Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 Next
Comments 106251 to 106300:
-
Doug Bostrom at 18:21 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Is there any amount of energy put out by man on a continual basis that could cause the Earth's temperature to rise, say 1 degree C? The amusing thing about that question is that to a "skeptic" a proper answer would be impossible for all the same sorry reasons we're familiar with. A model would be necessary, feedbacks accounted for, parameterizations established, etc. -
RSVP at 18:02 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Daniel Bailey #288 You just stepped in something. Check your shoe. -
RSVP at 18:01 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
To archiesteel... It is accurate to say a response is not an answer. KR The answer only required a YES or a NO, and a number please if YES. Let me put training wheels on the question and rephrase. Is there any amount of energy put out by man on a continual basis that could cause the Earth's temperature to rise, say 1 degree C? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:33 PM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Tony Several comments have already mentioned this, and I understand that this is a basic post, but the distinction between 'Heat cannot flow from a cold source to a hot source' (NOT a correct statement of the 2nd Law) and 'NET Heat cannot flow from a cold source to a hot source' (A more correct statement - we wont mention entropy at this level) is fundamental to identifying the fallacy in this sceptic argument. So somehow you need to weave in the NET element to avoid giving sceptics rope to hang themselves with. (On the other hand....) -
Daniel Bailey at 17:07 PM on 23 October 2010Are we too stupid?
Doug, your nuke car is only missing a flux capacitor. Add a small crane on the back and it would look like it was a Krell design out of Forbidden Planet. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:23 PM on 23 October 2010Are we too stupid?
Two things about that car bother me (I mean, besides whether or not the reactor is given an airbag). First, the designers apparently decided they'd change the polarity of radio broadcasts along w/introducing reactors to the roadways. Second, it looks as though it would be necessary to climb on top of the reactor to retrieve the spare wheel. I mean I'm sure it's perfectly safe even without lead underwear but it looks extremely inconvenient. -
Ari Jokimäki at 16:21 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Somebody has thought hard how to make a voting system that is as awkward as possible. I voted SkS too, probably. I gave some stars to zooniverse too, as I have been there long time ago classifying some galaxies and lately I have digitized some old weather observations. I suggest that to everyone - this is your chance to do real climate science: http://www.zooniverse.org/home -
Daniel Bailey at 16:12 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Re: archiesteel (287) I believe that may have been RSVP's version of a concession speech... -
Tom Dayton at 16:10 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
KirkSkywalker, just one of several places you can find details of the problems with Jaworowski's claims is by Jim Easter.Moderator Response: Thanks to all three of you for responding to KirkSkywalker's comment. However, in the interests of not diffusing this discussion all over the site, let's redirect any additional comments to the thread where KirkSkywalker first posted on this subject (What does past climate change tell us about global warming?). -
Doug Bostrom at 16:06 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
Make up your mind, Captain Kirk. Elsewhere just a few minutes ago you said the problem w/ice cores is sublimation of CO2, here something different. It's ruinous to your credibility when you spew hypotheses willy-nilly. -
archiesteel at 15:52 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
@KirkSkywalker: Zbigniew Jaworowski's views on the validity of ice core samples are hotly contested, and do not represent the current state of the science. There's no real reason to doubt the validity of ice cores samples with regards to CO2 levels in the last 600,000 years. It's all about evidence, and Jaworowski doesn't have much to support his claims (and neither do you). -
archiesteel at 15:46 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
@RSVP: he responded to your question, quite well too. The fact you don't like the answer is inconsequential. -
KirkSkywalker at 15:44 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
The problem with the use of ice cores as a proxy for CO2 measurements is that the ice is unavoidably contaminated by liquid water. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, Poland, in written testimony submitted to a U.S. Senate committee in March 2004 said: "Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice." Since global-warming evidence of C02-levels rests exclusively in ice-core samples, then this argument proves its Achilles-Heel.Moderator Response: Moderator Response: You have posted related claims about ice cores in at least five different threads on this site. Please do not spread discussions of a single, narrow topic across many different threads. Another commenter (KR) has already responded to your claims in the thread where you first posted this material (What does past climate change tell us about global warming?), so it would be a good idea to respond there. Thank you. -
RSVP at 15:42 PM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR #283 As a thought experiment, imagine if you could simply answer the question and remain coherent, nor have to renounce your cherished beliefs and formula. Not easy is it? -
Tenney Naumer at 15:37 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Well, it was easier than setting the clock on my VCR. -
Climate's changed before
