Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 Next
Comments 111851 to 111900:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 19:52 PM on 23 August 2010Weather vs Climate: Watch the waves, miss the turning of the tides
Your first point may be valid. ON the second, AFAIK, satellites don't measure record temperatures, just averages. If you have a study showing otherwise, please post it. Averages on the surface are adjusted for UHIE, records are not. On 1998, the state record high temperatures peaked at 19 ( http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/03/us-extreme-temperatures-update.html) Since state records are often set at smaller stations, they are more immune to UHIE. Hence there are far more standing state records from the 1930's than any other decade. -
miekol at 18:35 PM on 23 August 2010The main culprit in mid-century cooling
Ok and thanks Michael -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:25 PM on 23 August 2010Dust-Up On Mars: Should Martians Be Sceptical of Global Warming?
The Cosmology of Climate Change: Intercorrelations Between Increased Global Temperature, Carbon Dioxide and Geomagnetic Activity, Persinger, 2010.: “Recent global warming is correlated strongly with not only levels of carbon dioxide but also increased geomagnetic activity.” “The apparent relationship to human activity would be epiphenomenal.” “The correlations between recent insidious elevations in global temperature and green house gases, which include water vapour as well as carbon dioxide, have been attributed in large part after the year 1945 to the behaviour of human beings (NAS 2010a,b,c; Tett et al, 1999). However concomitant with the increased magnitudes for human activity since about the year 1900 there has been a doubling of the solar corona (Lockwood, et al, 1999) and a gradual increase in average geomagnetic activity (Persinger, 2009a). A similar increase in global temperature has been observed recently within a more restricted time frame on MARS (Fenton et al, 2007) which is presumably independent of anthropogenic activities.” “Correlations are not necessarily causations. For problems that are not amenable to the benefits of direct experimentation, the presence of other factors that are responsible for the occurrence of both variables that constitute the correlation must always be considered. These include changes in solar activity, alterations in the angle and orbit of Earth (Duhau and Jager 2010; Miyahara et al., 2010) and fluctuations in geomagnetic activity. Both El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib (2006) and Persinger (2009a) have shown that at least half of the variance in the global warming can be accommodated by the energy available from the upward drift in geomagnetic activity. That these factors associated with solar activity have been responsible for the epiphenomenal relationship between global warming, human activity and the concomitant increases in green house gases, would affect both humanity's approach to the solutions as well as the focus in the search for mechanisms.” I recommend this paper: Solar cycle variations on the millennial times scale: a challenge for solar dynamo theory, Usoskin, 2010.; ... and two conclusions of the multimedia presentation: Grand Minima and Maxima of Solar Activity on multi-millennial time scale (Usoskin, Solanki, Kovaltsov, 2010): - The Sun spends ~3/4 of the time at moderate activity, ~1/6 in a grand minimum and ~1/10 in a grand maximum state. The modern solar activity is a grand maximum., - Occurrence of Grand minima/maxima is not a result of long-term cyclic variations but is defined by stochastic / chaotic processes (Suess/de Vries cycle may operate at a shorter scale). ... and from this work: The Sun's role in regulating Earth's climate dynamics, Mackey, 2009.: “Climate processes are interconnected and oscillating, yielding variable periodicities. Solar processes, especially when interacting, amplify or dampen these periodicities producing distinctive climatic cycles. As solar and climate processes are non-linear, non-stationary and non-ergodic, appropriate analytic methodologies are necessary to reveal satisfactorily solar/climate relationships.” Warming on Mars must therefore be real and be a result of a complex (including magnetic) solar activity (f. e .QBO). -
stevecarsonr at 18:16 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
