Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 Next
Comments 106301 to 106350:
-
Bibliovermis at 07:47 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Energy comes in. Energy goes out. When the energy coming in equals the energy going out, equilibrium is reached. Equilibrium does not mean no outgoing radiation. -
RSVP at 07:40 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Bibliovermis "The energy does not remain present in the planetary climate. It radiates out from the planet into space" When the train leaves, and all the seats are taken, you cant get on the train. The hockey stick handle was flat. This implies equilibrium. Any excess energy is excess energy and WILL accumulate. End of story. -
Bibliovermis at 07:37 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP, A value can only be integrated if it remains in the system. Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that anthropogenic heat flux radiates out from the planet does not change the reality of the situation. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:33 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Hopefully someday, a paper will be passed around with my idea so you can come into the constructive "fold". Usually found on a roll, sometimes folded, sometimes crumpled, never "passed around." -
Peter Hogarth at 07:29 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
FLansner at 20:27 PM on 21 October, 2010 If the moderators will forgive a small diversion on UHI: See chart below on Central England Temperature trend compared with "rural" Armagh temperature trend. Since 1900 the measured 100yr temperature trends are indistinguishable, which casts doubt on claims on some skeptical websites that UHI may have affected the Central England record. These same websites suggest Armagh is unaffected by UHI.
-
archiesteel at 07:27 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
@RSVP: yes, it *is* consistent. I'm not saying you should stop posting, I'm simply wondering why you said you'd stop posting, and then continued. Since you are so obviously continuing, then I would like a link to that map. @Bibliovermis: yes, he is being obtuse. That's his schtick. -
RSVP at 07:19 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR #242 "You do understand that the AWH is 1% of the forcings from greenhouse gases" I dare not say, "et tu Brut?" but here we are again. As I asked CBDunkerson. How do you rationale the destruction of this .01 value integrated over 200 years? Multiply 200 by .01, and you get 2. -
Bibliovermis at 07:19 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP, Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse? The energy does not remain present in the planetary climate. It radiates out from the planet into space. -
RSVP at 07:14 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
CBDunkerson 241 "If I light a match the energy released by that action does NOT remain present in the climate system for the next 50 years. Indeed, it won't even last the day." I was taught that you cant destroy energy, neither with words or wishful thinking. There are two kinds of people. Those that think and those that point to a committee signing off agreement on papers they never read. Hopefully someday, a paper will be passed around with my idea so you can come into the constructive "fold". -
Peter Hogarth at 07:02 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
FLansner at 03:30 AM on 22 October, 2010 In the DMI data, the ERA-40 data series stops in late 2002. It is replaced by an operational model with slightly higher resolution, T511. There are two more subsequent changes to newer models, the most recent in Jan 2010. These changes are discussed briefly in the advanced article. Here is a zoomed plot of the actual ERA-40 and T511 model data from DMI in the overlap period of Summer 2002. There is a small bias difference. This will cause a small downwards step in the "Summer values above zero degrees C" (zero is dotted line) in 2002. I do not have overlap data for the other transitions. This is one possible cause of small changes in Summer values at around this time.
-
cynicus at 06:59 AM on 22 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
In response to BP and Albatross I'm reading a follow up paper from the same authors: Van Hoof et al 2008. I still notice a +/- 10 to 20ppm difference at times between the ice core and stomata data which the paper partly blames on smoothing of the ice core data. The authors also argue for a larger role and acceptance of stomata proxies as a decadal to millenial resolution proxy by the IPCC. They appoint the 13th century increase to massive forest clearing in Europe and the 14th century decrease to reduced human activity after the black death outbreak. Antropogenic changes as such. They then note (which will please BP so he can claim 'bad data'): The presence of high-amplitude CO2 fluctuations as documented by stomatal frequency studies may falsify the IPCC concept that preindustrial temperature variability is constrained by relatively stable atmospheric CO2 levels. But, hold on, don't get exited yet... They also note: A higher degree of CO2 variability during the last millennium must have resulted in a more prominent role for CO2 as a forcing factor of air-temperature changes. So BP's victory over the flatness of the ice core CO2 records is of the Pyrrhic kind which fits perfectly to this threads subject: "Do critics of the of ice core CO2 records realise what they're arguing for?" -
t_p_hamilton at 06:40 AM on 22 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
