Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 Next
Comments 114151 to 114200:
-
scaddenp at 07:36 AM on 28 July 2010Models are unreliable
" than quote Vincent Gray “they have failed to predict the temperature in the Lower Troposphere and any future climate event .. “ and “ .. climate models have never been validated in the manner I have stated ..”." I can only assume you mean the denialist canard about tropospheric hot spot because models predict lower tropospheric temperatures very well. For some real information, try tropospheric hot spot As to Gray's validation. Since you apparently understand what he means, can you enlighten the rest of us? And can you please read the Hansen 2006 paper that has been repeatedly pointed out to you. "a) can only be achieved through making adjustments to parameters until the desired result is achieved (as you acknowledge “The actual pattern of temperature rise that you get in the model depends on how the model is initialised.”)," No - you are completely misunderstanding what is meant by 'initialisation of models'. How can you be so critical of models when it appears you know so little about them? This is discussed in depth in IPCC WG1 and in the text of the Keelyside et al paper has more. This Keenlyside paper is criticized and the matter discussed further here You also seem to stubbornly refuse to accept that predictions, accurate to level within the prediction, have been made. Any prediction of any scientific value has error limits associated with it. Demanding a prediction be better than those internal limits is pointless. -
Pete Ridley at 07:27 AM on 28 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Recently, Marc Morano, senior editor of CFACT's Climate Depot, sat down with Dr. Denis Rancourt to discuss his views on global warming. Dr. Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa and a noted liberal environmentalist. However, when it comes to global warming, Dr. Rancourt disagrees with his fellow leftists. "They look to comfortable lies," said Rancourt of global warming believers. Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWVXarkPOAo to hear more of what Dr. Rancourt has to say. I wonder what you‘d get if you put this scientist in amongst those 100 climate scientists. Best regards, Pete RidleyResponse: "I wonder what you‘d get if you put this scientist in amongst those 100 climate scientists"
He wouldn't get in the room, he's not a climate scientist. He's a physicist, specialising primarily in spectroscopy and hasn't published any peer-reviewed research on climate science. -
KR at 07:26 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - I'm afraid that your last comment has left me scratching my head in puzzlement. What in the world are you talking about?!? No matter what the energy expenditure, it ends up as heat. It might be fast (car radiator), it might be really slow (decomposition of manufactured plastic), it might be IR or even latent heat (water vapor from power plant cooling tower) - but it all ends up as heat. As watts (or more properly joules - 1 watt is 1 joule/second). Direct expenditures (waste heat) end up in the atmosphere or waters within minutes (both IR or convection), energy used (electricity, for example) takes a bit longer. Joules are not stamped with ID tags, any more than photons are. Watts are Watts. If you can't explain your issue more clearly I'm just going to have to say I don't understand your objection. -
KR at 07:15 AM on 28 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley - Regarding the model value as discussed here, I would have to disagree with your statements. The Hansen model (and others) map physical phenomena into the computer model (white box modeling) and attempt to replicate previous system behavior. Adjustments to match historic results are certainly made - and if the modelers are doing their job right, this is part of an investigation to understand critical parameters such as feedback levels, time constants, and the like (black box modeling). Both white box (all known, first principles) and black box (estimations of unknowns) are core techniques for modeling. The critical power of a model really lies in estimating future states, the "Given 'A', predict 'B'". The Hansen model did this quite well - Scenario B, which Hansen considered most likely, was actually close to the economic and industrial conditions that have prevailed over the last 22 years, and the predictions made by Hansen were correspondingly close to what has actually happened. When fed the actual industrial numbers (a matter of economics and political decisions, rather than purely physics interactions) it's accurate to well within the weather noise level. See this link for an overview, and quite frankly the Hansen 2006 document describes this most clearly. That's an excellent model - it makes useful predictions that have been shown to be accurate. It certainly doesn't capture every element of chaotic weather overlaid on climate, cannot predict the frequency of volcanic eruptions, and doesn't model down to the cubic millimeter - but the predictions and the interaction estimates certainly hold up. Demanding 100% accuracy means that you will never accept a model. That's certainly your choice, but I believe that will leave you with quite a few tools missing from the toolbox. If you feel that a model, one which given actual industrial activity levels closely predicts temperatures 22 years into the future, and which allows exploring different outcomes based upon our actions, is not worthwhile, well, then I'll have to continue to disagree. As an aside, I must note that I don't consider Luboš Motl a reliable source - he's obviously an expert in string theory, but has no climate background and seems unfamiliar with logarithmic responses to GHG's. He also posts from a clear ideological framework rather than a scientific one in the climate arena. I prefer numbers, myself... -
RSVP at 07:12 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
CBDunkerson #47 "The latter. No one comprehends it... because it is self-evidently false. 2 is 2, up is not down, and watts are watts." Yes watts are watts, but I am sure you comprehend when paying your energy bill if the watts refers to consumption over 1 month, 2 months or one year. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:05 AM on 28 July 2010Models are unreliable
That's a very tired list, Pete. Before various people here drag themselves through the effort of once again providing some corrections, have you by any chance already discussed this elsewhere? If so, could you quickly list what rebuttals you encountered? That would be most helpful in saving everybody some time and wasted effort. -
Pete Ridley at 06:46 AM on 28 July 2010Models are unreliable