The IPCC describes our level of scientific understanding of the pre-1978 solar activity data as “very low”. (Graph and comments at Here comes the sun ). Crowley (2000) is a paper matching modeled results with solar activity estimates derived from Lean et al (1995) and Bard et al (2000). It's not a paper validating solar output (except by matching model results). Bard (2000) says "The concomitant production variations of 14C and 10Be can be used as a proxy for the TSI by assuming a linear relationship between magnetic activity and irradiance following previous workers.." and notes the familiar sunspot papers including Solanski and Fligge. This S&F paper notes that their sunspot relationships *assumes* the measured relationship between sunspots and output over 20 years is then matched for the previous 100. It's nice to assume a relationship and I think it's a good starting point given no other information. However, that doesn't mean it has been validated. Which is why the IPCC says that results back to 1600 "have a low level of scientific understanding" and claims less certainty before that.. -
miekol at 17:34 PM on 23 August 2010The main culprit in mid-century cooling
What happened to the link ? My comment #7 doesn't make sense without the link http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.htmlResponse: Well, your comment does make more sense now that you've posted that link which wasn't included in the initial comment. And yes, now I see that your comment is off-topic :-)
To discuss whether there's a greenhouse effect, I suggest you either go to the empirical evidence for the enhanced greenhouse effect or Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?. -
robert way at 16:57 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
stevecarsonr, The Medieval Maximum of solar activity occurred during the MWP. This has been discussed in numerous papers. Some I just threw together in the last few minutes for your comment are below. There are many more. Also note that although we don't have year to year changes very effectively measured back as far as the MWP we do have many paleoclimatic proxies which give evidence suggesting a solar maximum. Ultimately the MWP can be viewed very similarly to an extended 1940s era warming. Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A. 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126. 30. Beryllium-10 measurements are from E. Bard et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 150, 453 (1997); E. Bard et al., Tellus B 52, 985 (2000). 31. M. Stuiver and T. F. Braziunas, Radiocarbon 35, 137 (1993). Crowley 2000. Science. Causes of Climate Change over the Past 1000 years. Jirikowic and Damon. (1994). The medieval solar activity maximum. Climatic change. Volume 26, Numbers 2-3. -
miekol at 16:55 PM on 23 August 2010The main culprit in mid-century cooling
I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I feel it is pertinent to AGW. Does this experiment prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? And if not, why not? MichaelResponse: Does this experiment prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? And if not, why not?
On the contrary, the behaviour of temperatures during the mid-century cooling period actually confirm the greenhouse warming effect. What we find is that daytime temperatures cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s. This is consistent with measurements of solar radiation at the Earth's surface which also fell over this period - "global dimming" due to rising sulfate pollution. But interestingly, nighttime temperatures actually increased over this same period. This is consistent with an increasing greenhouse effect. Even while sulfate pollution was cooling the Earth, greenhouse warming was still percolating away while we were sleeping. -
stevecarsonr at 14:29 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
"It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming)" Can you elaborate on the first one? As far as I can see reconstructions of solar radiation prior to 1978 are speculative. This even goes for the reconstructions from 1874 when high quality sunspot observations began. For example, Solanske & Fligge commented that their sunspot reconstruction relied on the assumption that the measured relationships have remained unchanged over more than a century - "Solar Irradiance since 1874 Revisited", Solanski & Fligge, Geophysical Research Letters (1998). -
scaddenp at 14:05 PM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
AWoL - sadly you cannot take a high school equation useful within its domain and then use it inappropriately somewhere else. If you want to understand it depth (you do dont you?), then I suggested the Science of Doom article with goes through it in depth. Also this . If this is going to come up often, then perhaps John should get Chris Colose to right up the argument. -
Bern at 13:42 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
WAG, that'd be perhaps better addressed in the rebuttal of the "It's not bad" argument. Although perhaps a comment pointing readers to that argument would be useful in here. -
WAG at 12:34 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
Good post. One comment - I think the real reason skeptics make this argument is to argue that if it was warmer in Medieval times than it is now, then global warming must not be bad - not to argue that it isn't caused by people. An answer to that claim ought to be included as well. -