KirkSkywalker - It's not CO2 ice, it's CO2 gas trapped as bubbles in water ice; a physical sequestration (think ice gas tanks). There is some movement while additional snow/ice packs on top, which depending on the ice core is why a single layer is a running average of perhaps several decades - but sublimation isn't an issue. -
KirkSkywalker at 15:29 PM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
This argument assumes that carbon-gases trap heat from both the Earth and the sun, but there's no evidence to support this; on the contrary, atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen are more absoptive than carbon-gases at certain wavelenghts; carbon-gases are not a "blanket" in any sense, they simply have different resonant-frequencies than non-carbon ones.Moderator Response: You are very incorrect. See CO2 effect is weak. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:19 PM on 23 October 2010Climate's changed before
The CO2 is in a solid state? Can't be found unless it's solidified? Have you looked in a mirror recently, Captain Skywalker? Noticed any snow coming out of your nostrils? -
KirkSkywalker at 15:16 PM on 23 October 2010Climate's changed before
"Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere." Ice-cores are worthless, since CO2 sublimates above -70C, and thus esapes to newer parts of the ice; and there's NO place on Earth where temps remain below -70C, and so ice can't provide a reliable record since it simply escapes upward whenever the temperature's above this, giving the false impression of an increasign carbon-levels in the atmosphere. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:15 PM on 23 October 2010Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
Teh all-caps are part of the Poe's Law costume. "Case closed." Nice! -
archiesteel at 15:11 PM on 23 October 2010It's the sun
@oxymoron: temperature mid-century fell mostly because of aerosols, not a drop in solar energy. CO2 and aerosol forcing are an order of magnitude larger than solar variations. Don't get hoodwinked by scientists-for-hire like Willie Soon. -
KirkSkywalker at 15:04 PM on 23 October 2010Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
In order for Antarctic sea-ice to increase, then the temperature has to be lower than the freezing-point of land-ice; since 1) sea-ice is salt-water, and thus has a lower freezing-temperature; 2) land-ice has a higher altitude, and so the air is colder, and 3) it's further from the equator, and therefore gets less sunlight, and finally 4) it doesn't get warmed by ocean-currents. Therefore if antarctic land-ice is melting while sea-ice is increasing, then it MUST be due to geothermal-factors-- NOT ATMOSPHERIC. This fits with the general refutation of man-made global warming, as with the melting of Greenland-ice due to underground lava-flows. It also fits with the fact that there's a volcanic activity at the South Pole, and this conducts more geothermal heat than any other kind. Conclusion: CASE CLOSED.Moderator Response: Please do not use all caps. It is considered yelling, and is prohibited by the Comments Policy. -
archiesteel at 15:02 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "Archie, if you click your own link, you will see that a feedback loop doesn't stop abruptly and dive back the other way." So, you admit that feedback loops don't lead to runaway warming, then? That was the (erroneous) claim you made which I responded to with that link. Try to pay attention. "It would stop gradually, as the available co2 in the oceans dropped in concentration. There is nothing in that graph that explains the sharp peaks in the ice-core graphs." What you call "sharp peaks" are actually gradual changes. They seem like sharp peaks to you because the time scale is compressed. Stretch it out and you'll see that not only are the changes not that quick (thousands of years), especially not when compared to the current warming trend. In short, you should stop eyeballing graphs and make the difference between long-term milankovitch-related cycles (where CO2 acts as a feedback, to get back on topic) and the current CO2-driven warming (where CO2 acts as a forcing. "Conditions most certainly did not reach equilibrium." Here you're half-right. Conditions never reach a total equilibrium, however, the changes are slow enough that they give that impression. This has nothing to do with the rapid rate of change we are experiencing, which is caused by increased CO2 levels. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:21 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Might be worth clarifying how voting is supposed to work because for us unphysical types it may be puzzling. When you click on the link for your selected website from a given category, you'll be taken to that website, with a sort of toolbar shown at top. In the toolbar is a bargraph of little stars. Click on the star rating you want. You get to vote for more than one entry in a category, with what you think is the appropriate star rating for each site. Clear as mud, eh? -
Doug Bostrom at 13:53 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
The physicist's take on voting? Obviously it must be the best... A pretty nice selection of websites, many of which I didn't know of; I can see a lot more time expended in my future. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:29 PM on 23 October 2010It's the sun
May as well just provide a link to the entire paper, oxymoron, always better than a disconnected graph orphaned from its parent. Here: Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (full text, pdf) -
adelady at 13:18 PM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
I think I voted too. Very odd. -
oxymoron at 13:03 PM on 23 October 2010It's the sun
archiesteel #713: I don't know if I will be successful in posting this chart (from Soon), but it shows the strong correlation between TSI and arctic air temperature from 1880 to 2000. Again, CO2 levels have been steadily rising, yet temperatures fell between (roughly) 1940 and 1965. To have gone from a sun-dominated system to a CO2-dominated system so quickly seems to be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.
