Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 Next
Comments 116101 to 116150:
-
Riccardo at 21:33 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
HumanityRules, it's not that SSR and TSI are incommensurable quantities. Wild just said that you can not compare SSR and forcing at TOA taken at face values. -
HumanityRules at 21:25 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Apologies that the quote from the review is so long but here it is in full. "The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/ brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of minus 1–2 W m2 on a global average, while some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade (Tables 1–3). Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5–1C perWm2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W m2 decade1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed." It appears from the numbers presented here that the decadal changes in SSR are an order of magnitude (or more) greater than the long term decadal trend at the TOA. Where does this enormous difference come from? Surely from the changes in the additive effects of a greenhouse atmosphere. That means the additive effects on the paltry 0.17 from changes in the sun must also be enormous when measured at the surface. The question surely has to be if "enormous" is anywhere near "an order of magnitude". Wild doesn't say. And until he does it seems difficult to rule out how much changes in the sun is contributing to these changes in dimming/brightening as measured at the surface. To go back to my original point, what he's doing here "The larger of these two estimates is equivalent to a global average increase of 0.17 W m2 decade1 in energy input to the climate system due to the variable emission from the Sun. These estimates are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the changes detected from surface observations of SSR." seems to be exactly what he warns against doing here. "The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. [...] However, one should be aware that the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface." that is comparing a TOA reading to SSR. Maybe we could clear this up if you could state what the changes in SSR would be from the 0.17Wm2/decade measured at the TOA due to solar variation. I don't think Wild presents enough here to state that accurately. -
RSVP at 21:05 PM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Riccardo This is what I suspected. My sense is that GHG's explain how the atmosphere has comes up to temperature since O2 and N2 would otherwise only warm through convection off the Earth's surface, and I assume that this has been deemed or calculated as not sufficient to explain current temperatures. If these gases are not good radiators of IR, and as they make up the bulk of our atmosphere, it should be fair to say they are responsible for holding (or storing) energy at some ambient level. For this same reason, the direct heating of these gases through industrial waste heat should be accumulating in these gases as well, and possibly the only way for it to cool is actually via GHG's, as they emit IR. -
Riccardo at 20:21 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
HumanityRules, "all else being equal", the change is still proportional to the change in TSI (both scattered and absorbed fluxes are proportional to the incoming flux), and is "at least an order of magnitude smaller than the changes detected from surface observations of SSR." -
chris at 20:17 PM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken Lambert at 00:24 AM on 3 July, 2010 ONE offsets: You're trolling Ken. We've already shown you how the satellite data was merged to effectively eliminate offsets. You ignored this, but you should address it if you wish to pursue the insinuation of "offsets". I have asked you and kdkd has asked you to show how you determined the offsets. You ignored those requests too. I suggested what you might have done based on your assertions. You ignored that. And yet here you are asserting "offsets" by insinuation again. That's trolling. Why not simply state explicitly how you determined these apparent "offsets"? I think I know what you've done...if so it's invalid numerology. But we won't know for sure unless you tell us. TWO: linear/quadratic trends: Science isn't addressed by attempts at bullying Ken ("Prove to me that BP's quadratic approach is wrong!"). Fitting a quadratic to a temporal progression of a parameter is meaningless unless one has some independent justification for the quadratic and its particular form, and you should be careful not to be fooled by flawed analyses [*]. In the case of a relative short (18 year) period of sea level rise with significant variability from measurement "noise" and internal variability we have to be careful not to mislead ourselves with inappropriate curve fitting that is hopelessly biased by the short term variability (see [*] below). However we can ask a simple question about the data, namely: ” Given the variability in the data is the sea level rise consistent with a linear progression in time, or is it accelerating or decelerating?” If we take the data (say the unadjusted dataset with seasonal signal removed ) and project forward from the very start of the record with a linear trend of 3.2 mm.yr-1, we find that the current sea level is pretty much smack on the projected trend. That’s an inescapable fact. However one fiddles around with inappropriate curve fits and other numerological “analyses” (see [*] below), one can’t escape the observational fact that the sea level data is entirely consistent with a continuing linear trend of around 3.2 mm.yr-1 rise . Might sea level rise be decreasing? Possibly, but there is no evidence for such a conclusion. Might it be accelerating? Possibly, but we can’t say from the data yet. THREE: heat budget Your other points were addressed here. You're still asserting a fundamental fallacy, i.e. "...keeping in mind that the CO2GHG theory requires that the biosphere gain 145E20 Joules/year every year."; this will never be correct no matter how many times you repeat it. ------------------------------------------- [*] the problem with Peter's seductive numerology can be seen by fitting a quadratic to the full satellite data set (Peter apparently fitted only 16 years of this). If one does so the already small "acceleration term" of -0.108 mm.yr^(-2) is reduced to -0.0318 mm.yr^(-2). The resulting quadratic fit is barely distinguishable from a linear fit. Scientists and skeptics aren’t fooled by flawed numerology….. -