AWoL at 12:03 PM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Muoncounter. If you think this has gone wildly off topic then you have only yourself to blame. You made the claim that the 33deg C difference between the black body calculation and the actual earth surface temp was due to greenhouse gases. I say no, and that the effect of gravity and the resultant pressure play a bigger role than GHGs in accounting for this discrepancy. That is what my physics textbooks tell me. If I am wrong tell me why. If you can't be bothered, then let's not waste time in discussion, and we'll forget about science and the enlightenment, freedom of speech, and thought, and simply cough up a 5% carbon tax and quiescently submit to the rule of totalitarian scientific technocracy and live happily ever after. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:47 AM on 23 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Thread is cold but this paper looks interesting and relevant http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/5994/940 -
scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
AWoL - yes Science of Doom prejudices are very obvious. He is extremely in favour of textbook physics. As is John Cook for that matter so why are you here? Would you only accept physics if it is explained by an anti-AGW physicist? Not many around but I would be comfortable say Roy Spencer on this pressure nonsense. His take down of Miskolczi and G&T are fine. Has he talked about it? There is a "information trust" problem that really makes me scratch my head. When you dont have the expertise to make an assessment yourself, then who do believe? Physicists - or Steve Goddard? -
batsvensson at 10:38 AM on 23 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Who introduced the word 'consensus' in science? -
muoncounter at 10:21 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
#153: "what must the Temp be at 15lbs/squ in?" Its not a closed system, so the temperature will, as you say, 'equilibrate with surroundings.' Or else we'd only have hot days with high pressure and cold days with low pressure, which would take all the fun out of weather forecasting. This is becoming wildly off-topic. -
muoncounter at 10:13 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
#152: "nature had already put in place processes that must have not only controlled the rate of loss, but the rate of gain. " And then we came along and starting releasing all that CO2 that was stored away for millions of years... in the last 150+ years. How do you think nature 'reacts' to that? Seems like the answer is right in front of us. -
AWoL at 08:08 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
I take the points of Muoncounter and Tom. Yes the temperature of a compressed gas will equilibrate with the surroundings. Nevertheless we are starting from TOA of Odeg and near 0 pressure....BUT.... that temperature is 0deg,273K, thanks to insolation, otherwise it would be 3K or thereabouts. So that being the case, what must the Temp be at 15lbs/squ in?(at the surface)? I have visited the Science of Doom a few times, but the prejudices of the author are very obvious. Why in this age of computerisation of graphics is this medium so seldom employed? One picture is worth a thousand words,mind you it depends on the quality of the picture. -
johnd at 07:56 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Tom Dayton at 06:41 AM, unlike the heat temporarily "trapped" in the bicycle tube, heat within our atmosphere has not been physically constrained as the usage of the word "trapped" by some posters seems to indicate. No heat is actually trapped, heat is always being lost, as heat is always being gained. What does change is the rate at which it is either gained or lost by the atmosphere, and it is how that balances out that determines whether the temperature is warming or cooling. This balance, if able to be controlled by man would either have to control the rate of loss, or the rate of gain. Before mankind arrived nature had already put in place processes that must have not only controlled the rate of loss, but the rate of gain. If variations in solar radiation was the sole means by which the rate of gain varied, what were the processes that adjusted the rate of loss? -
muoncounter at 07:26 AM on 23 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Here's a couple of snips from an interesting paper, with predictions made in 1981:
I've added the red lines showing where we are now, about 0.6 deg in the upper figure (Fig 1, which starts in 1880) and 0.5 deg in the lower (starts in 1950). Looks like whoever made those predictions was spot on in Fig 1, but a bit conservative in Fig 7. However, we are well above the 'natural climate variability noise,' so you gotta give it some credit.
The paper? Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Check the link to see the authors.