I did post a longer comment prior to my #219 but it looks as though admin removed it. I’ll E-mail it to Phil instead, meanwhile this bit may be allowed. Phil, ref. #206, You ask “Where have the models failed?” and I can do no better than quote Vincent Gray “they have failed to predict the temperature in the Lower Troposphere and any future climate event .. “ and “ .. climate models have never been validated in the manner I have stated ..”. Jmurphy. in #217 you ask of my use of The (..) Hypothesis" “.. doesn't Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] do it for you ? .. ”. Like you, I and many other sceptics accept “ .. the scientific facts behind AGW ..” but what we don’t accept are the assumptions made about its significance or other assumptions made in the face of the enormous uncertainties about the processes and drivers of global climates. I use my alternative “ .. .. rather convoluted and bizarre term -.. “ to highlight the distinction between “DAGWers” and “Deniers” – that word “significant”. KR, ref. #203/205/218, using your criteria in #203: a) Ability to match previous observations (historic data) b) Ability to predict future observations c) Ability to estimate different future states based on different inputs (Given 'A', predict 'B') d) Match of model internal relationships to known physical phenomena e) Simplicity (no nested 'crystal spheres' for epicycles) my understanding is that because no independent validation has ever been undertaken there is no evidence to refute the argument that: a) can only be achieved through making adjustments to parameters until the desired result is achieved (as you acknowledge “The actual pattern of temperature rise that you get in the model depends on how the model is initialised.”), b) no dependable predictions have ever been made, c) estimates are not dependable predictions, d) it is the significant unknowns that make the models incapable of making dependable predictions, e) it is their simplicity which renders them little more reliable than crystal balls. If you have evidence to the contrary then it would help if you provided a link to it. Regarding the attempt to estimate mean global temperature, your “ .. argument really doesn't hold water .. ”. Reading “The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature” (Note 7) and “NASA GISS Inaccurate Press Release On The Surface Temperature Trend Data” (Note 8) may be of assistance to you. NOTES: 1) see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html 2) see http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/nasa-giss-inaccurate-press-release-on-the-surface-temperature-trend-data/ Best regards, Pete Ridley -
DarkSkywise at 06:17 AM on 28 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
reply from John Cook to my post @ 01:40 AM on 22 July, 2010: "I'm going to shortly restructure the whole rebuttal database so that will throw everything into disarray and we'll need to rethink the whole translation system too." I can see you're busy... I just noticed the new "tab blurbs" in Dutch. Muchmuchbetterthankyouyes!!! :D Another thing I was thinking of: comment sections for the translated arguments, so people from other countries who don't speak english very good (:P) could ask questions and post comments too? -
MattJ at 06:16 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
"Waste heat" has always been somewhat of a misleading term. Perhaps that is why it is used freely in engineering course on thermodynamics, but almost never in physics courses;) The reason it is misleading is because heat, qua heat, is always the same: 'waste' heat and 'useful' heat are physically indistinguishable. The distinction can only be made in a process: the waste heat is the heat you cannot use in the process to do work. It has to be dumped into the environment to dispose of entropy. But there is another kind of 'waste heat, much easier to define: the heat generated in this thread, which is certainly a waste;) -
Berényi Péter at 06:06 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
#157 Ned at 04:22 AM on 28 July, 2010 I'd be happier if you'd spatially weighted the data rather than using a simple average Here you go. At least now it is divided into broad regions. Of course the African stripe is centered on Sahel and also includes Southern Arabia. The numbers in parenthesis are the number of GHCN stations in that region.
It is only over the Pacific, where some decline can be observed, but I am not sure it is significant, because there are only 6 active GHCN stations there.
Otherwise it is pretty stable, except some initial decline then a slow rise south of the great desert region and a recent rather steep rise in the South-East Asian monsoon belt (that's what pulled up the global average in the previous graph).
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:06 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
Nice job with the Stefan-Boltzmann matter, Ned and Peter, a lovely arc. Peter's train of examples from the sublime to the sweaty was sweetly expressed and as well included some hints about why GHG's work at all and meanwhile Ned seems to have reached AWoL with a combination of gentle pokes combined with patience as well as removing AWoL's notion of emissivity from the realm of suspicious "fudge." AWoL for his/her part turns out to be tractable and contrary to my Pavlovian training exits for the time being in grace, better informed. How refreshing. -
DarkSkywise at 05:26 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
dcwarrior at 04:00 AM on 28 July, 2010: "the CO2 greenhouse effect works by adding small amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere faster than the natural processes get rid of it" Almost. ;) The greenhouse effect is already present because there's already CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. What happens is that the greenhouse effect is increased because we put more CO2 in the air than nature can handle. And it's a lot: "Currently, humans are emitting around 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year. Around 43% remains in the atmosphere - this is called the 'airborne fraction'. The rest is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans." (Are CO2 levels increasing?) -
CBW at 05:24 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
CBDunkerson @52, you should add to the end of your statement that the energy in the Earth's climate must increase *until a new equilibrium is reached*, since the amount of energy that escapes is a function of the temperature. If CO2 (and everything else) was held constant, then we'd warm up asymptotically to some equilibrium (assuming we don't hit some non-linear feedback before we get there). But, of course, CO2 isn't being held constant, so the equilibrium point is moving away from us even as we chase it. -
AWoL at 05:22 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