JohnD is confusing radiation, radiation forcing and feedback. Solar radiation is not a forcing. Change in solar radiation is a forcing. In other words, if the average solar radiation was the same year after year (it is easy to understand it is location and season dependent) the climate would not change. Forcings by definition are changes not derived from the climate system. Feedbacks by definition are changes derived from the climate system. CO2 increase today is not due to climate, but burning carbon, hence is a forcing. The average increase in water comes about from the changed climate. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - Sorry, my link to TOA radiative decreases should be Harries 2001; I had snagged the wrong reference. This is further confirmed as on Is the CO2 effect saturated; namely Griggs 2004 and Chen 2007. It's not waste heat. -
Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
pm, Personally I don't find hand-waving over "natural internal oscillations" particularly convincing. Whether it technically counts as a "forcing" or not is somewhat beside the point. If the temperature is changing then there must be some underlying physical process responsible for the change. If the MWP was warmer than it is today, then there are two ways this can be squared with current knowledge: a) Sensitivity to known forcings is higher than predicted. b) Some as yet unknown or misunderstood physical process is responsible for the MWP and LIA Most skeptics obsessed with the MWP seem convinced that option b is automatically implied by a warmer than expected MWP. In reality, the only convincing evidence of option b would be a explanation of what this mysterious process is exactly combined with robust empirical evidence that it functions as hypothesized. I have yet to see a single skeptic scientist provide anything close to this. Given the fact that known forcings already recreate the general shape of the temperature trend (the MWP and LIA), option a would fit better with the current evidence. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:44 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Come to think of it, this issue reminds me of the choice of whether to buy a large or small pizza. Purveyors of pizza have good reasons to flog small pies while purchasers should give serious consideration to larger sizes. Use method acting to play both roles while imagining you're also Euclid. In this case, leaving aside the "value proposition" of an 8" versus 16" pie, we're not even sure how much cheese or sauce we're getting. Caveat emptor. -
pmiddents at 04:35 AM on 22 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
Sorry about the broken link. I'll try again. Judith Curry makes an interesting statement in the comments over at her place “This argument about strong MWP and LI implying strong sensitivity drives me nuts. It implies that the MWP and LI are forced. If they are natural internal oscillations, then this would imply lower sensitivity to CO2.” She promises a series on climate sensitivity next year. Paul -
Albatross at 04:34 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Frank @68, Whoosh, look at those goal posts move. You mention the ERA-reanalysis data. Actually the ERA-interim is superior to the ERA-40. Anyhow, here is a paper on polar amplification using the ERA-interim data. Their Fig. 1c shows a warming trend North of the Arctic circle for summers between 1989 and 2008 (trends significant at the 99% confidence level), with a peak warming trend near 80 N. You can also find a discussion here on SS. A previous study by Graversen et al. (2008) looked at ERA-40 data over the Arctic between 1979 and 2001. They too found a warming trend over the high Arctic in the summer months (see their Fig. 1c) over that time. Bekryaev et al. (2010) looked at temperature data poleward of 60 N and calculated trends by season and annually. Here is what they found: Trends from 1959-2008 (C/decade)north of 59 N: Annual: +0.364 Winter: +0.381 Spring: +0.467 Summer: +0.234 N. Hemisphere annual: +0.232 Also look at their Fig. 6 for trends in temperatures in the latitude band 65-75 N since circa 1958. Is the rate of warming during the JJA period over the Arctic slower than observed for the other seasons? Yes, no argument there. But the data from multiple sources agree that there has most definitely not been a cooling trend during the summer as you keeping trying to mislead people into thinking. Why do you choose to ignore the data for the rest of the year Frank, and ignore the rate of change in annual temperatures over the Arctic? I think I know why-- but John or the moderator would probably not let my post through. -
archiesteel at 04:13 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
@RSVP: I too am waiting for that map showing how UHI effects "trail away" from cities. Also, I'd like to know why you've come back on your word: "I have tried here to help, but cannot afford to spend time writing things that get deleted. So this is my very last post." Why are you still posting? -
Doug Bostrom at 04:08 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Hmmm. I've not really had a dog in this fight, but on the one hand I see what might be an increase of temperature in some slice of the atmosphere in the upper 10 degrees of latitude of the Arctic, on the other a massive, extended plunge in volume and extent of Arctic sea ice. From a scientific perspective, the DMI data for summer seems quite interesting but from another it seems quite irrelevant. This tension is evident in WUWT's treatment of the summer DMI data, where a failed attempt is made to change everything we know about successive melt seasons so as to be coherent with the DMI data. The struggle to do this leads to depressingly familiar dark mutterings about "adjustments," etc Also, somebody's probably already pointed this out but purely as a matter of geometry it's worth thinking about how the area of the upper 10 degrees of latitude compares with the roughly 24 degrees remaining before hitting the Arctic Circle. -
DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