Response: NOTE: after reading this comment, I asked Muoncounter if he would do a blog post about Hansen's 1981 paper - he kindly obliged in Hansen etal hit a Climate Home Run. -
muoncounter at 06:49 AM on 23 August 2010Weather vs Climate: Watch the waves, miss the turning of the tides
#5: "records are usually 5C to 10C or more above normal so are caused by weather, not CO2 warming" This is a persistent pattern of setting records and hence not weather. Long term trend... increasing CO2? "records in the chart above were not adjusted for UHIE" We've heard that one numerous times. Satellite data show similar temperatures; is there also UHI in satellite data? "too easily influenced by pacific ocean cycles" If ocean cycles were a factor, 1998 would stand out like a sore thumb. Yet it is part of the whole. So that 'problem' won't fly either. -
There's no empirical evidence
I'd like to point out that SoD's The Hoover Incident provides a delightful Reductio ad absurdum argument supporting the greenhouse gas effect - demonstrating that current conditions cannot hold without the greenhouse effect, and that asserting GHG's have no effect results in a contradiction (temperatures that are not currently observed, an average temperature of -18°C; brrrr....). -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:42 AM on 23 August 2010Weather vs Climate: Watch the waves, miss the turning of the tides
The first problem is that records are usually 5C to 10C or more above normal so are caused by weather, not CO2 warming (1C with WV, 0.2 or so without). The second problem is that the records in the chart above were not adjusted for UHIE (it was not mentioned in the paper). Third problem is the chart is U.S. only, too easily influenced by pacific ocean cycles which can result in extremes. -
muoncounter at 06:42 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
#147: "Why the increase in P at the surface? Gravity?" Ah, so the temperature at the surface is merely due to the weight of the atmosphere. Then it follows that gravity causes increased temperature. In classical mechanics, gravity is a force and forces can only increase temperature (a statistical measure of kinetic energy) when work is done. Yes, falling objects gain kinetic energy. So you must believe that all atmospheric gas fell from outer space to the surface of the earth? "I have formed an opinion on the matter which I have expressed here for either refutation or retention," And yet this opinion remains unsubstantiated. The quality of the replies here is excellent (and quite patient). Interestingly, I last heard the same 'I dont think so' opinion over at a competing website, W..T? -
Tom Dayton at 06:41 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
AWoL, only the action of increasing pressure of a given quantity of gas increases the temperature. Once the gas is at that new pressure, the temperature does not increase any more. Pump up a bicycle tube quickly and you can feel the tube get warmer from the air being compressed from one atmosphere (outside the tube and pump) to greater than that (inside the tube). But let the tube sit undisturbed for awhile and it (and the compressed air inside it) will exchange energy with the surrounding air until the tube once again is at the same temperature as its surroundings. It does not continue getting hotter, nor remain hot by replacing its lost energy, merely by virtue of being at high pressure. Air in the Earth's atmosphere does get compressed when gravity drags it down, and so it does heat. But eventually that same air rises and so loses that heat it acquired. Averaged over the atmosphere, across time, the net effect on total atmospheric temperature is zero. -
There's no empirical evidence
AWol, theendisfar - you might find the recent Science of Doom postings on The Hoover Incident and Heat Transfer Basics and Non-Radiative Atmospheres useful primers. They discuss what would happen if we didn't have greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. -
AWoL at 06:24 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Muoncounter says:- "What does gravity have to do with that?" at TOA T=0degC,P=near 0. at surface, T=15degC,P=15lbs/squ in Why the increase in P at the surface? Gravity? The "I don't think so" means that I have formed an opinion on the matter which I have expressed here for either refutation or retention, dependent on the quality of replies. For that is the raison d'etre of this website, I think. -
muoncounter at 05:56 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
#145: "Surely gravity gives rise to an increase in temp at the surface.P1/T1=P2/T2?" What does gravity have to do with that? "leave just N2 and O2. Would it make much difference? I don't think so." It would be interesting to hear you substantiate this opinion, in more depth than 'I don't think so'. Perhaps you should have a look at Dr. Roy Spenser's backyard experiment verifying that atmospheric greenhouse gas does indeed warm the surface. Talk about empirical evidence! And from a noted skeptic, no less. -
actually thoughtful at 05:53 AM on 23 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
I've found Gore very useful, if anyone brings him up, they are not focusing on the science, so I can safely ignore them. -