Good and patient reply Ned. Thanks for that. You're getting me back on to the straight and narrow. Regarding "dummies" and books, Dunning-Kruger etc. Isn't there a real problem nowadays in that whilst expert in our own fields we are all "at sea" with respect to other areas, especially those distant to our own. So a high level of trust is required, for never in human history has there been such a high division of labour.When it comes to climate science we depend on very few people to get this right and recent events have done nothing to support or build that trust. That little polemic over, I'm off to Science of Doom for a second look(good explanation of the moon temp phenomenon) Darkskywise, I know what you are experiencing. Heaven only knows why(probably idle conversation), but I get asked about"this global warming stuff". With regard to the understanding of the general public, I can well see why ancient societies worked on the principle of"the few set aside to bless the many".Universal education for all is a very recent and unusual phenomenon in human history. There is a duty to explain,truthfully and clearly, for that which is not understood will be rejected. -
ptbrown31 at 05:08 AM on 28 July 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Tom Dayton - "You have misunderstood the skeptic argument that blames the PDO for the "apparent" global warming long trend. That skeptic argument is not that the PDO has a long-term warming trend. Rather, the skeptic argument is that no long-term warming trend exists. At all." Perhaps I have misunderstood the skeptical argument that this post is directly addressing but nevertheless I have indeed heard it argued that the PDO has caused the long term upward warming trend. My problem with this post is that it seems to use the fact that there is no upward trend in the PDO as evidence that the PDO could not have caused an upward trend in temperature. My problem is that this PDO index is trendless for artificial reasons. Like you said, someone defined the PDO such that it would not have a long term trend. This does not seem to be good evidence to dismiss it as a contributor to warming. -
CBDunkerson at 04:40 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
dcwarrior, yep that's about the shape of it. The only thing which isn't clearly stated (though it may be what you meant) from your summation is that the increasing CO2 doesn't create additional heat directly... rather it slows down the rate at which heat escapes to space. Since more energy is always coming in from the Sun if the rate of energy escape decreases then the total energy in the Earth's climate must increase. -
Ned at 04:22 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
Hey, thanks, BP. That is ... interesting. Of course, I'd be happier if you'd spatially weighted the data rather than using a simple average. If you don't do that it's really important to understand the spatial structure of the data, so without seeing some maps or other information about the distribution of stations and autocorrelation within the data it's hard to know whether this is valid or ... not. But I do notice that the general pattern (declining up to the late 1980s, then increasing) seems to match what was described in the Huffman paper in the comment just before yours. So there's potentially some consistency here. -
Ned at 04:01 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR writes: There's no Maxwell's demon choosing joules of heat energy based on their origin Excellent reference, much better than my Heat Fairy above. RSVP, maybe it would help if I could try to summarize your argument? Tell me if I have this right: (1) Waste heat is efficiently shunted to the atmosphere, particularly to N2 and O2 molecules which, not being radiatively active, retain the heat, distribute it around the earth, and let it accumulate. (2) In contrast, the radiative forcing from CO2 is overstated because (a) Part of the radiation isn't captured, and escapes into space. (b) The rest of it is just captured by CO2 molecules, which re-emit it, eventually letting it escape to space, so it doesn't accumulate. Is that a good first approximation of your argument? What parts am I not quite getting? -
Doug Bostrom at 04:01 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ned, thanks! I'm trying the Chuck Yeager approach w/regard to being in a flat spin or similar baffling circumstance, paraphrased: "Keep on flying the airplane, keep on trying different things, don't assume you're going to augur-in just because the first thing you tried failed." I'm trying to push different buttons. I'm still not sure what the problem is here, but the whole matter reminds me of the "smart photons" we dealt with earlier, the photons that as it turns out don't know the temperature of objects impinging on their future path. I'm getting the sense here that energy from AHF is supposed to be different somehow, knows where it came from and thus must behave differently in the future. TOP implies that heat escaping from an iron engine block at a given temperature is different somehow from that which would escape from a similar store of heat derived from a source not supplied by liberation of chemical energy and stored in a rock. We know that's not the case. TOP must accept that or give a reasonably detailed, plausible explanation consistent with the real world of how it is otherwise. -
dcwarrior at 04:00 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
CBD and John Russell - thanks. Could you get even more succinct by saying (I am pretty sure my facts are wrong here, so maybe someone can tune it up), the CO2 greenhouse effect works by adding small amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere faster than the natural processes get rid of it, and thereby causes more heat to be retained in the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case. In theory, the waste heat works the same way, only, the amount of excess heat caused by humans is [100x?] less in relation to all heat produced in nature than man-made CO2 bears to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Humankind would have to create a lot more heat in order for that to be a problem. The Ville, I think you are factually correct, but I don't think someone who didn't already agree with you would be convinced by that argument. -
Berényi Péter at 03:55 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
#149 Ned at 00:21 AM on 28 July, 2010 Provided of course that illogical and unfriendly interpretations are preferred to simple and straightforward ones! OK, you have won. I went into the pains of calculating annual average precipitation for all recently available GHCN stations between the equator and 20 N. It looks like this:
There are 229 GHCN stations in this latitudal stripe with some data in 2009. Of these 229 stations 211 were already alive in 1960, 180 in 1950 and 99 in 1920. But the overall shape of the curve does not depend much on the choice of station set. It starts to decline indeed after about 1960, as you say New et al. (2001) claims.
But then, around 1990 it departs from their reconstruction sharply and starts to rise again to the same or slightly higher level by 2009 as it used to be before 1960.