FLasner - The problem is that you are focusing on only the summer temperatures, which are clipped to just above 0 degrees C by the presence of ice, while ignoring the rise in average yearly temperatures. The summer temps in the DMI model and data have indeed varied a little, and do show a slight decline. In my opinion this may be partly to natural variability, partly due to the model change DMI underwent. But with the average temps going up at 0.376 degrees/decade (see Fig. 2 at the top of the page), and minimum temps rising at about the same rate, the summer melt season is increasing in duration, and total melt is increasing as well. Your narrow focus on summer implies some incorrect conclusions - that Arctic temps are declining, that the icecap isn't shrinking. This turns into the Hasty Generalization, or Argument By Generalization logical error. Not surprisingly, this implication is popular on WUWT. Neither is true - the icecap is shrinking, Arctic temps are rising twice as fast as global temps. And the ~0.06 deg. C/decade decline in summer peak temperatures you spend so much attention upon makes very little difference overall. If you are surprised by the incorrect conclusions people might draw from your article, well, they've now been pointed out to you by a number of people. If you intentionally focused on a small part of the data to convey those impressions, your article was intentionally misleading - I sincerely hope that wasn't the case. -
archiesteel at 03:56 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
@FLansner: define "very significant dive," please, then compare that to the annual temperature increase rate. Or, you know, you could check out Figure 2 in the article above. Simply put: the summertime cooling is *dwarfed* by the annual warming. Please acknowledge this before continuing the discussion any further. Let me put this in another way: why are you so focused on summer temperatures? -
Doug Bostrom at 03:30 AM on 22 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Thanks but no thanks, RSVP. I can't join you in your little sphere, there's not enough room to squeeze in beside the wrongness. Presuming that the database used for maintaining this site is using the generic MySQL integer for the comment count, you've got most of 2147483648 spaces available for continued reverberation of your intransigence. Do carry on here, but without me. -
FLansner at 03:30 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Albatros, the ERA-40 is as far as I can see one of the absolutely largest collections of data, quite impressing. And i showed that DMI data including ERA-40 for the melting season showed a very significant dive 1991-2010. Then you just continue saying that the annual trends shows something else. I know, i never said anything about the anual trend. many of you guys are very interested in Arctic SUMMER conditions, but in this case we suddenly cant talk about summer cponditions in the Arctic. Not a veru interesting dialog, honestly. K.R. Frank -
johnd at 03:20 AM on 22 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
Stephen Baines at 14:14 PM, this chart gives an indication of the absorption of solar radiation in water, about 13% of the total having been absorbed in the first 1mm.
-
Albatross at 03:03 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Flanser, ""I dint know exactly the answers, I just know, that the only data actually taken in the area shows decline in temperature." Now you seem to be talking about observations ("data actually taken in the area"). Bekryaev et al. (2010), would also vehemently disagree with you. See the main post above for the link. Oh, and yet again, what archiesteel said @ 66. -
archiesteel at 02:45 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
@FLansner: "I dint know exactly the answers, I just know, that the only data actually taken in the area shows decline in temperature." It doesn't. In fact, it shows temperatures have risen at about twice the global rate. This is according to the DMI data and the DMI's own evaluation of their data. -
JMurphy at 02:31 AM on 22 October 2010Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Dear me, transjasmine : so many misunderstandings in such a short post. Please look at these links to skeptical 'arguments' before you go any further : Climate's Changed Before It's Not Bad It's a 1500 Year Cycle We're Coming Out Of The Little Ice Age Medieval Warm Period Was Warmer It's Not Us It's The Sun It's Cosmic Rays Mars Is Warming Other Planets Are Warming There's No Empirical Evidence Neptune Is Warming Jupiter Is Warming Pluto Is Warming Solar Length Cycle Proves It's The Sun The Sun Is Getting Hotter Solar Cycles Cause Global Warming It's Global Brightening CO2 Lags Temperature It's The Ocean CO2 Is Coming From The Ocean Warming Causes CO2 Rise Hope that helps. -
archiesteel at 02:30 AM on 22 October 2010It's the sun
@KL: It's not about being knowledgeable, it's about making a cogent argument. Even after all these messages I still don't get what you're driving at. Talk about a colossal waste of time... -
Daniel Bailey at 02:28 AM on 22 October 2010Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Re: transjasmine (65) Welcome to Skeptical Science! In all honesty, the majority of your comment shows a lack of understanding of the physical processes of our planet and its temperature control system. That's not intended as a slam, just an observation. We all start at one point lacking an understanding of things. It is the hallmark of sentience to acknowledge that lack and seek to redress it. As I'm sure you will. For a greater understanding, I would suggest investigating the following: 1. Start here, find your level of interest and understanding and increase it. 2. Read Spencer Weart's History of the Discovery of Global Warming. 3. Watch Richard Alley's talk on how CO2 functions as the global temperature control knob. When you have questions, and you will, come back here & look in the upper left corner of the page to find the Search function. Search for an appropriate thread post for your answers to your questions. If you don't find an answer or an appropriate thread, pick the closest or most appropriate thread and post your question there. Someone will help you at that point. The Yooper -
