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:
-
robert way at 23:06 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
Humanity Rules, You're building strawmen. No one says that oceans circulation changes cannot be contributing to current warming. The dominant forcing is CO2 and the secondary forcing today is the AMO. Who says that ALL warming is caused by CO2 and that there aren't natural contributors? Which reconstructions are the best? Personally I think Moburg et al. 2005 is the best. I've seen quite a bit of evidence to support this theory including Moburg (2008). The thermometer is valid at the end, proxies are calibrated against the thermometer in order to decide which ones to use. If you can calibrate against one then you are essentially saying that only proxies which correlate well with the instrumental record are being selected, thereby making it an appropriate choice. For the record also, Moburg et al. 2005 does not rely on 6 proxies and neither does Mann et al. 2008 or Mann et al. 2009 or Mann et al. 2003 or D'Arrigo et al. 2006 or Viau et al. 2006, or Kaufman et al. 2009. So perhaps it is best that you not regurgitate common skeptic arguments that are completely flawed ok? For the record also, notice many of these are hemispheric reconstructions and i'm sure you are mistaken in saying 6 points were used for a recent global reconstruction. You should consider keeping things to yourself if you are going to make clear errors in what you say. -
JMurphy at 22:47 PM on 23 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Poptech wrote : "Pielke Jr. has never asked for anything to b removed, which is irrelevant as his papers were never submitted to the list so he cannot have them removed. Regardless is papers are not listed based on his original misunderstanding." Convoluted (and confused), or what ? Let's break that paragraph down : "Pielke Jr. has never asked for anything to b removed..." Um, yes he did : you just keep ignoring his words here : 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 Then again, going by the next part of your paragraph, you DID notice his words but chose to ignore them, when you write : ...which is irrelevant as his papers were never submitted to the list so he cannot have them removed." So, he DID ask for his papers to be removed but you think his request is "irrelevant" because he didn't submit them in the first place and you have decided that they are staying, no matter what the original author thinks. And, in fact, Pielke Jnr did show you how you could possibly square the circle of using papers that should not be used the in the way you believe they can be used : There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category. If they sopport _your_ skepticism then I suggest retitling the post to be: "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting My Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" Roger Pielke Jr's Blog - Better recheck that list I'd suggest then that you clarify your post and its title to more accurately reflect what it purports to show. Roger Pielke Jr's Blog - Better recheck that list That would then give you the right to use papers in any strange way you wish to, even if the original authors don't agree with the way their papers are being used - you can then tell them that it is YOUR opinion of what their papers are about, to back up YOUR version of skepticism. Why don't you change the title yet again, so it better represents real-world reality ? But, in the end, you believe you know best and believe you have explained the rationale behind your little list (even though that wasn't agreed by Pielke Jnr) when you assert : "Regardless is papers are not listed based on his original misunderstanding." So, even though Pielke DID ask for his papers to be removed but you think that his request was "irrelevant" (according to your own strange criteria), you are going to disregard everything because he doesn't seem to realise what it is you are trying to do by using his papers. Well, does anyone but you know what your little list represents ? I very much doubt it. -
Ned at 22:32 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
HumanityRules writes: That in-filling is dependant on the theories that support AGW. Can you explain what you mean by that? As far as I can tell, the questions of whether N proxies are sufficient for a hemispherical temperature reconstruction, and how best to spatially weight those N proxies, are mostly statistical in nature. How exactly is the interpolation or weighting of proxies "dependent on the theories that support AGW"? Which theories? Also, could you cite what you're referring to as "the best multi-proxy reconstructions"? -
adelady at 22:19 PM on 23 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
Lou, My feeling is that experts need to *first* say that soemthing is or is not consistent with expectations. Both you and I want to say something more about the dangers, but experts also have to avoid being seen as doomsayers. Saying we need time for the science was really my strategy for getting reporters off the back pronto, rather than getting into long-winded explanations of statistical esoterica. Because we know where that can finish up. -
HumanityRules at 22:15 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
On your first point. How do we get a global average temp for the MWP when the best multi-proxy reconstructions reply on as little as 6 data point for the whole of the SH at that time? There has to be a huge level of in-filling. That in-filling is dependant on the theories that support AGW. Secondly, I've read articles recently that suggest again that much of the high latitude NH warming is again due to ocean circulation. What's wrong with accepting this as part of the picture today? Fianlly I'm still unconvinced that pasting the thermometer record on the end of a proxy reconstruction is totally valid. I agree it's very appealing but is it valid? -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:02 PM on 23 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
I think it's wrong to say that these extreme events are caused by climate change. But it's equally wrong to say that climate change isn't in all likelihood contributing to the severity of these events. But back to the original post, keep giving because the scale of this crisis is huge. -
