image above, you will notice the contours indicating temperatures actually are asymetrical around city center, with warmer temperatures downwind." Two problems with this claim. Cities are asymmetrical and the map does not include any wind information from which to draw your conclusion.
106042. KR at 02:40 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP - If you want to know the theoretic energy use that (with no GHG production) would raise global temps by 1.0°C, just turn the equation around: dT / λ = dF That's why I like giving the appropriate equations - you could have done this yourself. Averaging λ to be 0.87, dF = 1.15 W/m^2. Current forcing with an energy use of 15 TW is 0.028 W/m^2. Therefore to reach 1.15 W/m^2 and 1.0°C of energy change we would need to use 41x our current energy, or 615 TW. With the range of climate sensitivity going from 0.54 to 1.2, that might range from 0.62°C to 1.38°C, but it's a mid-range estimate. Hmmm - I don't need any lakes boiled at the moment... But to return to the topic of this thread - Waste Heat is not responsible for the current warming (0.8°C and nowhere near equilibrium); it might at equilibrium add 0.015°C to 0.034°C.
106043. archiesteel at 02:36 AM on 24 October 2010
        CO2 lags temperature
        @mistermack: you clearly didn't understand what CBDunkerson explained. During those times, CO2 was a feedback. When the main forcing stopped, the feedback diminished. Today the situation is different. We don't have an insolation-based forcing. However, CO2 levels are 35% higher than at the highest point during the past 600,000 years. It *is* the forcing, not the feedback. If you disagree, please provide scientific evidence supporting your point of view. Anything else will be ignored as more noise from the contrarian side.
106044. TonyWildish at 02:21 AM on 24 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Bibliovermis, the blanket analogy is precisely that, an analogy. It is not a model that represents every aspect of global warming. Nor does it need to, it shows the point that a warm body can be made warmer by something cooler, without violating the second law. So it's enough to disprove the skeptics' claim. Tarcisio, are you implying that the second law does not apply to radiation? If that were true then this rebuttal would not need to exist. As it is, the second law applies equally to all forms of heat-transfer - you will not find a textbook anywhere that defines the second law as behaving differently for conduction, convection, or radiation. KirkSkywalker, nothing in this rebuttal is specific to a certain gas, any GHG will exhibit the same effect. CO2 is important because there's so much of it, and adding more is like adding another blanket, and another, and another. As others have pointed out (#3, #14) I didn't emphasise this point enough in the post, but adding more blankets will make you warmer, even though the outermost blanket may itself be quite cold.
106045. mistermack at 02:06 AM on 24 October 2010
        CO2 lags temperature
        CB, you clearly don't rate CO2 as having much of a greenhouse effect, if you think that a slight drop in insolation could halt temperature rises, at a point of extremely high and rising CO2 levels. A factor of 1 could hardly suddenly drag the world out of the depths of an ice-age, all the way to the hottest point in the cycle.
106046. Tarcisio José D at 02:01 AM on 24 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Visitei o site sugerido por LukeW, scienceofdoom.com e achei um absurdo aplicar a segunda lei aos corpos sujeitos à energia radiante. É como se um corpo ao receber energia radiante mandasse a energia parar e responder se veio de um corpo mais quente ou mais frio. Se a resposta for mais quente, pode entrar, caso contrario será bloqueada. Quanto a questão da atmosfera ser mais fria que o solo, podemos diser a mesma coisa. O solo recebe milhões de emissões das particulas do ar e não tem a propriedade de escolher se esta emissões provem de um corpo mais quente ou mais frio. Ele simplesmente recebe esta energia. "Google tranlated" I visited the site suggested by LukeW, scienceofdoom.com and thought absurd to apply the second law for bodies subjected to radiant energy. It's like a body to receive radiant energy to send power to stop and answer came from a body warmer or colder. If the answer is hotter, you can get, otherwise it will be blocked. Regarding the question of the atmosphere is colder than the ground, we see the same thing. The soil receives millions of emission of particles from the air and has no property to choose whether this emission comes from a body warmer or colder. He just gets this energy.
106047. mistermack at 01:44 AM on 24 October 2010
        The science isn't settled
        Archie, the difference is, a plane crash is almost 100% bad. A bit of warming isn't. (Certainly not for Britain). So it's not black and white like a plane crash. And considering that without MMGW, if you go by the previous cycles, we are due to drift into a full ice-age, a moderate amount of warming might be a good thing for the rest of the planet too.
        Moderator Response: Further comments on warming's benefits versus costs must be made on It's Not Bad. Further comments on the need to prevent the next ice age must be on We’re Heading Into an Ice Age.
106048. Ken Lambert at 00:22 AM on 24 October 2010
        It's the sun
        e #717 This is the introduction to your cited Hansen paper: "Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing humanmade greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years." I don't think so. OHC content measurement debated at great length elsewhere on this blog eg; "Robust warming of the global upper oceans" has shown that OHC measurement is everything but precise. Even Dr Trenberth who would be on the same side of the debate as Hansen can only find 60% of the OHC increase posed by the 0.9W/sq.m imbalance. Will post my numbers when completed and checked. You all can be my peer review.
106049. RSVP at 00:02 AM on 24 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        archiesteel You keep insisting I produce a map and that I claim something about maps existing, etc. Someone's imagination definitely got sparked and related the word "map" to satellite surface imagery. Actually if you take a look at the center image above, you will notice the contours indicating temperatures actually are asymetrical around city center, with warmer temperatures downwind. I'm sure real estate agents would be thrilled have the kind of control on physics that you purport so that they could indeed command hot air to blow straight up around houses they cant sell. Again, your insistence in all this is just a way to detract from the topic at hand which looks like your best shot. Congradulations! You are king of the hill.
106050. mbayer at 23:35 PM on 23 October 2010
        Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
        Come on people, voting was not so difficult. :-) You do not vote a single website; you can give 1-5 'points' to any of the shortlisted websites for each group. You have the chance to visit the sites first before voting. Open new tabs for each website. When you do the rating for each website (selecting 1-5 stars), the system sends your vote to physics.org to get counted.

Prev  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  Next