Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 Next
Comments 106051 to 106100:
-
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! -
mistermack at 09:58 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, you're just basically resorting to adhominems now, so I'm going to leave you to it. I'm only interested in evidence. You can hardly speak of me having an agenda, and then make ad hominem comments. 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.Moderator Response: Please refrain from making 'ad hominem' accusations when none are actually made. Feel free to disagree, certainly, but be respectful when doing so. -
muoncounter at 09:52 AM on 25 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
#320: "My use of the term refers to any and all heat that is imparted on any and all things on this Earth, assuming the first law of thermodynamics holds for fossil fuel consumption, which it does" Let's not be too hard on good ol' RSVP. In one post, he has tacitly endorsed: - warming is real (and thus - temperature record is reliable) - human effects are significant and causing the change (consuming fossil fuels liberates detectable heat) And simultaneously rejected the corresponding skeptic arguments (mainly 'its cooling'), but also some of the peripheral ones (if its anthropogenic, it's not 'the sun' nor 'cosmic rays' nor 'AMO/PDO/ENSO'). Probably a few more. All in all, I'd say RSVP is coming around. Of course,RSVP's basic premise may be tested by a simple experiment: if the energy consumed each year is directly reflected in atmospheric warming, we should be able to known match dips in historic energy consumption during recessions one-to-one with cooling episodes. For example, we've been in recession and thus it must have been cooler during this summer. -
archiesteel at 09:40 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
@mistermack: "A page called "here is the best evidence for AGW" (or maybe I've missed it)." I already pointed towards it. Now, if you could indicate which information on that page is inaccurate (with evidence, which you keep asking for but never provide to support your own claims), that would be appreciated.Moderator Response: Also, mistermack, when on any page you see blue text, you should click on it, because it is a hyperlink to more information. And look past the end of each original post, because often there are green boxes with links to further reading and to related Skeptical Science posts. -
mistermack at 09:32 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
I'm replying to the link you offered me. It hardly follows that I think all the evidence is here. I politely read the link you offered, and responded. But to be honest, given the purpose of this website, I would have expected all of the best evidence to be summarised here. (somewhere) Perhaps that's a suggestion. A page called "here is the best evidence for AGW" (or maybe I've missed it). I would take it as read that we've had warming. (only the warming since 1950 should count, since CO2 rises were completely insignificant before that). So a page with nothing but evidence linking manmade CO2 to the warming since 1950 would be absolutely brilliant.Moderator Response: The Big Picture -
archiesteel at 09:28 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "This timescale argument is a bit silly." What is silly is your insistence to ignore all the information we provide you in order to continue pushing your agenda. There is a wealth of information for you here, but you are not interested in learning the truth, it seems. "When you talk about the CO2 supply in the ocean dwindling, and turning off a feedback loop, ten thousand year would be incredibly sudden." Tom explained it quite well. It doesn't mean that there is no more CO2 in the ocean, but that the conditions for the CO2 outgassing are no longer present. Again, the fact you don't understand the science doesn't make it invalid. Stop being so arrogantly certain that you hold the truth and start learning some actual science. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - I have to admit, reading this post of yours made me laugh. 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), balancing the energies involved. At that point the Earth stops warming from AHF. And that warming is lost in the noise of the GHG driven temperature rise. Again, and (I'll try, really), my last post on this. Waste heat/AHF is 1% the energies of greenhouse gas entrapment (0.028 W/m^2 versus 2.9 W/m^2), and is therefore not the dominant cause of global warming. This skeptic argument is busted. -
kdkd at 09:01 AM on 25 October 2010Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
TTTM #16 Recall my previous comment at #12 "The "none of the above" answer could be true on some level of analysis, but is not a terribly useful proposition for the present discussion." However, if you have some useful evidence that suggests that your new premise is correct please share with us. Otherwise it looks like you've moved on from a circular argument to some other sort of fallacy. -
mistermack at 08:59 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
I did read more. I noted that it's claimed "we know that....." without saying how. I don't want to get off topic, but a model doesn't justify "we know that", you could maybe say "we calculate that...." or "our best estimate is....." What this seems to indicate, is that the "consensus" is basically the result of faith in models. Yet others are telling me that they think it's the result of evidence. I still think consensus has built itself up in a feedback loop.Moderator Response: Why on Earth do you think all the evidence is in this blog? The authors of these blog posts go to considerable trouble to cite, and when possible link to, the peer reviewed scientific literature so that blog readers can go there if they want more info. Commenters responding to you have done the same. It's past time for you to take advantage of those resources. -