Albatross at 02:22 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
FLanser, Could you please stay on topic (i.e., please go to the appropriate thread to discuss your UHI hypotheses)and tell us whether or not you disagree with this statement made by Peter Hogarth derived using the same DMI data: "Thus the reality is that the annual average Arctic surface temperature as indicated by DMI has risen at rates [0.376 C/decade] around twice the global average over the past 50 years, which is entirely consistent with other Arctic data sets, including the data from GISS." I agree with Hogarth when he says "The Lansner article is thus misleading." I would add, "grossly misleading". Might I politely also suggest to you the following: "The Arctic is warming, accept it and move on" -
It's the sun
@Ken >- I have said that the two main positive forcings add together - F.Solar a linear function - and F.CO2 a squared function. It all depends on the magnitude of the forcings and the elapsed time - ie the area under the curves. Taking the area under the curves ignores the tendency of the system towards thermal equilibrium. A flat forcing does not produce a linear increase in the net energy of the system, since the energy emitted by the system also rises proportionally to the energy absorbed. What it will produce is an increase with its slope tapering towards zero. Now the operative question is: how long does the system take to reach equilibrium given a flat forcing? This question (and the general claim you are making) was addressed in one of John's posts a while back. In short, there is no evidence that the flat solar trends are having a significant influence on recent temperature increases. >in fact all charts show increasing temperatures since 1850. No they don't. Temperatures were stable if not cooling slightly from 1850-1915. I believe what you are thinking of are charts showing overall temperature increase from 1850 to today, not the actual trends during those particular decades. -
FLansner at 02:14 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Albatros, you write “There is no reason to believe that there would be some rapid change or discontinuity in the temperature anomalies north of 82.5 N” I wont judge that, maybe you are correct, maybe not, I am humble to other natures surprises. I just present data, and when data - like you indicate – does not meet expectations, it is as though some people think it is wrong of me to even present data. Lets get one thing straight: in large areas of the Arctic a bit longer south has been still more ice free and thus the open waters obviously has a huge impact on the temperatures in these areas. The open water effect is not directly happening still in the 80N-90N area, and so, some kind of difference is not that surprising. IF or example solar low activity leads to more cloud formation and thus perhaps more fresh snow on the remaining ice 80N-90N or some other effect should lead to more snow, well then we would have a situation where the 80N-90N locally would get a little colder. But this is PURE speculation, fictive examples of how nature sometimes can surprise us. I dint know exactly the answers, I just know, that the only data actually taken in the area shows decline in temperature. I would wish for a little more humility and scientific curiosity towards these data :-) Got to go, ill be back .. K.R. Frank Lansner -
Albatross at 02:11 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
BP @61, "Stop propagating this miserable myth, please. It's the onboard sensors that are not calibrated against external sources. However, they do not measure atmospheric temperatures, but radiances in several narrow em radiation bands." Thanks, but I do not need to be lectured by you BP. I know very well that the AMSUs on board the satellites measure radiances from layers in the atmosphere. And from Roy Spencer's web-site: "Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer record of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch." Also, isn't it odd that Lansner here is trying to argue that the recent "divergence" over land between lower tropospheric temperatures derived from AMSU data is evidence of UHI effect contaminating the SAT records-- that is that the MSU data are not affected by the UHI/SATs. The incoherence and contradictory nature of the arguments used by "skeptics" continues. Regardless, despite all your objections BP, there is excellent correspondence between the satellite-derived temperatures (RSS) and those from radiosondes, see Fig. 12 here. If you think that you know more than Dr. Roy Spencer and the RSS team on this. Please go ahead and argue with them rather than lecturing us. Also, according to you BP the surface data are not to be trusted, nor are the temperatures derived using the MSU and AMSU data. Do you trust temperature trends from the GUAN BP? The Arctic is warming, accept it and move on. PS: If the radiance data from satellites is so unreliable, why then has their assimilation been shown to improve NWP forecasts? See here for examples, and more here. More information on TOVS here. So when you are done arguing with Spencer, please argue with the leading meteorological agencies around the world that they are wasting their time using the AMSU-derived temperatures. -
transjasmine at 02:02 AM on 22 October 2010Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
you seem to forget that there have been periods in history much warmer than today with no adverse effects, there have also been periods much much cooler than today, two examples: medieval warm period, the little ice age. warming and cooling are a trend, as for co2 it tends to rise with increased solar activity which you can see not just on our planet, the sun burns hotter, we receive more heat, our ice begins to melt, same thing happens on Mars which is further from the sun, i find it hard to believe our SUV's are causing the ice on Mars and moons of Jupiter to melt. most of the earth's Co2 is in the sea, with increased temperature comes more evaporation allowing more co2 in to the atmosphere. -