-
Kooiti Masuda at 12:49 PM on 23 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
Paltridge et al. (2009) did suggest that water vapor feedback would be negative, and the paper by Dessler and Davis can be considered as an activity to rebut the claim. The paper by Dessler and Davis (2010), however, concentrated on discussion whether we can say, based on scientific evidence, that water vapor has decreased in the upper troposphere during the late 20th century. It did not involve discussions of the mechanism of changes in humidity or other climatic elements. Both Paltridge et al. and Dessler and Davis made use of "reanalysis" data sets. Simply speaking, a reanalysis is an attempt to incorporate historical meteorological observations into a weather forecast model to produce a physically consistent data set describing the actual atmosphere. There are several multi-decadal reanalyses of the atmosphere, and NCEP/NCAR is the earliest achievement among them. Concerning humidity, NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis gave large weights on observations by radiosondes (baloons equipped with sensors and radio wave transmitters) conducted routinely by meteorological services of many countries. Later reanalyses put more weight on records retrieved from satellite observations. Radiosonde observations are valuable sources of information about climate change, especially because we can go back with them before the start of satellite observations. We must be careful to discuss trends based on them, however. Specific humidity (concentration of water vapor in the air) has order-of-magnitude difference between lower and upper parts in the troposphere. A radiosonde usually conducts observations while rising from the moister lower part to the drier upper part. Some sensors had long response time, or had difficulty in keeping accuracy at low humidity after having observed high humidity. Changes of sensors are likely to be improvements from longer response time to shorter one, likely to cause apparent decrease of humidity in the upper troposphere. In addition, sensors receive solar radiation in daytime and have temperature considerably different from that of the surrounding air. This difference causes a bias in records of humidity. It is a difficult issue to account for the bias, because it is dependent on many factors, such as darkness of the equipment, mechanism of the sensor, choice of expression for initial recording of humidity information, and attempt to compensate for the bias before official reporting. Teams that produce reanalyses, such as those of European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), try to find and to correct biases of radiosonde observations which they incorporate. They cannot achieve perfection, but they achive gradual improvements. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:44 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Oops. Turns out the past is prologue, sometimes (warning: suggestive carrot). Turns out that employing the word "covariance" is evidence of "a deliberately false impression being left, and a false claim being made." So we're looking at argumentation underpinned by a conspiracy fantasy. I'd suggest not providing further entertainment. -
mistermack at 12:22 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
e, the process of heading into the next ice-age seems to be almost continuous, it seems to be the naural condition, with the exception of the dramatic rise out of it. Ive illustrated that here, where I've just tried to show the underlying trends, seperated from the spikes.
Time is running from right to left. Temp is blue, co2 is green. It shows rather graphically what should be happening very soon, if manmade co2 doesn't have enough effect.