AWoL at 05:31 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Chris wrote:- "The enhanced warmth is due to the trapping of solar energy by atmospheric greenhouse gases. More energy is retained in the earth system in the presence of greenhouse gases than would be there without them (around 33 oC's worth of surface temperature)." Surely gravity gives rise to an increase in temp at the surface.P1/T1=P2/T2? Take out "greenhouse gases" and leave just N2 and O2. Would it make much difference? I don't think so.Sorry but the idea that the 33degC difference is due to 0.03-0.04%"greenhouse gases", I just don't get.....and neither does 90% of the folk I've talked to who have made an effort to understand this so-called "science". -
johnd at 05:18 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
theendisfar at 04:28 AM, I look at things from a different perspective. Whilst we live immediately on the surface within the atmosphere, the main sources and sinks for heat already within the system are the oceans and the land. H2O in it's various forms plays the primary role in trying to constantly maintain thermal equilibrium because all sources and sinks are not equal. This is what we know as weather. Solar radiation is the primary source of heat and before it can heat the atmosphere it must first intersect the planets immediate surface before it undergoes any transformation. For this reason I believe that any changes begins with any variations on the amount of solar radiation that intersects with the earths surface. The output of the sun may vary, or conditions in the atmosphere between the sun and the surface may vary causing changes in the amount of solar energy that arrives, and where it arrives. Clouds are what I believe to be the major factor that drives that. The main problems with making a case for clouds is that there is little historical data available, and the understanding of the processes involved in the formation of clouds is low. This makes such discussions difficult, CO2 is a much simpler concept for the average punter to grasp, as you mentioned the thinking has already been done by others, so clouds are mostly consigned to the too hard basket. -
Tom Dayton at 04:46 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
theendisfar, if more money goes into your bank account than goes out of it, then money accumulates in your bank account. Whether that money is distributed across your checking, saving, and money market subaccounts within that bank account is irrelevant to the fact that the total bank account amount increases. Do you agree with that? -
chris at 04:38 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
theendisfar at 03:48 AM on 23 August, 2010 ”Energy is never actually trapped anywhere” Of course it is. Obviously one needs to be specific about what one means in any particular case. However it’s a dull “argument” that attempts to negate truism by semantic quibbling. The fact that the earth has a biosphere that is conducive to higher lifeforms, not to mention our entire way of life, is due to trapping energy; e.g.: - the energy of solar photons of visible wavelengths/energies is trapped in photosynthetic reactions, converted to free energy in ion gradients across cell membranes, and chemical bond energies in the form of (initially) generic carbohydrate (CH2O)n. It’s the trapping of solar energy that drives life processes. - Our societies are largely fuelled by the trapped energies of solar photons, sequestered for eons in the form of chemical energy, and released by controlled oxidation. - Our earth is around 33 oC warmer that it would be as a blackbody emitter with an earth-like albedo bathed in the solar flux in the absence of an atmosphere. The enhanced warmth is due to the trapping of solar energy by atmospheric greenhouse gases. More energy is retained in the earth system in the presence of greenhouse gases than would be there without them (around 33 oC's worth of surface temperature). Call it something else if you like but you can't negate a reality with semantic "arguments"! It’s obvious what “trapped energy” means in these real world contexts. -
theendisfar at 04:38 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Tom, The answer cannot be answered so simply because we do not agree. I can use simple terms, but the farther we are from having the same understanding, the more simple steps will have to be described. #139 has given me a better understanding of your understanding, so after I go out and enjoy some of this beautiful day, I will try to bring our understandings together from my end. Thanks for doing the same from your side. The distribution of that energy, and even its form (e.g., sensible heat versus latent heat) is irrelevant to that accumulation that results from that imbalance of in versus out. Do you agree with that? Not a chance, and I believe that I can accurately describe my position, but later :) -
theendisfar at 04:28 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