CBDunkerson at 01:57 AM on 22 October 2010There is no consensus
Roger #247: Solar and wind prices are declining while fossil fuel prices are increasing. If we assume these trends will continue then the cost of solar or wind power with an assumed 30 year lifespan is actually ALREADY lower than the cost of a fossil fuel plant (yes, even coal) with an assumed 30 year lifespan and the average projected cost of coal over those 30 years. The point at which the CURRENT price of solar and wind is lower than the CURRENT price of coal for most of the world (it already is in some places, e.g. Hawaii) is still a decade or so off, but since we know the price of coal will rise (as you yourself argue) waiting until that point is short-sighted. "CO2 is at 390 ppmv now and could easily be at 500 ppmv before coal even peaks. Experts say CO2 must be pushed back to 350 ppmv to be safe. Green thinking won't get us there; only downsizing will." Another complete falsity. You could end all human industry and indeed kill off the entire human race and that wouldn't cause the atmospheric CO2 level to drop from the current 390 ppm down to 350 ppm any faster than switching over to 100% nuclear and renewable power. As to BP's 'renewable uses up too much land' argument... in addition to already mentioned offshore wind and space based solar there are; high altitude wind, geothermal, hydropower, tidal, ocean heat flux, and simply citing wind and solar on 'dual use' land... e.g. wind in cornfields and solar over parking lots - more than enough available land. -
FLansner at 01:52 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Hi Skeptical science! Response to your response above: I then followed your link and see that you still use London and the suburbs from the big UHI region in Southern England. So still, when I start reading your UHI examples, I get the feeling that the writers either has no idea about ehat UHI is or that something else is wrong. Then I sea your graphic from the China. Heres the Jones China Article: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml Quote: "Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004" So UHI just from 1951 to 200 is around + 0,53 K . Please explain why this strong UHI does not appear from you China graphic? And why this "UHI-exmaple" from London is still there ;-) K.R. Frank Lansner -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - You do understand that the AWH is 1% of the forcings from greenhouse gases; at least, that has been pointed out repeatedly both in the topic post and in many replies made to your theories. It's way too small to be the driver of global warming. But you seem unconvinced. I'd like you to consider the following theorized causes and their effects: (1) Your theory; global warming is due to accumulated anthropogenic heat flux. Energy over and above the equilibrium solar input is being added at the bottom of the atmosphere. Results: temperatures rise, and top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation increases since we're now warmer than solar equilibrium. (2) Greenhouse gases accumulate, decreasing the emissive spectra of the Earth. This produces an imbalance at TOA; more solar energy enters than thermal energy leaves. Results: temperatures rise, and TOA radiation decreases until a new equilibrium is reached. Now what does the evidence show? Take a look at 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change, point 6, in particular Evans 2006. TOA radiation from the Earth has decreased, clearly fingerprinting a greenhouse gas change, and contradicting the waste heat theory. -
Ken Lambert at 00:53 AM on 22 October 2010It's the sun
KL #708 I should have prefixed this with 'the energy from" "I have not ignored the theoretical contribution of F.CO2 - I have said that the two main positive forcings add together - F.Solar a linear function - and F.CO2 a squared function. It all depends on the magnitude of the forcings and the elapsed time - ie the area under the curves." -
Ken Lambert at 00:50 AM on 22 October 2010It's the sun
archiesteel #706 Forgive my lack of communicative skills - but I only felt knowledgeable enough to enter this blog after a year or so jousting with the likes of kdkd and reading Dr Trenberth, IPCC reports etc. The most imformative paper I have read is: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf -
Ken Lambert at 00:34 AM on 22 October 2010It's the sun
kdkd #707 We should have a beer together someday kdkd. I have a sudden feeling of kinship with you after a night listening to Ziggy Switkowski. KL: "What counts is the sum of and proportions of the energy added by the two sources. I calculated previously that on the IPCC data the energy proportions were about 55/45 CO2GHG/Solar since AD1750. The question then becomes how reliable and accurate are these forcings. We have some proxy and direct measurement for TSI and F.Solar." I have not ignored the theoretical contribution of F.CO2 - I have said that the two main positive forcings add together - F.Solar a linear function - and F.CO2 a squared function. It all depends on the magnitude of the forcings and the elapsed time - ie the area under the curves. This only represents the available positive (warming) forcings. The main negative forcings are cloud and aerosol albedo, and S-B radiative cooling. I shall run some numbers on these and try for a net forcing since say AD1750 in 50 year tranches. Had a late night so look for this tomorrow. -
Scrooge at 00:30 AM on 22 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
I just have to wonder what role the hadley cells and subsidence play in the tropics. Does it not go along with the desert areas expanding? Since we are talking about the upper trop I could be wrong but it does go along with the feast or famine rainfall amounts we see in different parts of the world. -