[self-censorship]
-
KR at 03:38 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - Therein lies the rub. Once in the atmosphere, watts (joules) and photons are just that, energy. Conduction/convection heat an area within about 2 meters (figuring a car engine in the open), IR heats an air mass over 10-100 meters of absorption, and once that's happened it's just energy in the air. Energy used gets dissipated as heat - whether it's electrical, mechanical, waste heat from power generation, whatever, it will eventually come out as heat. There's no Maxwell's demon choosing joules of heat energy based on their origin, no ID cards on the photons - you have warm air. There is no difference in what happens to those joules of energy once they have dissipated into the atmosphere. Watts is watts. No ifs, ands, or buts, no qualifiers. Once it gets into the system it's just indistinguishable watts. The frustration you may sense in some of the posts is due to an inability to understand how that simple fact could be denied. So - back to the orders of magnitude. The 1% of energy from AHF compared to the 99% of energy from GHG entrapment? As Ned put it in the related thread: If you eat a single saltine cracker AND a pint of ice cream a day (all of which go into calories once digested), which do you think makes you put on the pounds? -
CBDunkerson at 03:35 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP #46 wrote: "I explain above however how "watts is not watts", but this was ignored (or not comprehended)." The latter. No one comprehends it... because it is self-evidently false. 2 is 2, up is not down, and watts are watts. Energy going into the atmosphere from solar heating is exactly the same as energy going into the atmosphere from human industry. Every watt of either will interact with the climate in exactly the same way. Also, as I explained to you previously, if heat generated from combustion of fossil fuels WERE causing global warming the sustainable solution would be exactly the same as that here in reality... stop using fossil fuels. There is more than enough solar and/or wind power to replace fossil fuels, and since they use energy already present in the climate system (rather than 'locked away' in the ground) they wouldn't be introducing 'new' heat the way fossil fuels do. -
Ned at 03:33 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
Hmmm. It looks like there is a gridded precipitation data set here. That might be worth checking out. The paper describing it (Huffman et al. 2009) does calculate trends (1979-present) for the tropics, although not separately for the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere tropics. For the whole 25N to 25S band, they show a slight increase in precip 1979-present over ocean. Over land, there's a slight decrease in precip, but it looks like it may be an artifact of the data sources, and it reverses after 1988. -
RSVP at 03:20 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
I just want to say that I "have" captured the message from posters that AGW represents climate forcing two orders of magnitude greater than "anthropogenic waste heat". I explain above however how "watts is not watts", but this was ignored (or not comprehended). This point aside, it is interesting to note what happens to the label "deniers" in this context. The idea of waste heat being responsible for global warming would be a most "inconvenient truth" indeed, as most are likely to harbor that if this is the real problem, there is no (sustainable) solution. If so, this would be very ironic indeed. Ironic if one believes in AGW only because a magic wand supposedly exists (i.e., getting rid of fossil fuels). -
Ned at 03:16 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
I have to admit that while I like the idea of the "Dummies" books, the title has always bugged me (something about catering to people's poor self-image and/or anti-intellectualism?) Maybe I should start my own publishing company for books called "___________ for basically intelligent people who happen not to have learned a lot about whatever-it-is yet". Come to think of it, there's probably a reason that I've never gotten rich off of books. -
Ned at 03:10 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Doug, I yield to no one in my admiration of your contributions to this site, but I still don't understand the point of the rock. Maybe I'm dense as a rock myself, but it doesn't really seem to clarify anything for me. I think it's much more helpful to keep the focus on what happens in the atmosphere. Waste heat warms the atmosphere, greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Once that warming has occurred, there's really no difference between the two -- aside from the two orders of magnitude difference in quantity. If anything, dragging in that rock just caters to RSVP's misconceptions and his focus on what happens on the surface instead of what happens in the atmosphere. -
DarkSkywise at 03:05 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
AWoL at 01:20 AM on 28 July, 2010: "Maybe there should be a 'dummies section'." I kind of agree here... I've had a lot of discussions about climate on Dutch forums and although I always try to make things as simple as possible, there's usually a "Ja, het is nu eenmaal een erg gecompliceerde materie" somewhere. (The last two words mean "complicated matter", as you might have already guessed.) "Why is CO2 a greenhouse gas?" "Because it does this-and-that." "Why does it do this and that?" "Um, how well versed are you in quantum mechanics?" "So you're going to use fake science talk now? Well, that proves to me that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and AGW isn't real!" And so on. (I wish I was making this up, but unfortunately, I'm not.) So a Climate Change For Dummies Who'll Use Every Excuse To Stay As Uninformed As Possible would sometimes be very handy indeed! -
Ned at 03:00 AM on 28 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete, I've given my opinion about the perceived "slowdown" or "flattening" over in the thread about surface temperature reconstructions, particularly this comment. Regarding the last paragraph of your comment, you've created a false parallel. Urban areas are where they are; no extrapolation is needed or appropriate. We don't suspect that there might be a hitherto unknown city in the middle of the North Atlantic, based on interpolation between Boston and London. In contrast, we use a very small subset of the entire surface of the Earth (weather stations) to calculate the broad-scale mean climate. In fact, as mentioned in the other thread this can be done to some degree using as few as 61 stations. At the same time, we can test our temperature reconstructions by comparison to spatially more-extensive measurements from satellite. Finally, you might want to consider toning down the writing style a bit. Sentences like "[...] the temperature measurements, which are subjected to significant statistical manipulation before being considered suitable for presenting a picture which supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis through our use of fossil fuels [...]" may seem like an amusing way to slip in lots of little digs at climate scientists, but all they really do is lead to turgid prose and a disinclination on the reader's part to keep reading. -