johnd, Glad someone is :) It frustrating as heck debating people who only rely on and offer other people's work, but can't find any flaws with your understanding. If they can't refute plain English how can I reliably think they have any understanding of the works they're offering? So it goes, I suppose. Just looking for a clarification, when TOA is being discussed, what point in the atmosphere is actually being considered the TOA? Beats me, but I will offer it plays little role in surface or even tropospheric temps with regards to any radiation that is 'trapped' in the system. As long as it is outside the Stratosphere, that is. Why/how would it? Curious, did you get a chance to ponder 107-110? -
Tom Dayton at 04:11 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
theendisfar, you wrote "You must understand that the journey of the energy within the system is just as important as to how much is incoming and how much s outgoing." You're not addressing my simple, direct question. The journey of the energy within the system is irrelevant to the bottom line of how much energy is coming in to the entire Earth system (atmosphere, land, ocean) as radiation from the Sun, minus how much energy is going out of that same system as radiation to outer space. Empirical evidence summarized at the top of this page tells us that the "in" energy is greater than the "out" energy. The unavoidable consequence is that energy accumulates inside the system. The distribution of that energy, and even its form (e.g., sensible heat versus latent heat) is irrelevant to that accumulation that results from that imbalance of in versus out. Do you agree with that? Simple question. -
theendisfar at 04:09 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
KR, That is what you're saying in that post! Absolutely not! What I'm saying is that the link you provided was an abstract that didn't even attempt to hide that it was a bunch of number crunching. Had I sent a similar link to you, I would have expected you, a skeptic of my position, to first note all the subjective terms and data massaging. Perhaps you would not have objected to such obvious areas of question, and instead you would have objected to the source's organizational affiliations, or font, or hair color or something. Beats me. But I don't need to rely on someone else's understanding when I have one myself. One that has not been falsified. Surprising given all the 'experts' here. What you sent me was not complicated, it didn't actually state anything once you added up all the estimates, computations, constraints, adjusted estimates, revised estimates, and modest changes. That's how AGW is most often explained. I say most often just to keep the possibility that someone can actually explain it in a way that a learned skeptical person could test themselves. Seriously, if I had sent you an abstract that had all that in the heading, you would not have laughed and said nice try buddy? Simply amazing. The fact that not one person here can refute my understanding is quite telling. Nice try gentlemen, but sorry; revising estimates, then adjusting them, adding constraints, and making modest changes + "AGW is real" ain't gonna cut it. -
johnd at 04:08 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
theendisfar at 03:48 AM, I enjoy following this exchange. It provides an exercise in lateral thinking which is probably lost on those who only think logically, which the inhabitants here predominately do. Just looking for a clarification, when TOA is being discussed, what point in the atmosphere is actually being considered the TOA? -
AWoL at 04:04 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
The Global Energy budgets are worse than bunkum because, 1) - The viewpoint used in IR budgets is simply wrong for what they try to depict and describe. At best the viewpoint used is misleading, but more likely the view is partial and inaccurate, being an instant and 2D view of a 24 hour and 3D planet. 2) - They completely misrepresent the real heat movements, depicting a ludicrous and physically impossible scene where radiation losses and movements dominate conduction, convection, and latent heat movements within the atmosphere. 3) - They hide / misrepresent the individual and comparative sizes (volumes) of the various energy flows. 4) - They do not take into account the temperature and the effects of the relative temperature differences of the energy flows. An agreed model of the atmosphere has to be arrived at for any meaningful debate to take place.If not agreed there will be nothing but endless nit-picking and confusion of units.All are agreed on units of time and the Earth's divisions and the location of 0deg Longitude.Something the same has to be done with respect to providing the layman with a reasonable working model of the Earth's atmosphere.The whole subject lacks definition. -