Pete Ridley at 21:35 PM on 23 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
"This is exactly the kind of thing we expect with climate disruption. We'll need a few months to analyse whether this particular event is in that category". Distortion of facts again. The fact is that the Pakistan floods are the result of an unusual but not unheard of weather event, along with the China floods, Western Russia drought and other global catastrophes cause by weather events. As someone who has far more expertise about weather than anyone here says in the Climate Realist article “Breaking - Russian heat wave due to dramatic changes in solar activity – Interview with forecaster Piers Corbyn” (Note 1) QUOTE: This year Russia was hit by a record-breaking heat wave that led to wildfires which killed dozens and left thousands homeless. Weather forecaster Piers Corbyn says this is a result of weather cycles, not global warming. “What we have is a tremendous amount of activity on the sun and that affects the rush of particles from the sun to the earth and that changes the ionosphere and that also changes the circulation patterns of the globe in what is known as the jet stream,” Corbyn explained. “And that caused a shifting of the weather patterns so the south wind in Western Russia terminated and instead we got a northwestern flow of thunderstorms and cooling” UNQUOTE. NOTES: 1) see http://climaterealists.com/?id=6173 Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Pete Ridley at 21:30 PM on 23 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
KR, ref. your comments at 05.22 and 05:51 on 20th, please stop distorting what I say. I know it’s a popular tactic with supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis but it simply undermines your credibility when you can’t back up what you claim. Nowhere in that comment to which you link have I said that global warming, ice cap melting or ocean acidification isn’t happening. Even the comments of John O’Sullivan and Charles Anderson which I quote do not say that. What is said is quite different and is perfectly expressed in the final sentence of the final quote “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth. There is clearly no basis for the claims that the Earth has warmed at unusual rates in recent times or that we know anything more than some local temperatures, mostly from urban heat effect zones”. Doug, my response to your comment has been removed to I've posted on the new thread “Pakistan Flood: Many More Will Die .. ” Best regards, Pete ridley -
Lou Grinzo at 20:41 PM on 23 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
adelady: "This is exactly the kind of thing we expect with climate disruption. We'll need a few months to analyse whether this particular event is in that category." I agree completely with the first sentence, but what does the second one mean? In what category? The response just said it was the kind we'll see more of with further disruption, so what's left to decide that could be determined in "a few months"? Surely you're not saying that in a few months scientists would be able to determine if AGW definitively caused any given event. I would keep the first sentence you propose and change the second to something like, "If we continue to pour 30 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year then tragedies like this will happen more and more often." And yes, everyone needs to donate. I made a similar plea on my site yesterday (http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2010/08/22/helping-and-learning-from-pakistan/), and I even linked to the same articles John did. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:31 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
Agreed. For the current warming cycle is likely to correspond to 2.5 thousand. years, + 4.2 thousand years, maybe six thousand. years. MWP is only responsible for a cycles of Millennium. see here. The current solar activity is the Grand Maximum - Solar cycle variations on the millennial times scale: a challenge for solar dynamo theory, Usoskin, 2010.. The MWP in NH, however, was much warmer than today. The logical conclusion: still waiting for us so much bigger natural warming, than is now and was in the MCA. Currently, the Earth is getting warmer just unevenly - as in the MWP - as usually happens in the Millennium cycles: Most of Antarctica is cooling, like for example central and N. China ( Characteristics of cold–warm variation in the Hetao region and its surrounding areas in China during the past 5000 years, Li, 2010.), Fennoskandia (Grud, 2008.), and Western Europe is warming much faster than expected.): “The MODEL [including anthropogenic GHG] simulates a factor 1.24±0.09 faster warming than the global mean, but the OBSERVATIONS have a trend A=2.50 ± 0.39.” This is 0.75 (global) to 0.94 deg. C (W. E.) in secular scale. IPCC report: “The Working Group I (WGI) WGI FAR noted that past climates could provide analogues. Fifteen years of research since that assessment has identified a range of variations and instabilities in the climate system that occurred during the last 2 Myr of glacial-interglacial cycles and in the super-warm period of 50 Ma. These past climates do not appear to be analogues of the immediate future, yet they do reveal a wide range of climate processes that need to be understood when projecting 21st-century climate change ...” -
adelady at 19:59 PM on 23 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
Everybody needs to donate. Unfortunately the aid and international coordinating organisations need to restructure around the likelihood of more than one international scale catastrophe per year. And climate scientists need to learn the right reaction when a microphone is shoved under the nose... "Is this due to global warming?" "This is exactly the kind of thing we expect with climate disruption. We'll need a few months to analyse whether this particular event is in that category." State the possibility first. Emphasise the need for more science to be accurate. -
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.
Prev 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 Next