Paul D at 02:56 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
dcwarrior: "OK, the deniers are telling me that CO2 is only a tiny % of the atmosphere so how could any change in that possibly affect the global temperature. " The Ville: They are ignoring the total picture. CO2 and other greenhouse gases respond to radiated heat. In the IR spectrum, CO2 is about 9% of the warming atmosphere. Water Vapour in the region of 80% or so, although it fluctuates a lot. You'll also find skeptics and deniers suggesting water vapour is more a more abundant greenhouse gas, which sort of negates the idea that CO2 is a trace gas! eg. they contradict each other. dcwarrior: And they go on to say that human caused CO2 is small in relation to that. The Ville: The issue is what impact our additions make to the system and what other impacts humans have on the system. It is the total increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of changes in sources and sinks that cause more warming. eg. a small change in atmospheric CO2 leads to other effects which increase greenhouse gases further, causing more warming. dcwarrior: So, seeing as how the human caused warming is only a small % of the total earth warming, isn't that the same thing?" The Ville: Your conclusion is incorrect based on the previous incorrect assumptions. -
Ned at 02:35 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
AWoL, let's see. In no particular order: "The earth absorbs radiation as a disc...pi.r^2 but radiates it as a sphere....4.pi.r^2.....so just divide the incoming flux by 4". Yet the area irradiated is 2.pi.r^2.Is that a reasonable assumption? Maybe to a physicist, but not to a layman. Imagine inserting a very large piece of paper in front of the earth (perpendicular to the sun's rays). You'd see a very bright circle, with roughly 1360 watts/m2 of solar irradiance shining on the paper. Now take away the paper. The same total number of watts are shining on the Earth ... but the surface of the Earth is curved, so they're spread out over a larger area (an entire hemisphere). So yes, the quote you cite is correct. The Earth emits radiation from its entire spherical surface (area = 4 pi r^2). It receives solar insolation from a cross-sectional area that is a circle (area = pi r ^2) though it's spread out over a half-sphere. For a planet in radiative balance, its radiant exitance would have to be 1/4 as many W/m2 as whatever the solar constant is at its orbital distance. Another comment from AWoL: It looks as though there is little wrong with SB at earthly temperatures. The problems seem to come with assumptions built into application in the real world, such as happened on the moon.... There isn't really anything wrong with S-B, but you do need to apply it in a properly characterized system. That means not just dealing with the spectral emissivity of the object being modeled, but with its thermal conductance etc. If you're interested in the Moon case, you might want to check out this nice explanation over at Science of Doom: Lunar Madness and Physics Basics The article you cite at climatology.suite101.com is actually what provoked the guy at SoD to put that together. Without trying to be rude, I would just say that the original source is a bit of a mess. For what it's worth, I use thermal scanners and thermal radiometers from time to time in my work. There is lots and lots and lots of science and engineering that involves using thermal remote sensing systems to measure the temperature of normal earth surface features. There are minor sources of error, like in everything. But there's not some massive bias, whereby you're flying over the Pacific and your thermal radiometer says the sea surface temperature is 80 C while a buoy down on the surface reports a more reasonable 14 C. If there were huge problems with S-B people would have discovered them long ago. Back to AWoL: Sorry for taking up space in exploring those fundamentals. Maybe there should be a "dummies section".I just don't see how one can form a reasonable opinion of AGW, without checking on the fundamental physics first......the actual measured results , here on Earth No problem. One nice thing about sites like this (and Science of Doom) is that we can answer each other's "dummy" questions and learn from others. However, I'd just be a bit careful about the "wanting to check on everything" thing. It's an admirable attitude, and useful in many ways. There is, however, a danger that one will assume that because I don't understand something it must be wrong. Now, I'm not a marine geochemist. If I were to start looking into the details of the air/sea CO2 flux, and I thought I'd discovered a problem, a certain amount of humility would be in order. It's highly unlikely that I, an amateur, have discovered some great flaw that's unknown to Taro Takahashi, Wally Broecker, etc. So I should probably proceed cautiously rather than leaping to the conclusion "Aha! I've just disproved all of marine geochemistry!" People who don't get that tend to veer off into Dunning-Kruger. -
Pete Ridley at 02:34 AM on 28 July 2010Models are unreliable
Ned, ref. #220, I’m sure you wouldn’t wish to mislead anyone with your “Pete Ridley writes: And since 1998, it's just cooling”. More correctly, Pete Ridley quotes Physicist Luboš Motl who writes: … What I said on the subject (see #213) was:- If the global mean temperature estimates produced by the Hadley Centre etc. are to be trusted (“lies, damned lies and statistics”) we may have already had over 10 years of “flat or negative temperatures while GHGs rise” so may not have much longer to wait in order to “clearly invalidate AGW”. The Hadley Centre “Global average temperature 1850-2009” graph (Note 1) tells me that since 2000 the anomaly (wrt 61-90) has changed by under 0.05C. That’s near enough flat in my book. Correct me if I am mistaken but if the 21-year smoothing is removed then the last decade, according to those same statistics, has experienced virtually no change in mean global temperature The Met. Office commented on this (Note 2) with “ .. Recent Met Office research investigated how often decades with a stable or even negative warming trend appeared in computer-modelled climate change simulations. Jeff Knight, lead author on the research, says: “We found one in every eight decades has near-zero or negative global temperature trends in simulations. Given that we have seen fairly consistent warming since the 1970s, the odds of one in eight suggest the observed slowdown was due to happen.” Our decadal forecast predicts an end to this period of relative stability after 2010. We project at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than the 1998 record. Climate researchers are, therefore, reinforcing the message that the case for tackling global warming remains strong. Commenting on the new study, Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, said: “Decades like 1999–2008 occur quite frequently in our climate change simulations, but the underlying trend of increasing temperature remains .. ”. Also, “Warming On 11 Year Hiatus” (Note 3) presents a graph on this. You say in #221 that “ .. urban areas constitute a tiny fraction of the surface area of the earth ...”. Equally, the temperature measurements, which are subjected to significant statistical manipulation before being considered suitable for presenting a picture which supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis through our use of fossil fuels, only take place at a tiny fraction of the surface area of the earth. NOTES: 1) see http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ 2) see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html 3) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/20/warming-on-11-year-hiatus/ Best regards, Pete Ridley -