Berényi Péter at 00:11 AM on 22 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
#45 Albatross at 08:41 AM on 21 October, 2010 the MSU satellite data are not calibrated against the surface temperatures Stop propagating this miserable myth, please. It's the onboard sensors that are not calibrated against external sources. However, they do not measure atmospheric temperatures, but radiances in several narrow em radiation bands. If both atmospheric temperature and humidity distributions are given below the satellite, radiance can be calculated for a steric angle, at least in theory. In practice it requires a painstaking line-by-line calculation, but even if you have the computer power to do that, the result depends on the emissivity/absorptivity model used. In frequency bands with low emissivity proper lab measurements are pretty difficult to perform (you need extremely long path lengths). Therefore this calculation is only expected to yield approximate results and to speed up things even the algorithm applied is usually an approximate one. But in case of satellite temperature measurements this is not the problem to be solved, but the inverse of it, that is, if radiances are given, what is the atmospheric temperature and humidity distribution that could produce them. This problem does not have a unique solution, not even in theory. Meaning a great many temperature and humidity distribution profiles generate the very same radiances and there is no way to pick the "right one" based solely on the dataset measured by satellites. All we can do is to choose a profile from this huge subset whose members are all consistent with measurement and make this choice optimal in some sense. This "some sense" is the comfy place where the devil is hiding. Fortunately to see the basic problem clearly, one does not need much else but common sense. Satellite radiance measurements are done in frequency bands where the atmosphere is almost, but not quite transparent. Below 50 km there is LTE (Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium) in the atmosphere, that is, air is dense enough to have many molecular collisions between individual photon absorption/emission events, so radiative energy absorbed gets thermalized (distributed evenly among available degrees of freedom) before re-emission. Under such circumstances Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation holds. The upshot is if you want to have radiation in a narrow frequency band from a specific layer of the atmosphere at your satellite's sensors, emissivity should be high at that frequency to produce ample radiation, but absorptivity (whose value is the same according to Kirchoff) should be low to let the radiation through, therefore you should hit the right balance in choosing your frequencies. If all the GHGs (GreenHouse Gases, those having some absorptivity in thermal IR) were well mixed in the atmosphere, calculation of temperature profile from radiances at frequencies with increasing absorptivity would be a straightforward business. However, there is a major greenhouse gas, water vapor which is not well mixed at all. In fact most weather reports are about the haphazard movements and distribution of moisture, for water is the actual working fluid of the heat engine called climate system. Now, it is quite easy to see that absorptivity of an atmospheric layer does not only depend on specific absorptivity of a substance at a certain frequency, but also on its density. If the latter one keeps changing, so does the former. If atmospheric radiance increases in a frequency band, it can mean two things. Either average temperature of the atmosphere is increasing or the upper layer is getting increasingly transparent while lower layers keep or increase their opacity. This is so, because on average the lower the layer the higher its temperature is (due to adiabatic heating) and as soon as it gets "visible" to the satellite, measured radiance increases as well (emissions increase as the fourth power of absolute temperature). With water vapor it would mean upper atmosphere is getting dryer. In fact this is what's measured in situ by radiosonde balloons, a multi-decadal drying trend in upper troposphere, but the dataset is dismissed by mainstream climate scientists as wacky. Anyway, in order to increase average transparency of an atmospheric layer, you don't even have to decrease its average moisture contents, it is perfectly enough to make water vapor distribution a bit more uneven. Opacity is a nonlinear (concave) function of absorber density, so average of opacities is always smaller than opacity of averages. Let's get back to the inverse problem. This "some sense" in which the choice of moisture and temperature distribution profiles should be optimal while consistent with measurement can be broken down to the following pieces.- The profiles considered should be consistent with physics. It sounds fine, but for each profile you need a considerable amount of computation to decide if it was reasonable from that point of view. Even more worrisome is the fact time tested first principles of physics only give a weak constraint, leaving still too many candidates in the subset to be searched. Further problems enter with the recognition it is not enough to specify water vapor distribution (that is, the gas phase of stuff), but you also need information on liquid and solid water (droplets and ice crystals). Radiative properties of these phases depend heavily on particle or droplet size distribution as on trace amounts of pollution as well. Dispersion (on top of emission/absorption) also enters the picture. And above all, cloud formation and precipitation events (along with turbulent flows) are among the least well understood processes of meteorology, their handling is very far from first principles.