Moderator Response: Further comments by anyone about the onset of the ice age must be on the appropriate thread, which is not this one. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:17 PM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Before waffling on with various ignorant remarks about insolation and on the off-chance you actually care about this, mistermack, you might check into these papers: On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 1. Linear responses to Milankovitch forcing On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 2. The 100,000-year cycle Then, you ought to look at papers in turn cited by these two papers as well as citations of the pair. Once you've done that, you might be better able to simulate being a dilettante. If you don't have access to Paleoceanography your next comment here should be "where do I get a reprint?" If you don't ask that question, there should be a long (days long, at least) delay while you lift a finger on your own behalf, rather than twittering here about "guesses" and the like while rebuffing help you've asked for; between the two of them the papers are cited 748 times. (Don't bother asking me for pdf copies or the like, I could get them but you've got a poor attitude, so tough) -
Marcus at 11:59 AM on 23 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
Ah, I see protestant is repeating the "no net warming since 1998" myth. He seems to be blissfully unaware that 1998 was a *very* anomalous year-consisting of both the strongest El Nino on record *and* the peak of the last solar cycle. 9/10ths of the 1990's had temperature anomalies of between +0.1 to +0.40 degrees C. By contrast, No year of the last decade has had temperatures *below* +0.3 degrees above the mean, & has seen temperature anomalies of between +0.35 to +0.60 degrees C-in spite of being dominated by a solar minimum. -
mistermack at 11:56 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, if you click your own link, you will see that a feedback loop doesn't stop abruptly and dive back the other way. It would stop gradually, as the available co2 in the oceans dropped in concentration. There is nothing in that graph that explains the sharp peaks in the ice-core graphs. Conditions most certainly did not reach equilibrium. -
CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, It occurred to me that the general thrust of your question is similar to the claim addressed in: are we heading into an ice age. From that post: "How do ice ages begin? Changes in the earth's orbit cause less sunlight (insolation) to fall on the northern hemisphere during summer. Northern ice sheets melt less during summer and gradually grow over thousands of years. This increases the Earth's albedo which amplifies the cooling, spreading the ice sheets farther. This process lasts around 10,000 to 20,000 years, bringing the planet into an ice age." Does that answer your question better? In summary: the leading theory is that Milankovitch cycles are accelerated by changes in albedo due to a reversal of ice melt trends. This combination of forcing and feedback is enough to overcome the effect of CO2 and reverse the temperature trend. The reason we don't expect this process to prevent warming in the next century is elaborated in that post. -
archiesteel at 11:43 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
@mistermack: exactly. Even a 10% threat seems too high for you, so a 90% threat should be even worse - and yet you seem fine taking a gamble on that 10% when it comes to the climate... -
actually thoughtful at 11:39 AM on 23 October 2010SkS Housekeeping: right margin
Right margin ideas: 1) Data! Current CO2, current rate of increase, current avg. temperature/30 year avg temperature, current ocean acidity, current Arctic ice extent, etc. 2)Dashboard - kind of speedometer graphs showing where we are and where the danger zone is. Basically tchotkes that highlight why so many of us are concerned/panicked about our future. -
mistermack at 11:38 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
The plane example is interesting. I wouldn't get on a new kind of aircraft, that had never flown before, but a panel of experts said that it was 90% sure to fly. -
actually thoughtful at 11:29 AM on 23 October 2010SkS Housekeeping: right margin
So I am one of the chumps still using an 800X600 display. Good news is it looks great, so long as I can ignore stuff in the right column. Can the comment editing box grow to roughly the same size as the commments? Pretty minor point, but wider is nicer. Thank you for this work, and more importantly, all the work to present our climate knowledge so effectively.Response: Good idea re comment box. Done! -
archiesteel at 11:24 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "If CO2 were the main driver of climate, the "feedback loop" with rising CO2 would never stop." False. Check this article here on why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming. "If you look at the ice-core graph above, you will see that "some unknown mechanism" did exactly that, stopped runaway warming" No. There's no "unknown mechanism" stopping the warming. The warming stopped because the system reached an equilibrium, i.e. the sum of all forcings and feedbacks was matched by the amount of energy lost to space. "If co2 was the main driver then, why did temps reverse as co2 continued to rise?" That's because CO2 isn't the only driver. "Main" vs. "only"...do you understand the difference? We can assume that, in those cases, some other forcing (such as aerosols, or lower TSI, etc.) caused temperatures to decrease even though CO2 levels were still high. There's lot of good information on this site. You should start reading the articles before trying to challenge the current theory. -