KR at 01:57 AM on 28 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley - you claim no warming since 1998. That's a frequent, and incorrect skeptic argument addressed here, in "Did global warming stop in 1998?", which you might want to take a look at. You claim no warming since 1998; But there's huge warming since 1997, and huge warming since 1999 - 2 out of 3 wins? Cherry picking your start date, as you do with 1998, to a 2 sigma noise spike can give you any answer you like, but the statistics clearly show continuing warming. As to the accuracy of the surface temperature reconstructions, there are at least four independent data sets producing the same answers, with all variations of UHI and calibration adjustments by any analyst producing answers between 0.15 and 0.175 oC/decade, the two satellite estimates at 0.13 and 0.15. Multiple independent data sets, all adjustment variations, and they come to about the same answer. That's pretty much the definition of reliable measurements. And hence the decent models (including Hansen 1988) actually do match the data, indicating some degree of accuracy in the models. Unless you have a different definition of a scientific model? -
John Russell at 01:49 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
dcwarrior at 00:50 AM on 28 July, 2010 Here's a lay answer, assuming I'm understanding your lay question correctly. 'Waste heat warming' and 'CO2-caused warming' are two completely separate mechanisms. The fact that anthropogenic 'waste' heat -- that I prefer to call 'by-product heat'-- is insignificant compared with the heating we receive from the sun, has no relation to the effect the small percentage of anthropogenic GHG releases are having on the atmosphere. That the waste heat is insignificant is explained in the many posts above. The fact that a relatively small percentage of anthropogenic GHGs can change our climate is because up until the time humans started to burn fossil fuels in large quantities, naturally-occurring GHGs, were in equilibrium with the natural processes that locked them up in the Earth's geology: our planet was in a steady state. However, the small but growing anthropogenic percentage of GHGs are the proverbial straws that are accumulating on the camel's back, and which in time will break it. The proof of this is that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased from around 280ppm to 387ppm+, since the industrial revolution began (it had previously been stable for 150,000 years or more). You can find more here. I hope that helps. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:34 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
TOP, there is only one difference in the grand scheme of things as viewed from the top of the atmosphere between a warm rock and a warm IC engine. The rock was warmed by insolation, the engine by liberation of energy stored in fossil fuels. Heat liberated by whatever means and no matter how many times the energy of that heat is bounced from hand-to-hand remains ideologically sterile from the perspective of how it escapes Earth. Remove the engine from your car. Warm a boulder of similar mass in the sun. Place it in the engine compartment of your car. Close the hood. Does the warmth emerging from the car by a combination of conduction and radiation know where it came from? Does it behave in a special way? Are joules endowed with a sense of history? This is a rather mind-blowing discussion! -
Ned at 01:33 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
I should probably revise the analogy I used above. Apparently, a slice of whole-wheat toast has about 80 kcal. To make the analogy apt, I would have to be eating somewhere around 8000 kcal of ice cream per day. I don't think that would be possible. So, to keep the quantitative proportions correct, let's say we're trying to determine whether my weight gain is due to the daily 2 cups of ice cream or the one-eighth of a slice of unbuttered toast. I think that gives the appropriate two orders of magnitude difference. So, what RSVP is saying is basically "Don't worry about eating that pint of Ben & Jerry's ... it's that one bite of toast that's making you gain weight." -
AWoL at 01:20 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
Thanks for the reply Ned. Here's a couple of items, that led me to question the Stefan Boltzmann Law and Constant "1)Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the flaw has always lain in Stefan-Boltzmann's equations. The long-trusted formula has been used by climatologists without question - until now. The researchers report that the numbers used in those equations are the “first assumption that climate science makes when predicting the Earth's temperature.” NASA Abandoned Flawed Climate Calculations in 1960’s Read more at Suite101: Apollo Mission: A Giant Leap Contradicting Greenhouse Gas Theory http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/apollo-mission-a-giant-leap-to-discredit-greenhouse-gas-theory#ixzz0uoPWUQBV 2)Teaching Labs...dept of Physics and astronomy...Dartmouth College The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that for a blackbody the exponent should be 4. The student sees that for low temperatures the exponent is as low as 2.5 and for higher temperatures (approximately 1800K) the exponent lies in the range of 3.6-3.9. What I'm after is examples, and confirmation, of S-B at temperatures in earthly materials in the range of -40to100 degC as the titles of those two papers would suggest. 1)Deviations from the S-B Law at low temperatures, by HP Baltes,Universtat Berlin cost$34. 2)A Radiometric Determination of the S-B Constant and Thermodynamic Temperatures between -40degC and 100degC, Quinn and Martin, Nat Phys Lab, Teddington , Middlesex.Cost unknown and don't care as I ain't paying. Most of the information concerns incandescent filaments of 1000degC or other such unworldly situations. It looks as though there is little wrong with SB at earthly temperatures. The problems seem to come with assumptions built into application in the real world, such as happened on the moon.... and this method for deriving radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface. "The earth absorbs radiation as a disc...pi.r^2 but radiates it as a sphere....4.pi.r^2.....so just divide the incoming flux by 4". Yet the area irradiated is 2.pi.r^2.Is that a reasonable assumption? Maybe to a physicist, but not to a layman. And the sphere should be rotating. What effect would that have? Has anyone checked this out? Does theory match practice? Sorry for taking up space in exploring those fundamentals. Maybe there should be a "dummies section".I just don't see how one can form a reasonable opinion of AGW, without checking on the fundamental physics first......the actual measured results , here on Earth and not an extrapolation (which may or may not be accurate) from theory and highly controlled and unusual situations ie incandescent tungsten filaments, in the laboratory. -