mistermack at 08:33 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Tom, re your previous comments, the ten thousand years was my estimate, snatched out of the air, but bearing in mind that there is an 800 year lag between a temperature rise showing even the slightest rise in CO2 levels. How long would it take to significantly reduce CO2 availability in the ocean significantly? Especially as oceans should be significantly warming all the time. -
David Horton at 08:29 AM on 25 October 2010Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
I am always baffled by the inability of denialists to apply the 700 year old commonsense of William of Ockham. "Oceans releasing heat" is just one of many "mechanisms" that rely on no one noting the strange fact that they are supposed to have come into play just in the last 40 years at precisely the time that there has been industrialisation, population growth, and a resulting rapid rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Some coincidence eh? -
mistermack at 08:07 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Tom, I would agree that a "burp" mechanism would be interesting. But it would need to be demonstrated that it could be significant on a global scale, not local. And in that case, you would expect to see a clear signal in the ice cores. I wouldn't discount it as being possibly significant, but it would need more evidence of a worldwide effect. I can't visualise a "gulp", working at the top of the cycle though. -
FLansner at 07:52 AM on 25 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Hi Peter and klaus :-) I did not expect acurracy, but im not sure why the latest years should have mor descrepancy than the other years. Here my 2010 point: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/dmi2010.jpg -a value less than +0,4 deg C appears correct still, so im not sure what to make of this. But :-) There is a decline in temperatures of perhaps 0,5 K 1991 - 2010 -and this is something quite else than the GISS trend GISS 80N-90N summer data: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig2.jpg GISS shows no sign of cooling trend, only warming for summer 1991-2009 80N-90N. And of course yearly anomalies are very interesting´indeed, but yearly anomalies does not make errors in summer anomalies go away. K.R. Frank -
mistermack at 07:46 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
Responseman, I looked at "Climate sensitivity is low", the first sentence is :"There are some things about our climate we are pretty certain about. Unfortunately, climate sensitivity isn’t one of them". That makes my point for me. The "consensus" is there, in spite of the lack of certainty about the central tenet of AGW. That is, is the climate sufficiently sensitive to CO2 for there to be a problem? I argued that the consensus is fortified by the consensus in a feedback loop, not by certainty of the evidence.Moderator Response: Read past the first sentence. Click on the "Advanced" tab. Read the section "What is the possible range of climate sensitivity?" Note that certainty is high regarding the lower limit of sensitivity, and that even that lower limit will have serious adverse consequences. (You need to read the entire Advanced post to get all that.) -
Tom Dayton at 07:43 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, why are you claiming that the cause of reduced CO2 levels was dwindling of the CO2 content of the ocean? The ocean's role in adding or removing CO2 from the atmosphere depends on the temperature, CO2 concentration, and other chemistry in the ocean, but also on temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Unlike in the atmosphere, CO2 in the ocean is not so well mixed, which is why its role in triggering reversal of ice ages seems to hinge on ocean currents bringing CO2-rich water up from the depths. Changes in any of those factors can change the rate at which CO2 outgases from the ocean, and even reverse the direction to absorption. Changes in any of those factors can come from any number of other factors, including change in seasonal insolation due to orbital progression. An example is that suggestion of a CO2 burp from the southern ocean being a trigger of at least one particular ice age. Burps have starts and ends. The notion is that deep CO2-rich water upwelled "suddenly." But that would have depleted that deep reservoir of CO2-rich water. So that extraordinarily high rate of CO2 outgassing would have been a "short" duration event. -
Tarcisio José D at 07:30 AM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Em tempo: A lei de Stefan-Boltzmann tem apenas dois parâmetros; area e temperatura. At time: The Stefan-Boltzmann law has only two parameters, area and temperature. -
Tarcisio José D at 07:25 AM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
TonyWildish Pense em "ganho de antena". Só é possivel porque as ondas eletromagnéticas não seguem a 2nd lei da termodinamica. Elas seguem a lei da sobreposição linear das ondas mecanicas. Na atmosfera; Um mol de N2 colocando-se uma molécula ao lado de outra, cobriremos 92,7 m2/mol ou 6,62 m2/gr e cada m2 representa um elemento radiante. Como o ganho de antena é igual ao numero de elementos radiantes teremos 6,62 vezes a radiação de um m2 para cada grama de N2. Think of "antenna gain" . I's possible only because the Electromagnetics waves do not follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They follow the law of linear superposition of mechanics waves. In the atmosphere; One mole of N2 placing one next to another molecule, will cover 92.7 m2/mol or 6.62 m2/gr and each m2 represents a radiating element. Because the antenna gain is equal to number of radiating elements will have 6.62 times the radiation from an m2 per gram of N2.
Prev 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 Next