HumanityRules at 20:06 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
My understanding is the additive nature comes from the energy being re-measured at the surface due to the greenhouse properties of the atmosphere, i.e. it is trapped and reflected back down to be measured again. This is why surface measurements are amplified compared to TOA measurements. Let's say more energy is entering the system from the sun (0.17 W m-2decade-1) surely that energy will also be scattered,absorbed and reflected to the surface and show as an amplified signal in the SSR. There is no reason this extra solar energy should behave in any special way. The question surely has to be the magnitude of this amplification in order to work out the contribution from changes in the sun? -
HumanityRules at 19:55 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
11 Riccardo But what about the "Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR" Surely this is also true with respect to the extra energy from the sun? -
Riccardo at 19:54 PM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
RSVP, I thought your question was related to light absorption by molecular vibrations. If you consider the gas as a whole, it will emit as appropiate to its temperature and emissivity. Not much energy, given the low average temperature and low emissivity. A good example is the atmosphere above the troposphere, where there's no convection and the atmosphere is in (almost) purely radiative equilibrium. -
daniel at 19:44 PM on 3 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
To KR #45 "daniel - While it's possible that there are high frequency changes in temperature missed by a particular low-resolution sample set, it's really completely unreasonable to postulate that this indeed is the case based on that evidence." Yep, don't remeber talking much about temperature changes. Mostly about SLR. "If I permit more degrees of freedom in my fitting than are supported by my data, I can draw whatever curve I like - including one that indicates the Earth cycled between absolute zero and plasma temperatures during a 30-day period between samples." Geez KR don't go overstating what I said or nothin. Although maybe I guess you're right, slight short term increases in SLR (not temperature) are about on par with absolute zero to plasma level temperatures (not SLR) aren't they. I'm so glad I've got you around to keep my feet on the ground. Thanks KR ;) "I could also postulate that such temperature swings were driven by invisible pink unicorns, but I don't have samples that actually indicate that. In the universe of possible data fits, a randomly chosen fit is NOT as likely as the simplest one that fits the data. " Uh huh..... unicorns...... got it. I think you may be a little stressed having to strain to understand that I don't dispute the long term linear trend just it's comparison to the short term uptrend. It's called an invalid comparison :) "It's a rudimentary basis of data analysis that you don't over-fit your samples - that falls into the aspects of parsimony, or Occams razor. Given the samples present in the papers you have been referring to," Yes I know you shouldn't "overfit" your samples as you say. You also shpuldm't just assume short term linear trends from such noidy data. It's cute that you know what parsimony is I wonder if you're aware that it doesn't always apply to reality (a concept you claim to have a better grasp of than me). It's also cute when people go on about Occam's razor, a phrase recently popularised by the movie "Contact" but as I j ust said, not always applicable. " it's reasonable to state that there's a linear historic trend passing through those data points, with a later steeper trend passing through the much denser data points of recent records." But not to say that the recent uptrend has been shown to be unusually high given the sparse, noisy data available. "Are there excursions outside that linear trend that don't fall upon the sample points," Eh? Please clarify this rant. "If you take into account the multiple lines of evidence, the many data sets containing samples at different (and overlapping) timepoints along historic record," Yes I know they're claiming the trend extends into the instrumental record. Lucky really. My complaints are perfectly valid and need to be addressed. "the hypothesis of a fairly linear trend for the 1400-1850 period, with a steepening incline after that, is still the most reasonable, parsimonious explanation that fits the data. And with no unicorns..." I agree, there was definitely a long term trend of 1mm/year that overlaps with a few decades of the instrumental record but what were the short term trends in that period. What do you have against unicorns in science! They are just as able to understand your jibberish as I am and any reference to them as "imaginary", "mythological" or "unparsimonious" I take as an ad hominem attack! -
Willis Eschenbach at 19:30 PM on 3 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Since you objected to my list of non-peer-reviewed Masters and PhD theses, here's a list of working papers cited by the IPCC. Not peer-reviewed studies, not non peer-reviewed Masters theses, not even finished documents, just working papers: Working Group 2, Chapter 1 Hamilton, J.M., 2003a: Climate and the destination choice of German tourists, Working Paper FNU-15 (revised), Centre for Marine and Climate Research, University of Hamburg, 36 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-3-9-2.html Working Group 2, Chapter 2 Heslop-Thomas, C.,W. Bailey, D. Amarakoon, A. Chen, S. Rawlins, D. Chadee, R. Crosbourne, A. Owino, K. Polson, C. Rhoden, R. Stennett and M. Taylor, 2006: Vulnerability to dengue fever in Jamaica. AIACC Working Paper No. 27, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 40 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-4.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-6-4.html Ionescu, C., R.J.T. Klein, J. Hinkel, K.S. Kavi Kumar and R. Klein, 2005: Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. NeWater Working Paper 2, 24 pp. Accessed from http://www.newater.info. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-2-4.html Pulhin, J., R.J.J. Peras, R.V.O. Cruz, R.D. Lasco, F. Pulhin and M.A. Tapia, 2006: Vulnerability of communities to climate variability and extremes: the Pantabangan-Carranglan watershed in the Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 44, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 56 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-2-4.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-6-4.html Working Group 2, Chapter 5 Toulmin, C., 1986: Livestock losses and post-drought rehabilitation in sub-Saharan Africa: policy options and issues. Livestock Policy Unit Working Paper No. 9, International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-2.html#5-2-1 (in table 5.1) Working Group 2, Chapter 6 Barros, V., A. Menéndez, C. Natenzon, R.R. Kokot, J.O. Codignotto, M. Re, P. Bronstein, I. Camilloni and Co-authors, 2006: Vulnerability to floods in the metropolitan region of Buenos Aires under future climate change. Working Paper 26. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC), 36 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-5-2.html Working Group 2, Chapter 7 Black, R., 2001: Environmental refugees: myth or reality? New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper 34, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, 20 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-4-1.html (in box 7.1) Working Group 2, Chapter 9 Osman-Elasha, B., N. Goutbi, E. Spanger-Siegfried,W. Dougherty,A. Hanafi, S. Zakieldeen, A. Sanjak, H. Abdel Atti and H.M. Elhassan, 2006: Adaptation strategies to increase human resilience against climate variability and change: lessons from the arid regions of Sudan. Working Paper 42, AIACC, 44 pp.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-5-1.html (in the first paragraph, as well as in Table 9.2) Ziervogel, G.,A.O. Nyong, B. Osman, C. Conde, S. Cortés and T. Downing, 2006: Climate variability and change: implications for household food security. AIACC Working Paper No. 20, 25 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/Working Papers/AIACC_WP_20_Ziervogel.pdf. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-6.html#9-6-1 Working Group 2, Chapter 10 Batima, P., L. Natsagdorj, P. Gombluudev and B. Erdenetsetseg, 2005a: Observed climate change in Mongolia. AIACC Working Paper, 13, 25 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-references.html Relevant paragraphs at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-3.html (in table 10.3) and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-2.html (in table 10.2) Working Group 2, Chapter 11 Packman, D., D. Ponter and T. Tutua-Nathan, 2001: Maori issues. Climate Change Working Paper, New Zealand Climate Change Office, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, 18 pp. http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html Working Group 2, Chapter 13 Nagy, G.J.,M. Bidegain, R.M. Caffera, J.J. Lagomarsino,W. Norbis,A. Ponce and G. Sención, 2006b: Adaptive capacity for responding to climate variability and change in estuarine fisheries of the Rio de la Plata. AIACC Working Paper No. 36, 16 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-3.html Nagy, G.J., M. Bidegain, F. Blixen, R.M. Caffera, G. Ferrari, J.J. Lagomarsino, C.H. López,W. Norbis and co-authors, 2006c: Assessing vulnerability to climate variability and change for estuarine waters and coastal fisheries of the Rio de la Plata. AIACC Working Paper No. 22, 44 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4-4.html Orlove, B.S., S. Joshua and L. Tosteson, 1999: The application of seasonal to interannual climate forecasts based on El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events: lessons from Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Peru and Zimbabwe. Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics, Working Paper 99-3, Institute of International Studies, University of Califórnia, Berkeley, 67 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5.html Travasso, M.I., G.O. Magrin, W.E. Baethgen, J.P. Castaño, G.R. Rodriguez, J.L. Pires,A. Gimenez, G. Cunha and M. Fernandes, 2006: Adaptation measures for maize and soybean in south eastern South America. AIACC Working Paper No. 28, 38 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/working_papers.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-5-1-2.html Wehbe,M., H. Eakin, R. Seiler,M.Vinocur, C. Ávila and C.Marutto, 2006: Local perspectives on adaptation to climate change: lessons from Mexico and Argentina. AIACC Working Paper No. 39, 39 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-1.html Working Group 2, Chapter 17 Lasco, R., R. Cruz, J. Pulhin and F. Pulhin, 2006: Tradeoff analysis of adaptation strategies for natural resources, water resources and local institutions in the Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 32, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-2-2.html (in table 17.1) Leary, N., J. and Co-authors, 2006: For Whom the Bell Tolls: Vulnerabilities in a Changing Climate. AIACC Working Paper No. 30, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-1.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-4-2-1.html Taylor, M., A. Chen, S. Rawlins, C. Heslop-Thomas, A. Amarakoon,W. Bailey, D. Chadee, S. Huntley, C. Rhoden and R. Stennett, 2006: Adapting to dengue risk – what to do? AIACC Working Paper No. 33, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-4-2-3.html Working Group 2, Chapter 18 Downing, T.E. and G. Ziervogel, 2005: Food system scenarios: exploring global/local linkages. Working Paper, SEI Poverty and Vulnerability Report. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 35 pp http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-8.html Goklany, I.M., 2000b: Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming. Weidenbaum Center Working Paper, PS 158.Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-4-1.html Working Group 3, Chapter 5 Riedy, C., 2003: Subsidies that encourage fossil fuel use in Australia. Working paper CR2003/01, Institute for sustainable futures, Sydney,Australia, 39 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-5-3.html Working Group 3, Chapter 7 Delmas, M. and A. Terlaak, 2000: Voluntary agreements for the environment: Innovation and transaction costs. CAVA Working Paper 00/02/13 February. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-9-2.html Gupta, K., 2002: The urban informal sector and environmental pollution: A theoretical analysis. Working Paper No. 02-006. Center for Environment and Development Economics, University of York, York, UK. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-1-1.html Next, a list of newspaper and magazine articles cited by the IPCC: Dey, P., 2006: Climate change devastating Latin America frogs. University of Alberta. http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7247. Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002. Kesmodel, D., 2002: Low and dry: Drought chokes off Durango rafting business. Rocky Mountain News, 25 June 2002. Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999. Welch, C., 2006: Sweeping change reshapes Arctic. The Seattle Times. Jan. 1 2006. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/ 2002714404_arctic01main.html] Marris, E., 2005: First tests show flood waters high in bacteria and lead. News@Nature, 437, 301-301. Stiger, R.W., 2001: Alaska DOT deals with permafrost thaws. Better Roads. June, 30-31. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://obr.gcnpublishing.com/articles/brjun01c.htm] Business Week, 2005: A Second Look at Katrina's Cost. Business Week. September 13, 2005. [Accessed 09.02.07: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf20050913_8975_db082.htm] Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002. Colombia Trade News, 2006: Illegal crops damage Colombia’s environmental resources. Colombian Government Trade Bureau. http://www.coltrade.org/ about/envt_index.asp#top. FAO, 2004b: La participación de las comunidades en la gestión forestal es decisiva para reducir los incendios (Involving local communities to prevent and control forest fires). FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004 /48709/index.html. FAO, 2005: Cattle ranching is encroaching on forests in Latin America. FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/index.html Environment News Service, 2002: Hungry Cambodians at the mercy of climate change. Phnom Penh, 26 November 2002. Accessed 16.05.07: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-26-02.asp. Balint-Kurti, D., 2005: Tin trade fuels Congo War. News24, 07/03/2005. http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Features/0,,2-11-37_1672558,00.html. FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/. Bowen, N., 2002: Canary in a coalmine. Climbing News, 208, 90-97, 138-139. Sparks, T.H., H. Heyen, O. Braslavska and E. Lehikoinen, 1999: Are European birds migrating earlier? BTO News, 223, 8. Benedick, R., 2001: Striking a new deal on climate change. Science and Technology Online, Fall 2001. http://www.issues.org/18.1/benedick.html Schelling, T.C., 2002: What makes greenhouse sense? Foreign Affairs, May/June COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2005)6 32. http://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-ghsense.pdf Schelling, T.C., 1997: The cost of combating global warming, facing the tradeoffs. Foreign Affairs, November/December http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-cost.pdf Cowan, J., E. Eidinow, Laura Likely, 2000: A scenario-planning process for the new millennium. Deeper News, 9(1). The Economist, 2000: Sins of the secular missionaries. January 29, 2000. Speth, J.G., 2002: Recycling Environmentalism. Foreign Policy, July/August, pp. 74-76. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2002/07/01/recycling_environmentalism Shashank, J., 2004: Energy conservation in the industrial sector: A special report on energy conservation day. New Delhi, Economic Times. Nippon Steel, 2002: Advanced technology of Nippon Steel contributes to ULSAB-AVC Program. Nippon Steel News, 295, September 2002. Shorrock, T., 2002: Enron’s Asia misadventure. Asia Times 29 January, accessed 02/07/07. ISNA, 2004: From wood to coal in an effort to stop deforestation. Inter Services news agency (IPS), Rome, accessed 02/07/07. IRIN, 2004: Angola: frustration as oil windfall spending neglects the poor. United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, accessed 02/07/07. Nuclear News, 2005: WNA report forecasts three scenarios for nuclear’s growth. Nuclear News, November 2005: pp. 60-62, 69. Next, a list of press releases cited by the IPCC: Working Group 2, Chapter 5 COPA COGECA, 2003a: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-2.html Working Group 2, Chapter 9 FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Working Group2, Chapter 11 Premier of Victoria, 2006: Ballarat’s future water supplies secured by major Bracks government action plan. Media release, 17 October 2006. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/news_item.asp?id=978. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-2-5.html Working Group 2 - Cross Chapter Studies COPA COGECA, 2003b: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-xccc.pdf Reference at p. 848. Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-xccc.pdf Note: paragraph at p. 846 Working Group 2, Chapter 13 World Bank, 2002a: Desarrollo en riesgo debido a la degradación ambiental: Comunicado de prensa (Development at risk from environmental degradation: News release), No. 2002/112/S. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4-2.html Working Group 3, Chapter 4 Snow, T., White House Press Briefing, 2006: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-8.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-8.html# accessed 31 October 2006. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-2-2.html World Bank, 2005: An open letter to the Catholic Relief Services and bank information centre in response to the report ‘Chad’s Oil: Miracle or Mirage for the poor?’. News release no: 2005/366/AFR, Washington D.C. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-5-4-2.html Working Group 3, Chapter 5 Power System, 2005: Press release 2005.6.27. Development of High Power and High Energy Density Capacitor (in Japanese)., accessed 31/05/07. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-9-2-2.html Working Group 3, Chapter 9 Palmer, K. and R. Newell, K. Gillingham, 2004: Retrospective Examination of Demand-side Energy-efficiency Policies, Discussion Papers dp-04-19, Resources for the Future. The point that you seem to be missing in all of this is that people feel, and with good reason, that they've been sold a bill of goods. For years we've been told that the IPCC only considered peer-reviewed science, that they didn't just, in Pachauri's words, "pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." Now we find out that they are doing exactly that. They are using newspapers, and working papers, and magazine articles, and discussion papers, and press releases, and other non peer-reviewed literature, to try to sell their point of view. As a result, people feel betrayed, and they are angry. But when someone points this out, you're all on about how Masters theses are just fine, and the number of claims from WWF isn't all that great, and other fine excuses. If you were savvy, you'd say, "Hey, we oversold it, our bad, won't happen again". But instead you've circled the wagons, and are trying to defend the indefensible. This was very apparent in Pachauri's response to the Himalaya glacier fiasco. Rather than say "Yes, it was an error", he immediately denounce it as "voodoo science". Indian scientists, whose work he was dissing, were incensed, and rightly so. The Indian Government was so upset by his comments that they set up their own government body, with the Indian Environment Minister saying: “There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science." But heck, keep up the good work, follow Pachauri's lead. All you are doing is further tarnishing the reputation of the IPCC, and you won't hear me complain about that. It has served and over-served its purpose. It has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause. People can look at the length of the lists of working papers and newspaper articles that the IPCC claims are "science" and make up their own minds ... -
RSVP at 19:27 PM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Riccardo: I didnt quite phrase my question correctly. The concern is not so much how these gases warm or cool, but how the energy of these gases is eliminated from the Earth. -
Riccardo at 19:25 PM on 3 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
"The problem is that 71.3% of what passes as peer reviewed climate science is simply junk science, as false as the percentage cited in this sentence." So, discussing science and peer review with Willis Eschenbach appears to be really pointless. -
RSVP at 19:23 PM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Riccardo: Thank you for your answer. I assume the ability to absorb IR is equal to the ability to emit IR. If this is true, how then do the gases O2 and N2 generally warm up or cool down? -
Riccardo at 19:12 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
HumanityRules, yes; all else being equal, a change in TSI, i.e. input at TOA, will be proportionally seen at the surface as well. -
HumanityRules at 18:31 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Riccardo Yep thanks I read that after posting the question. Just to flesh that idea here is more of that quote. "Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause." I was interested how that fits with an idea further in the review. In 3. How Can We Explain Global Dimming/Brightening? he initially rules out changes in the sun as being responsible for this dimming/brightness changes with "The larger of these two estimates is equivalent to a global average increase of 0.17 W m2 decade1 in energy input to the climate system due to the variable emission from the Sun. These estimates are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the changes detected from surface observations of SSR." It seems in this sentance he is trying to directly compare TOA changes with SSR in order to rule out the changes in the sun as playing any major role in this process. -
Willis Eschenbach at 18:17 PM on 3 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
doug_bostrom at 15:57 PM on 3 July, 2010Pachauri's remarks are irrelevant to your claim, Willis. You brought 'em up secondary to your original remarks, why I don't know because Pachauri's remarks subsequent to the IPCC 2007 synthesis are of course not part of the synthesis.
Pachauri's remarks are central to the question. The IPCC holds itself out as a review of the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science. Pachauri says that very specifically. Which is why the question of peer review is important, because we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents. Not only that, it has an entire procedure that has been applied to keep out non-peer reviewed documents, and even to keep out peer-reviewed documents published after the cutoff date. (They haven't followed their own procedures, and have let things in like the Jesus paper, but that's a separate discussion.) This mania for peer review has infected the entire discussion, with many important ideas being discarded or derided because they are not peer reviewed. I have received this dismissal many times, that my ideas are worthless because they are not peer reviewed. So why should I care what Nepstad says in answer to a question by a reporter? What he said is no more peer reviewed than what I say. If it were, how come nobody can provide us with a citation to the study? I didn't set up that bar, I didn't establish that guideline. I think it's a dumb way to judge what is worthwhile. Peer review is a joke these days. But that's the bar that the IPCC itself set up, and that it has pushed over and over as the reason we should believe the IPCC, so it has to live or die by it. It can't just ignore it when it is inconvenient, as you conveniently advocate. I am not ignoring what Nepstad said. He may or may not be right. I am just pointing out that the IPCC said that its Amazon claims, along with all of its other claims, were based on peer reviewed science. You have not been able to provide such backing for the claim. You say his was the "work intended to be cited" (although we have no evidence of that) ... but his work doesn't contain that claim either. In fact, the claim was altered (to make it more alarmist) during the IPCC review process, and over the objections of a reviewer. So if you think that the claim rests on peer reviewed science, please give us the link to the study and we can discuss it. Finally, the same thing applies to Masters or PhD theses. Yes, as you point out they may well be right ... but they are not peer reviewed. Like I said, I think it's a dumb way to judge science, but you guys proposed it, you guys are the ones who have been pushing it, you guys are the ones who bust what I say for not being peer reviewed, so you have to follow your own rules. -