CBDunkerson at 01:17 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
dcwarrior, no it isn't the same thing at all. We're dealing with two different examples of pure denial; In the first case the claim is that a small percentage cannot have a big impact (e.g. CO2 as a small percentage of the atmosphere cannot cause warming, brakes as a small percentage of a car's mass cannot cause the vehicle to slow down). In the second case the claim is that a small percentage coming from source A is more important than a large percentage coming from source B (e.g. global warming is being caused by the 1% 'waste heat' NOT the 99% of additional heat from GHGs, air friction slows a car 1% as much as brakes do... therefor it is air friction stopping the car, not the brakes). Yes, heat from human industry can be a somewhat significant issue on local scales. It is the second most significant cause of the 'urban heat island' effect... but even there most of the localized heating is from land use changes. On a global scale we would need to burn vastly more fossil fuels than we currently do (indeed, vastly more than EXIST on the planet) in order for industrial heat to be an issue. If we converted fully to nuclear power then maybe in a few hundred years it would start to be significant... but far more likely we'll convert to mostly wind and solar power (which don't release any 'extra' energy that had been stored). -
dcwarrior at 00:50 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
I think one lay question that needs to be answered is this: "OK, the deniers are telling me that CO2 is only a tiny % of the atmosphere so how could any change in that possibly affect the global temperature. And they go on to say that human caused CO2 is small in relation to that. And, OK, I've seen your explanation as to why this is not so, that humans are adding to the CO2 and that it's a greenhouse gas, I get it. So, seeing as how the human caused warming is only a small % of the total earth warming, isn't that the same thing?" Also, isn't heat pollution an issue that is a problem in some localities (like near nuclear plants) and may actually become a global problem someday? -
dcwarrior at 00:43 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
#136 Berényi Péter at 02:02 AM on 27 July, 2010 >> My point is that the writing on here seems very technical and if I may say so, not very persuasive. I understand it's a science blog but it is also a blog that is trying to persuade deniers that climate change is real. Being better at understanding what arguments (supported by science) are more effective at persuading people is "political" but not in the way that the comments policy prohibits. And unless "authenticity" means discussing only technical issues with no hope of convincing anyone of anything, I don't think coming up with focused arguments that better present the science and address the underlying concerns of the deniers would lack authenticity. -
Magnus W at 00:33 AM on 28 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Do not miss my favourite on the subject... who actually managed to publish on the subject in a journal... http://westerstrand.blogspot.com/2008/09/its-that-time-of-year.html -
Ned at 00:21 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
Provided of course claims hard to verify and based on scant data are preferred to easy and well documented ones. That would be a reasonable assessment of my comment ... Provided of course that illogical and unfriendly interpretations are preferred to simple and straightforward ones! :-) -
Berényi Péter at 00:15 AM on 28 July 2010The nature of authority
#147 Ned at 22:46 PM on 27 July, 2010 it might be helpful to look at the entire 0-20 N region, rather than individual points Definitely. Provided of course claims hard to verify and based on scant data are preferred to easy and well documented ones. It is Colaba Woods, Mumbai, India (18.9 N, 72.8 E).
-
TOP at 23:56 PM on 27 July 2010CO2 is not a pollutant
ScienceDaily (May 9, 2003) states that higher levels of CO2 may allow forests to grow in arid areas that once were unsupportive of trees. This information comes from studies in the Negev, one of the driest places on earth. "Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry." In fact one proposal suggests that all the world's industrial release of CO2 could be absorbed by planting trees in the deserts of the world and in particular the Sahara. Haaretz Tue, July 27, 2010 Israeli ecologists could help stop global warming. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:54 PM on 27 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
“But there is no difference in the heat from different sources.” Really? Let's see: “... but over the continental United States and WESTERN EUROPE, it is +0.39 and +0.68 W m−2, respectively.” To be "showy" suggesting a temperature records from the U.S. - the warmest 10 years: 1934-1998 (1.24), 2006, 1921, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939/54/87/2007 (0.84) , and: NH (24-90 N), the warmest 10 years: 2007 (1.09), 2005, 2006, 2003, 2002, 1998/2001, 2004, 1999, 2000 (0.68) ... Let's see where those records (2006/7) have occurred in the NH - WESTERN EUROPE: http://www.wiz.pl/obrazki/rekordowe_09_08.jpg (Mean temperatures of subsequent 12 months in 2006/2007 higher than ever in the history of obserwations - source: Climate change and extreme event ..., Kundzewicz, 2008, page 7), very carefully (extremely carefully !) areas with a record temperature of overlap areas of greatest heat production (industrial centers, large urban agglomerations). This is particularly evident in the example: Italy, Spain, Great Britain, Portugal, South France, Scandinavia ... Once again it is worth recalling: de Laat, ATJ, 2008: "Current Climate Impact of Heating from Energy Usage: The global average primary energy consumption (0.03 watts per square meter) is relatively small compared to other anthropogenic radiative forcings, as summarized in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. NEVERTHELESS, despite its RELATIVELY SMALL magnitude, waste heat may have a CONSIDERABLE IMPACT on local surface temperature measurements ...”, “On a city scale, such as central New York or Tokyo, energy use can exceed 100 watts [!] per square meter [Makar et al., 2006].” , “… Block et al. [2004] used a regional climate model to investigate the magnitude of warming in WESTERN EUROPE caused by adding 2 watts per square meter of energy at the model land surface. Although the model simulation was performed for just 3 months during spring, the results nevertheless indicate that warming does occur, and—under FAVORABLE CONDITIONS—it can on average be as large as 1°C [...] for the 2 watts per square meter surface forcing.” “In addition, the spatial inhomogeneous distribution of the waste heat effect may actually have a much larger impact on local and regional [!] atmospheric circulation than what could be expected based on their global average. This impact can be larger than the local to regional impact of well-mixed greenhouse gases [ Matsui and Pielke , 2007].” “There is some observational evidence that waste heat has changed temperatures not only locally but also regionally [!!!]