mistermack at 11:12 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, there is so much wrong there, I don't know where to start. If CO2 were the main driver of climate, the "feedback loop" with rising CO2 would never stop. Even the IPCC don't claim CO2 drives climate, they say it amplifies the effect of the Milankovitch cycles, via a feedback loop. If you look at the ice-core graph above, you will see that "some unknown mechanism" did exactly that, stopped runaway warming, at this point in the cycle, four times in a row. It's there for all to see. If co2 was the main driver then, why did temps reverse as co2 continued to rise? -
archiesteel at 10:53 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
@mistermack: I would't board the plane if it was the other way around, and there was a 10% chance of coming to grief." So, in essence you're arguing that, even if there's a 10% chance current AGW theory is real, it would still be too much of a risk? :-) "The truth is that the 90/10 is just someone's guess." You need to learn about statistical trends. "The reality is that CO2 has some affect, but we don't know if it can push temperatures significantly higher than todays." Actually, we have no reason of believing it can't - and yet you seem ready to gamble on the fact it might not. If you're going to err, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? "The 90/10 is not based on experience of previous events, we haven't had this level of co2 during an ice-age." Exactly, so why would you expect the result to be the same if the parameters are so different now? You're not making logical sense. -
archiesteel at 10:45 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "The earth may well have a mechanism that stops it getting hotter, once it reaches the tipping point of the spikes on that graph." So, you want us to forget all we know about climate science in order to entertained the unresearched hypothesis that some "unknown mechanism" is responsible? mistermack, your question has been answered, and I'll you've been able to produce as counter-arguments is that we "don't know for sure." Well, we sure know a lot more about the Greenhouse Effect and other forcings than we do about your mysterious mechanism. Sure, the CO2/temperature graphs don't match perfectly, becaue the Earth is a complex system, but the correlation between the two is striking. All the available evidence points towards CO2 being the main driver of climate, and CO2 concentrations have not been that high in 600,000 years. If you're going to challenge this, you have to bring your own scientific explanations, and they need to be as solid as the ones presented here. You have clearly failed to do this. -
mistermack at 10:38 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
Bibliovermis, I'm not mocking, but you made me chuckle there. I would't board the plane if it was the other way around, and there was a 10% chance of coming to grief. Or even 1%. I'm not sure how that affects AGW though. The truth is that the 90/10 is just someone's guess. The reality is that CO2 has some affect, but we don't know if it can push temperatures significantly higher than todays. The 90/10 is not based on experience of previous events, we haven't had this level of co2 during an ice-age. -
archiesteel at 10:24 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
@FLansner: what is your obsession with melt season data? Why exclude data from the rest of the year? It seems to me (and others, apparently) that the goal of this exercise was that there is an overall cooling trend - at least that's what the comment you posted in that article tends to indicate. As for the data, I was asking about the data you used to make your graphs. Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear, so let's try to establish a few things. Since you're a busy man, I'll try to keep it to yes/no questions: Do you agree that, overall, the Arctic has been warming up over the past decades? Do you agree that, despite alleged discrepancies in summer temperatures, yearly figures from both the GISS and DMI provide the same temperature increase, and as such are both useful when trying to determine overal warming trends? Did you produce the graphs on your site, and if so do you still have the link to the official data you used (not a link to a file hosted on your own server - I mean the original data from the DMI)? I still think the science on your site is shoddy compared to what's found here, but of course that is an opinion. Feel free to disagree with it - after all, we are all entitled to our opinions, aren't we? -
mistermack at 10:19 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
e, I posed a good question. I got no answer. To be fair, you are the only one who attempted one. I think my comments about the insolation graph were fair. They weren't just debating points. When the insolation at north iceland (67N) is high, it's going to be low at north Atarctica (67S), cancelling each other out. I don't see why they chose that graph at all. It's bound to give a false impression of reality. -
BBHY at 10:18 AM on 23 October 2010It's cooling
Oh dear, selti, the link you provided shows someone attempting to refute a decades-long trend with just a few cherry-picked data points. This is either a very basic misunderstanding of science, mathematics, and especially statistics, or a very poor attempt at deliberately misleading people. When you look at the full dataset, and include up-to-date data (beyond 2008, this year happens to be 2010), then the trend clearly remains unbroken, and IPCC is fully vindicated. If Girma Orssengo, MASc, PhD was intending to mislead then shame on him. If he honestly believes his presentation is an attempt at honest discourse then he should go to wherever he got his PhD and ask for his money back. -
mistermack at 10:08 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
I think that right Doug. I'm not talking to the right person. I was looking for good answers. Bye. -
David Horton at 10:07 AM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Done John, I think - what a clumsy voting system! Good luck. -
CO2 lags temperature
misterack, You are just repeating the same claims over and over without any empirical support or attempt to substantially address the counter claims. There is no point in continuing this conversation.
Prev 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 Next