Riccardo at 17:30 PM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
RSVP, O2 and N2 molecules have no dipole moment and do not absorb IR radiation. -
Riccardo at 17:24 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
HumanityRules, Wild himself explicitly addressed your question: "The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. [...] However, one should be aware that the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface." -
RSVP at 17:15 PM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
As the Earth's atmosphere is composed of mainly N2 and O2, it would seem important to know how these gases are known to cool. Is this explained in the book? When you are always hearing about water vapor and CO2 absorbing IR, one is led to assume that the other gases (by contrast) must not do so. Also, for IR transmission, it doesnt seem like this could happen in a very straight line if the medium was an absorber. So I get the impression that 97% of the atmosphere does not readily absorb IR, but I've never seen this actually stated. Is this the case? -
HumanityRules at 17:03 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
My first question is that these changes outlined by Wild seem enormous. In his review I see figures such as -5.1W m-2/decade for the dimming period and 2-6Wm-2/decade for the brightening period. Given that the Hansen (and the IPCC) suggest all greenhouse gases contribute 3W m-2/decade to the present imbalance, and the nett imbalance is around 1 I was wondering if you like to comment on how these studies fit into the overall picture of global warming? -
Doug Bostrom at 16:18 PM on 3 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
I believe Armstrong's remarks about Venus are germane to any other claims he may make, GC. Short of some other form of external review, we have to use whatever cues are available, even if those come from the claimant himself. -
HumanityRules at 16:01 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Wild has produced a review of the subject which might help give a broader picture of the subject. Enjoy.Response: Thanks for the link. Wild's 2009 review features prominently on the examination of global brightening. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:57 PM on 3 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Pachauri's remarks are irrelevant to your claim, Willis. You brought 'em up secondary to your original remarks, why I don't know because Pachauri's remarks subsequent to the IPCC 2007 synthesis are of course not part of the synthesis. We know the IPCC is quite open about using "grey" literature in the impacts and mitigation sections. Ignoring professional output from agronomists, biologists and a plethora of other professions working for private, governmental and not-for-profits entities with particular skills in impact and mitigation matters would frankly be insane. This is an issue that's been trotted out already so your seemingly impressive list of statistics is already pretty dull as a palette knife for creating works of impressionism. I'm particularly surprised you think a PhD dissertation is some sort of badge of incompetence or unreliability. I'm not sure what your problem with PhD dissertations is. Perhaps your gallery visitors don't know but presumably you are aware that doctoral theses are typically not only subjected to intensive criticism by a doctoral candidate's own dissertation committee but then are exposed to intense scrutiny by others outside of the committee and are almost invariably defended in oral presentation, the "defense." They are more scrupulously reviewed than any journal article you'll likely find. Nice impressionism but you're laying on the paint with a trowel and it's peeling off the canvas before it can dry. I apologize for being insufficiently specific, the particular term that caught my eye was "propaganda pieces." You apparently consider Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Federation to be a trump card in any discussion but that's a sloppy habit and of course is more or less believable depending on your political bent. In point of fact, however, nobody has established that publications by these organizations are axiomatically "propaganda" in the sense that most people understand the word. In fact I suspect that relying on a facile rhetorical crutch equating such publications with "propaganda" is a sign of weakness. It is a fact that advocacy organizations publish work that by -some- definitions of the word may be considered "propaganda." Here's a reasonable definition: "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." So you know what? I think you're right, when the IPCC uses cites from Greenpeace or WWF, in the very loosest sense of the word they may arguably be said to be drawing on fragments of what taken as a whole are propaganda efforts by those organizations. This is not really a good idea from the perspective of an organization that is a lightning rod for political attacks, but on the other hand funding for science is always short, advocacy organizations commission much original work that is valid and useful, the persons authoring this work are (as you've shown) professionals with reputations to protect and so to dismiss all such publications is to ignore a sizable body of work for purely political reasons. How bad is this purported "propganda" problem, what material weight does it carry in the IPCC report? Let's assume for a moment that your source for statistics is correct, though I'm already worried by the confusion over dissertations; if the same lack of discrimination is applied throughout the so-called "audit" you cite I wonder about its utility. Working with the data you've supplied, your "audit" source reveals that about 4/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites originate with Greenpeace, apparently, and some 7/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites are from WWF, apparently all of these concentrated in the WGII and WGIII sections and thus not material to the science describing how anthropogenic global warming is instantiated. This says nothing of course about the utility of those cites, instead just finally gets to the statistic you refused to produce, describing exactly what is meant when you say the ...IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces... Are numbers representing well less than 1/10th of 1% suitable for the term "so often?" I don't know, it's sort of an impressionist thing. By the way, the page from the "audit" site mixing politics with science-- the "freedom" part-- reads as though it's taken straight from GOP consultant Luntz's work, except with a touch of rabid froth. I use the numbers from that site with some compunction; who knows if the politics have bled into the "audit?" When an organization equates folks with a concern for the environment with murderous Stalinists, is that a sign that we should depend on them for impartial judgment? Quoting: "People who claim to be making the world a better place have often delivered misery. The Soviets, for example, said they were building a more equal society. Instead, they murdered tens of millions." Finally, I see that once again you have chosen to ignore what Nepstad-- the fellow who authored the work intended to be cited by IPCC regarding the Amazon-- said of the IPCC's claim in relation to his own work. Maintaining the wrong impression on this matters apparently absolutely key for you but of course you're not Nepsted so you don't really know what you're talking about compared to him. Here's what Nepstad (again, the author of the work in question) said: In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. -
gallopingcamel at 15:43 PM on 3 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
doug_bostrom (#74), You love to chide me for being "off subject" but this time you are the offender! The climate of Venus is a fascinating subject, so I hope you know that Bob Armstrong's claim that the high surface temperature on that planet requires an internal heat source is nonsense. -
Riccardo at 15:17 PM on 3 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Willis Eschenbach, as noted before, the IPCC rules state that non peer review article may be used. Your is only a personal attack against Pachauri and of no much interest for the science. It's a well known and clearly political motivated tactics used way too often by various brands of skeptics. In my views it's unacceptable. -
thingadonta at 14:53 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Of course you fail to mention the good correlation with the PDO and 20th century temperature inflexions (albeit that the PDO doesnt explain the long term upward trend). -
thingadonta at 14:47 PM on 3 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
#27: I'm sorry J Murphy, I dont work in government anymore, and don't keep in touch, but its encouaging to see that at least you might have actually been interested in this source, and not Plimer's. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:12 PM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
"They instantly know that one can't believe all they read." I'd say. As in "CO2 sublimates and snows down in Antarctica" or "The Western snowpack is 137% of normal" or "Venus temperature is caused by pressure" and so many more that it renders it downright laughable. One would hope indeed that WUWT readers do not believe everything they read, especially what they read on WUWT. -
johnd at 13:44 PM on 3 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
John Russell at 00:05 AM, as long as the transcript is a true reflection of the interviews, it seems that the focus was on what happens to the leaves of the plants rather than the grain or fruit that is normally eaten. These are all the examples mentioned, the only exception was when cassava was mentioned, and some of that is totally misleading which I refer to after these examples:- Dr Ros Gleadow Leaves of plants grown at elevated carbon dioxide have a lot less protein wheat, barley, rice, all of those in probably only 50 to 60 years time will have 15 to 20% less protein in them than they do now. ...... Dr Ros Gleadow In about 50 years time or even 100 years time eucalyptus leaves will have trouble supporting arboreal herbivores like koalas because the phenolic concentration will be too high and the protein level too low. ........ Emeritus Prof. Howard Bradbury If an insect comes and eats the leaf then it immediately gets a nasty taste of bitter hydrogen cyanide so it goes somewhere else. So this is a really great mechanism for protecting the plant. And there's about 2,000 plants that use this mechanism including apples, apricots, peaches. ........ Dr Graham Phillips This is a cassava plant. It is a small one the big ones can get up to 3 metres. Now the leaves can be eaten. They can be thrown into a salad as greens but the most important part of the plant as far as food goes is the root. Now that could be pealed chopped up and cooked. It could be turned into flour or indeed tapioca. Now the reason cassava is so popular around the world is the plant is highly drought tolerant. It requires very little water and can grow in extremely poor soils. ..... The misleading part is this:- NARRATION Before rising carbon dioxide and toxicity levels had been linked, Howard had been spending his retirement coming up with a simple method to remove cyanide from cassava. Emeritus Prof. Howard Bradbury 2004 I worked out the method and here it is 2010 and its not being used anywhere hardly except the Mozambique health department has finally said yeah that's a good method. They're finally adopting it, it's taken them 5 years! The method he claims as his own discovery is basically the traditional method of preparing cassava and has been used wherever cassava has been eaten for as far back as history allows it to be traced. I am amazed that he would lay claim to something that has been part of traditional life for so long. Like the Australian aboriginals have done, any society has, if finding any readily available foods toxic, devise simple methods how to render them safe, or ignore them as a source of food. Our modern day society is no different, but I've never before heard of any expert claiming credit for something that has been such a long established practice. Perhaps new techniques are developed, but the processing of cassava as described in the transcript is not a new technique, far from it. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:07 PM on 3 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
doug_bostrom at 01:16 AM on 3 July, 2010Willis, you may repeat yourself often enough to create some statistics of your own...