. Several recent papers [ de Laat and Maurellis , 2006 and references therein; McKitrick and Michaels , 2007 and references therein] suggest that a link exists between observed warming patterns and industrialization or urbanization. For example, there is considerably more surface than free tropospheric warming in the EASTERN UNITED STATES, suggesting the presence of a surface warming process [ Kalnay et al. , 2006; and references therein].” “FAVORABLE CONDITIONS” - remember that the areas of heat production there is often a strong local greenhouse effect (ozone, water vapor), much of it more efficient mechanical thermal insulation: smog - chemical and photo-chemical, standing for many days urban and industrial areas of high pressure, nocturnal boundary layers (NBL), etc., etc., Real Climate, T. Rogers, 30 october 2009: “My interest was to compare the possible effect of waste heat on the temeperature of urban areas. To do this I made some (wild!?) assumptions that 50% of the world population lived in urban areas but 90% of waste heat was released in urban areas (power stations, industry and residential vs residential/low tech in rural areas). I used world population and a an estimate of urban population density to calculate an estimate for the area of the earth’s surface that was “urban”. Using this method I obtained figures for waste heat in urban areas of 7.7 W/m^2 in 1900 and 20.6 W/m^ in 2000. [!!!] THESE SEEMED LIKE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS TO ME.” -
Ned at 23:54 PM on 27 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ken points out that a 2.9 W/m2 forcing from greenhouse gases doesn't represent the full picture, since there are other negative (and positive) forcings and feedbacks. John Cook nicely summarizes these different forcings and feedbacks here: CO2 is not the only driver of climate However, introducing the other factors obscures rather than clarifies the role of greenhouse gases. Let's consider my body mass as an analogy for the atmosphere. I'd like to keep it in equilibrium! There are a mix of positive and negative forcings (basically, eating tasty stuff makes me gain weight, while exercising makes me lose weight). Let's say I'm both eating a lot and putting a lot of time into exercising, but the former outweighs (ha!) the latter, so my weight is slowly increasing at 3 kg per year. If the question is "how far out of equilibrium is my body's mass balance" then we need to look at all the positive and negative drivers. But if the question is "which is responsible for my weight gain, the toast I have for breakfast or the heaping bowls of ice cream I have after lunch and dinner" then we just want to compare the magnitudes of those two individual forcings. In case the analogy isn't clear, in this case the toast represents the waste heat and the bowls of ice cream represent the greenhouse gases... :-) -
KR at 23:40 PM on 27 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
TOP, RSVP, others - regarding sources of heat energy and it's distribution: Heat can enter the atmosphere via convection, latent heat, conduction, and radiation. Convection from a radiator or a hot rock (that doesn't radiate at IR wavelengths, an odd statement considering the data I found here on rock-forming minerals) warms the immediate area, while IR radiation tends to get absorbed within the first 10 to 100 meters. But all of the energy will get absorbed, at least until it has a chance to go somewhere else. After that, the source of the energy does not matter. The temperature of the air goes up. the 10^9 collisions/second/molecule distribute the energy to all molecules in the air mass, whether O2, N2, CO2, CH4, Ar, whatever. Energy has been added to the system. At atmospheric temperatures, CO2 and other greenhouse gases will radiate energy. Tropospheric convection will occur. Water vapor will circulate, with evaporation and rain moving energy around. And eventually, that energy will radiate from the top of the atmosphere as longwave infrared radiation. But there is no difference in the heat from different sources. A joule is a joule, a photon is a photon, and unlike Arizonans, they don't carry ID cards indicating where they are from. And given that industrial energy usage is 1% that of GHG entrapment, industrial heat isn't an issue at this time. -
Ned at 23:36 PM on 27 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
TOP, your points 2, 3, and 4 are actually part of why waste heat is so directly comparable to the radiative forcing from GHGs. Doug's large boulder loses some heat by radiation and some by conduction into the ground. Waste heat from our various mechanical machinations is proportionately more likely to go directly to the atmosphere. Likewise, the warming from GHGs occurs directly within the atmosphere. TOP and RSVP seem hung up on the idea of the surface losing heat via radiation ... but the warming that occurs, and the 2.9 W/m2 forcing, is the absorption of radiation within in the atmosphere. All of the 2.9 W/m2 are transferred to the atmosphere, and once there, they behave exactly like the 0.028 W/m2 from waste heat once it gets in the atmosphere. The origins of the two sources are different, but once they're in the atmosphere, they behave identically. The only difference is that 2.9 W/m2 is two orders of magnitude greater than 0.028 W/m2. -
Ken Lambert at 23:35 PM on 27 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
John Cook, (original post) John Cook and Gentlemen: Your 'Greenhouse Warming' of 2.9W/sq.m is only half the story. The good Dr Trenberth has shown us that the net TOA imbalance by his calculation is in fact 0.9W/sq.m when cloud, aerosols, albedo, feebacks and radiative cooling are taken into account. So the Earth is not warming at 2.9W/sq.m -- rather more like 0.9W/sq.m. As we know also - as of Aug09 - he could only find about 0.55W/sq.m in land and OHC. As for waste heat; here is a more interesting sum: Globally the rate of 0.028W/sq.m gets much bigger if you reduce the sq.m from which nearly all of it emanates. Not much human industry or population on the oceans (71%) or the Arctic and Antarctic, or the vast deserts or steppes. I believe only about 6-8% of the global surface is producing this human/industrial waste heat. Some will be much more concentrated around urban and highly industrialized centres. So 0.028 divided by say 0.07 (7% of the global surface) becomes 0.4W/sq.m heat flux over these inhabited areas. A figure of 0.3-0.5W/sq.m has been quoted for the continental USA. This is not small in comparison to the purported TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m. for those areas (which are also on the globe). So UHI effects being concentrated further and general effects over industrial populations should have a significant effect on land temperatures in that 6-8% of the global surface. Of course BP and others have fought out the UHI vs population density relationships elsewhere, but the issue of how much of the 6-8% of the global surface accounts for all the GHCN core data records is a live one for those more expert than me. -
Rob Painting at 23:30 PM on 27 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
TOP - "Since either form of removal results in an increase in the green house gas H2O there is another forcing resulting from this form of waste heat." Are you saying, what you seem to be saying?.
Prev 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 Next