theendisfar at 03:48 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Tom, the energy trapped in the atmosphere by GHGs ends up in the form of heat, by those GHG molecules banging into other molecules. Energy is never actually trapped anywhere. We disagree on how the energy at the surface it transfered to the atmosphere. You say radiation being absorbed by GHG and then collisions with N2 and O2 molecules, I say via conduction at the surface and slightly, very slightly, by radiation absorption and then conduction to immediate surroundings. Convection merely helps speed that distribution, not reduce that total amount of energy. Have I stated otherwise? The total heat of the system increases. I believe I see the disconnect now that I quickly looked at #134. If you'll take a detailed look at 107-110, 128, last part of 130, and last paragraph of 131 it will help prepare you for my response to #134. Please take a moment to refute 107-110. You must understand that the journey of the energy within the system is just as important as to how much is incoming and how much s outgoing. Regions of the Earth's atmosphere are different temperatures, not only because of the input and outgoing energy, but because of the Transport mediums of available for the flow of energy. Your top of atmosphere reasoning (radiation only means of escape) has no explanation as to why the Troposphere averages 15 C at the surface and -54 C at the Tropopause (which is highly variable, altitude, from equator to poles). -
johnd at 03:39 AM on 23 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
Marcus at 20:49 PM, if you are claiming that the cloud chart is dubious, please backup such opinion by providing data that invalidates that depicted in the chart. It is up to you to provide any longer term data available if you feel the period covered is cherrypicking. Lets see what you have in real data. It is well established that the variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of surface ocean waters determine how events such as El-Nino/La-Nina and the IOD, as well as other similar events in other oceans, are formed. There are only two sources from where variations in SST can originate, those being the circulation of heat within the oceans, or the solar energy being absorbed at the surface. Given it is accepted that the heat content of the oceans is increasing, then that obviously begins with increasing the SST. Irrespective of whether you accept the data of the cloud chart or not, what is not in dispute is that clouds provide approximately 2/3 total coverage and that coverage is irregular and follows certain patterns over both the short term and longer term as evidenced by the cycles of droughts. It has been established that the USA dust bowl era was due to a combinatiion of SST in the Atlantic and the Pacific that altered the atmospheric circulation across that portion of America. Only time will tell if that was a random event or part of a cycle that may reappear in the not too distant future. -
muoncounter at 03:29 AM on 23 August 2010Weather vs Climate: Watch the waves, miss the turning of the tides
#3: "Three decades is far from long enough in determining either weather or climate trends" OK, so look at a longer time span:
This was made from a recent GISSTemp release going back to 1880. The plateaus represent each time a new high or low (in the temperature anomaly) is set.
Hot summers (JJA average) continue getting hotter, but summertime lows don't get any lower; winter (DJF average) record lows don't get any lower than the -0.62 deg C anomaly from 1893.
-
Tom Dayton at 03:07 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
theendisfar, you agreed that: 1. The Sun is the only input of energy to the Earth system (combined atmosphere, land, ocean). 2. CO2 traps some of that input energy. 3. Radiation is the only way for that input energy to escape the Earth system (combined atmosphere, land, ocean). Then surely you must agree that the total energy in the Earth system (combined atmosphere, land, ocean) increases as a result of the CO2 trapping energy. I'm talking about the total, regardless of where or how it is distributed within that system. Do you agree? Please give a simple, short, answer directly to that specific question.Moderator Response: Empirical evidence of point 2 is in the post at the top of this page, in the section "CO2 Traps Heat." Empirical evidence for the conclusion is in the section "The Planet is Accumulating Heat." -
There's no empirical evidence
theendisfar - You object to Trenberths measurements because they're complicated? That is what you're saying in that post! Imagine the following conversation about some science conclusion: "How did you measure your data for X?" "I used a mass spectrometer." "Ooo - that's complicated. And that opens more questions than it answers!" "Then I suggest you try disproving mass spectroscopy - good luck, come back when you have something valid to say." The various uncertainties in the Trenberth energy budget measures are on the scale of the total convective energy exchange - it's that small a portion of the energies (~18-20W/m^2, listed as "sensible heat"). IR from the ground (and back IR from the atmosphere) was first clearly measured in the 1950's, and has been repeatedly measured since then with a variety of instruments: ~396W/m^2. So: when you've disproved FTIR and pyrometers, and come up with different estimates for global precipitation and energy of vaporization of water - then we can talk about your new (and measured) energy budget. Insisting, in the face of actual measurements, that your personal world view is overridingly true (in this case that convection is the major portion of energy exchange) is a Common Sense logical error. It reflects a lack of domain specific experience. -
JMurphy at 02:31 AM on 23 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