- Intractability is to be avoided. The reasonable subset of atmospheric states producing the measured radiances is huge and it is absolutely out of the question to evaluate each member of a representative (dense enough) subset of it. Even God's computers would use up eternity and some more to finish that job. The standard solution is to introduce some structure to the problem, making exhaustive search unnecessary. For example it would take some time and much walking for a blind person equipped with an altimeter having a Braille output device to find the highest spot on a large estate. However, if the estate is flat with a slight slope in a single direction and its shape is convex, she can go there immediately by taking the direction of the highest slope, even at the fences. In the same spirit inversion problems like the one above can be transformed to tractable problems in multiple ways, by transforming or restricting the problem domain and/or the objective function. Linearization or a probabilistic approach (when we only look for good enough solutions with high probability) are among such techniques. However, we should always remember the problem actually solved this way is not the original one. If you can't shoot at the guy behind the corner, aim at those in plain sight.
- The objective function has to be determined somehow. The most straightforward way is to have a test set and an objective function of some reasonable form with several open parameters, then tuning the parameters until the objective function takes the highest value on each element of the test set of all the other possibilities producing the same radiances. The process can be considered "teaching". There are several techniques to accomplish this goal, including murky neural network approaches. The test set itself can be obtained by measurement (preferable) or as an output of some model (rife).
-
CBDunkerson at 23:36 PM on 21 October 2010There is no consensus
Roger #244: Several of your assumptions are false. 1: Even taking the high end estimates of future population and economic growth fossil fuels would not run out within 50-100 years. If we squeezed out every last bit we might get 200 years of continual expansion. Prices might rise (barring more cost efficient extraction technologies) to the point that these energy sources would be replaced by others, but they aren't going to run out any time soon. 2: Ditto nuclear power. We'd get less than a hundred years of power in 'once through' type reactors, but with more modern breeder reactors nuclear power could last for thousands of years. 3: Most projections DON'T have population and energy use growing continuously. Indeed, the mainstream view is that both will level off sometime during this century. 4: It is simply false that 'green technology' cannot match the power generated by fossil fuels and uranium. Indeed, potential wind power dwarfs all of those others combined and potential solar power makes wind power look minuscule. Thus, once we have dispensed with the fictions we have considerably more options than 'die off' or 'institute population controls'... aka 'kill off'. -
Roger A. Wehage at 23:10 PM on 21 October 2010There is no consensus
The world is faced with two dilemmas...Moderator Response: This is the stump of what became an extended discussion about various alternative energy technologies; very sorry that so many people had their time wasted by a challenging question in the wrong place.