poptech wrote : "No author has asked to have their papers removed. Pielke Jr. never did, Brooks never did, no one." Once again, I have to repeat what has already been repeated many times before, but which you still can't seem to understand : A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does. Roger Pielke Jr's Blog - Better recheck that list Of course, Poptech told Pielke what was skeptical about those papers and Pielke Jnr agreed and thanked Poptech for pointing out what his own papers were actually about. Actually, he didn't - he just ignored Poptech subsequently (probably a good strategy), and I suppose that speaks volumes about how he viewed his papers being abused in that way. To be more exact, Pielke Jnr showed Poptech where he could find proper scepticism, not made-up skepticism : "And if you want a good set of citations against certain "alarmist" conclusions (whatever you mean by that) I'd suggest the IPCC." -
johnd at 02:09 AM on 23 August 2010Weather vs Climate: Watch the waves, miss the turning of the tides
You've immediately confused the issue. Firstly you correctly state that to determine trends in climate, the changes in weather needs to be looked at over a long time span, then immediately provide a graph that uses the last 3 decades to support it. Three decades is far from long enough in determining either weather or climate trends when weather cycles have been identified where the rise and fall of the tides in a manner of speaking, takes 6 or 7 decades to complete both phases, in and out as it were, and reconstruction of El-Nino events indicate that perhaps any changes in the "tidal" frequency of them needs to be considered in terms of centuries. However, identifying any trends will always be the easy part, understanding what any trends and cycles mean and why they occur is the hard part. The tide analogy gives opportunity to consider whether the forces that drive the tides that affect even very small bodies of water, has what affect on the moisture suspended in the atmosphere? -
Tom Dayton at 01:39 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Theendisfar, the energy trapped in the atmosphere by GHGs ends up in the form of heat, by those GHG molecules banging into other molecules. Convection merely helps speed that distribution, not reduce that total amount of energy. The total heat of the system increases. -
theendisfar at 01:23 AM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
KR, Clarification. This is relevant because if what I have stated is accurate, cannot be falsified, then one of the understandings must be wrong. 'Understandings' meaning, energy can be added to a system by slowing, trapping, what have you, the radiation rate through whatever mechanism you like, GHE, enhanced GHE, super enhanced, etc versus the 1st and 2nd Laws are kept intact. The Sun is the only source of energy that adds energy to the Earth's system. Well, Star light (entire spectrum) does too if you want to get picky. This is why I brought up the back pressure that would occur if you slowed the rate of cooling by reducing the radiation rate (speed of light) and instead had to use Convection, several dozen meters per second max. The 2nd Law clearly shows that if you reduce the rate of one means of energy transfer, it will automatically increase the rate of another means if available. Again, for clarification, convection only moves the energy to the top of the Troposphere where radiation becomes the only means to transfer energy and it again reaches the speed of light. What I'm saying is that the atmosphere itself can easily absorb the extra 2 Watts from CO2 trapping via increased convection rate and by the elasticity of the atmosphere itself. The altitude of the troposphere is much higher at the equator than the poles far a reason. -
Yvan Dutil at 01:01 AM on 23 August 2010Dust-Up On Mars: Should Martians Be Sceptical of Global Warming?
First, Mars has no water, no tectonics plates and no magnetosphere or ozone layer. This means that you can hardly extrapolate observation of Mars to Earth. Also, the Mars Milankovitch cycle is rather different than teh Earth one. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~norb1/Papers/2008-milank.pdf -
muoncounter at 00:54 AM on 23 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
#30: "what TSI produced an equilibrium temperature of the Earth system in pre-industrial times with no other external forcings" I'm not sure what you mean. Why require 'no other externals?' Although volcanic cooling, as you suggest, is short-lived (even Pinatubo was only a 2-3 year event). And I am not aware of the significance of an 'equilibrium pre-industrial temperature'. The TSI data I've looked at (for example) show a short-term oscillation, which matches sunspot numbers reasonably well, modulated by long term signals (also present in sunspot numbers). For example, there were deep sunspot lows in the early 19th and again in the early 20th centuries. To the extent that surface temps follow these long term signal, do we not say 'its the sun?' However, when surface temps diverge from the solar signal, should we not look for the cause? What cause are you proposing?
Prev 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 Next