The topic of the thread is scientific consensus on the reality of climate change. -
Lassesson at 22:37 PM on 21 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
I recently saw a similar cherry picking event here in Sweden. A couple of professors emeriti (in chemistry and solid states physics) had read a new article by Spencer and Braswell and concluded from that article that the climatet sensitivity must be at (exactly) 0.6 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 and therefore there was no rush in reducing our GHG emissions, since it wouldn't make any significant difference anyway. Spencer and Braswell, however, did not say that in their article. They said that they had found a short term climate sensitivity that seemed to be around 0.6 degrees C. What "short term" means in this subject I'm not sure, but I believe they were talking about days or weeks. At least it seemed like that when I looked at their data. Spencer and Braswell pointed out on several occasions in their article that they had no intention of pointing out what the long term climate sensitivity would be, but that was just what our cherry picking professors emeriti did. They drew a conclusion from one single article, ignoring all the rest, despite the fact that the writers of the article themselves pointed out that this conclusion could not be drawn from their results. Maybe I should have written this in the "climate sensitivity is low" argument instead, but i thought the cherry picking was too similar. I just had to tell it here. -
CBDunkerson at 22:29 PM on 21 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP #240: As has been explained to you MANY times the statement that AWH "can only be accumulating" is simply false. If I light a match the energy released by that action does NOT remain present in the climate system for the next 50 years. Indeed, it won't even last the day. The same principle applies to all heat generated by human industry. This is evident in ACTUAL maps of UHI effects (as opposed to your fictitious 'long tail' versions). It is evident in the fact that if your theory of heat not escaping the atmosphere were correct then the planet would have been baked to a crisp by sunlight long before life ever had a chance to evolve. Again, it defies the laws of physics and simple logic to insist that heat originating from human industry must behave differently than all other heat in the climate system. If heat generated by sunlight and back radiation from greenhouse gases leaves the planet efficiently then heat generated by human industry leaves the planet at exactly the same efficiency level... and since those other two sources of energy are orders of magnitude larger than heat from human industry there is no possible way that AWH is causing a significant (or even measurable) fraction of the warming attributed to AGW. It's just nonsense. Still waiting on those maps BTW. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:09 PM on 21 October 2010Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
Since the article is about upper atmosphere humidity, shouldn't it talk about convection? Surface moisture ought to increase with CO2 warming (C-C relationship), but then that moisture has to rise. Does convection change on average based on CO2 warming? Mostly I am interested in the nature of the convection, concentrated or not, as well as the overall amount. -
RSVP at 21:56 PM on 21 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
doug_bostrom #92 As I was asked to take my comments about waste heat to the the Waste Heat thread, I have taken the opportunity and even dedicated my post to you based on your remarks in #92. -
RSVP at 21:21 PM on 21 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
This is especially dedicated to doug_bostrom. In the thread... Monday, 18 October, 2010 Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect Some ...I have been directed to continue with any remarks I might have about "anthropogenic waste heat" here. 238 posts apparently hasnt been enough, but there is a lingering question, which comes from the following idea... Let us consider the history of the Earth's temperature over the last 2000 years or so, and for the sake of this argument, ignore for one moment any natural fluctuations such as those produced by volcanos or any observed "little ice ages" etc., and assume going backwards before the start of the Industrial Revolution you have a perfectly flat line where the average global temperature is constant. I understand this is not real, but let's for one moment consider the "perfect" hockey stick with a perfectly flat handle and an exponential puck striker rearing its ugly head starting around 1850 or so. The perfectly flat line represents perfect thermal equilibrium due to perfect radiative equilibrium. Putting unitless numbers on this, if, for example I have on the average 100 coming in, and 100 going out ("forever"), I end up with zero overall. So on the average nothing ever changes. Now I come along and every year add 0.1, a very small and "irrelevant" number by comparison to the summings up and down of a value like 100. But as small as this may be, on the average, and over the course of 200 years or so, this itty-bitty, annoying, but very real undeniable positive energy flux can only be accumulating, as it has absolutely no where to go (in terms of pure accounting... remember, 100 - 100 = 0, and of course .1 x 200 = 20). And 20 may be significant next to 100. The theory of course only holds if all other things were equal in terms of the overall radiative balance for this period, or if for the effects of CO2, heat was having even more difficulty escaping as touted by AGW supporters. Furthermore, the central meaning of comparing avearge temperatures to a hockey stick is to point out that temperature was in relative equilibrium up to the modern era. (Aside... it may well be that things have not been equal during this period due to other forms of pollution, and that aerosol's were "helping" things at some point. But we will ignore this for the sake of examining the merits of this theory. Please.) Given reactions expressed on this website for seriously considering the significance of anthropogenic waste heat (AWH), I can only surmise it comes out of a fear in losing inertia for dealing with the problem of CO2 as an environmental pollutant, given that whatever heat could be attributed to AWH, is that much heat that must be subtracted from the effects of AGW, (understanding AGW as the radiative imbalance setup by excess CO2), and vise versa. So it all comes down to the following questions. If AWH is not the main cause of global warming, where exactly is this energy supposedly going? And how is it possibly not accumulating somewhere on planet Earth? Implied in my comment in the other thread, "Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect", once you admit to the significance of AWH, there is the daunting problem about how to deal with it. That is, how to get rid of this heat now that it is here, and that it isnt only a matter of cutting back on CO2 emissions. -
kdkd at 20:39 PM on 21 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
chriscanaris #81 Probably all you need to do is to provide an unambiguous, justifiable set of conclusions at the end of your post. This is standard practice in the scientific literature, and prevents misunderstanding.
Prev 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 Next