I take all of that as meaning that you have no peer reviewed evidence to support the IPCC claim regarding the Amazon. You seem to think that what is at issue is what I say. It is not. It is what the IPCC says. However, let me answer your questions. You say: You said When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... and when asked to back up that remark with statistics more fully describing "far too often" you rejoin with remarks by Pachauri, not an analysis of the IPCC's actual work product, suggesting you have little more than an impression to offer. and JMurphy says: "Pachauri said repeatedly that the IPCC was based 100% on peer reviewed science. As a result, one is too many ... and the Amazon claim is certainly one." Well, since you love to demand citations (especially in front of an adoring crowd at WUWT), perhaps you could do so here and give links to Pachauri's 'repeated' claims ? Then, give the stats which show the "far too often" IPCC reliance on "propaganda pieces", etc - as you have already been asked. Pacharui's claims are important, as they have shaped the high regard in which the IPCC is (in my opinion wrongly) held. And the IPCC has relied on non-peer-reviewed claims far too often, as I said. So hang on, this is only a partial list, but it is long. Regarding Pachauri's repeated claim about how it was all 100% peer reviewed science, we have (emphasis mine): "People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 and "The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007 and "This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 and As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated: 'IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment...'" - US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009 (bottom of PDF's page 7) and "When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] said, 'IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.'" - Times of India, November 2009 Regarding the IPCC relying on non-peer-reviewed sources, there are far, far too many for me to list. Let me pick a few. We could start with the very claim we are discussing here, which was based on a WWF paper (non peer-reviewed), which in turn relied on another non peer-reviewed document. Then we have an IPCC citation to my favorite peer reviewed journal: Gwynne, P., 1975: The cooling world. Newsweek, April 28, 64. With respect to climate change in Ontario, the IPCC used the noted journals "Leisure" and "Event Management": Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press) Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76 With respect to the IPCC's erroneous claims on African agriculture, they were based on Agoumi, A., 2003: Vulnerability of North African countries to climatic changes: adaptation and implementation strategies for climatic change. Developing Perspectives on Climate Change: Issues and Analysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. IISD/Climate Change Knowledge Network, 14 pp. Again, not peer reviewed. The IPCC claims on Canadian wildfires were based on a couple of newspapers and a tourism publication: Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002. Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002. BC Stats, 2003: Tourism Sector Monitor – November 2003, British Columbia Ministry of Management Services, Victoria, 11 pp. Want more? Well, of course we have the claim about the Himalayan glacier melt, famously built on a scientist's mis-represented comment to a newspaper. Or we could look at the use of the non peer-reviewed Master's thesis in the IPCC: Shibru, M., 2001: Pastoralism and cattle marketing: a case study of the Borana of southern Ethiopia, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Egerton University. Wahab, H.M., 2005: The impact of geographical information system on environmental development, unpublished MSc Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, 148 pp. Gray, K.N., 1999: The impacts of drought on Yakima Valley irrigated agriculture and Seattle municipal and industrial water supply. Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 102 pp. Schwörer, D.A., 1997: Bergführer und Klimaänderung: eine Untersuchung im Berninagebiet über mögliche Auswirkungen einer Klimaänderung auf den Bergführerberuf (Mountain guides and climate change: an inquiry into possible effects of climatic change on the mountain guide trade in the Bernina region, Switzerland). Diplomarbeit der philosophisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bern. That's from just one Working Group. Or, if you would prefer non peer-reviewed PhD theses, we have: Crooks, S., 2004: Solar Influence On Climate. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford. Foster, S.S., 2004: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Variations for use in Studies of Global Climate Change: Application of Recent SOHO Observations with Historic Data from the Greenwich Observatory. PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, Faculty of Science, Southampton, 231 p. Oram, D.E., 1999: Trends of Long-Lived Anthropogenic Halocarbons in the Southern Hemisphere and Model Calculations of Global Emissions. PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 249 pp. Eyer, M., 2004: Highly Resolved δ13C Measurements on CO2 in Air from Antarctic Ice Cores. PhD Thesis, University of Bern, 113 pp. Foster, S., 2004: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Variations for Use in Studies of Global Climate Change: Application of Recent SOHO Observations with Historic Data from the Greenwich Observatory. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Driesschaert, E., 2005: Climate Change over the Next Millennia Using LOVECLIM, a New Earth System Model Including Polar Ice Sheets. PhD Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 214 pp, http://edoc.bib.ucl.ac.be:81/ETD-db/collection/available/BelnUcetd-10172005-185914/ Harder, M., 1996: Dynamik, Rauhigkeit und Alter des Meereises in der Arktis. PhD Thesis, Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven, Germany, 124 pp Jiang, Y.D., 2005: The Northward Shift of Climatic Belts in China during the Last 50 Years, and the Possible Future Changes. PhD Thesis, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, China Academy of Science, Beijing, 137 pp. Somot, S., 2005: Modélisation Climatique du Bassin Méditerranéen: Variabilité et Scénarios de Changement Climatique. PhD Thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 333 pp. Vérant, S., 2004: Etude des Dépressions sur l’Europe de l’Ouest : Climat Actuel et Changement Climatique. PhD thesis ... and that's just the PhD theses from Working Group 1 ... Regarding the use of non peer-reviewed documents from Greenpeace, we have: Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07 Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07 Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp. Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07 And regarding non peer-reviewed documents from the WWF, the IPCC used: Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp. Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp. Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp. Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp. Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp. WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp. Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland I could go on and on, but that will suffice for now. Finally, you have asked for the exact statistics on the use of non-peer reviewed studies in the IPCC report. They are here. -
Marcus at 10:42 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
I'd also like to make a point about the so-called politics behind the switch to Renewable Energy. Certain people are quick to claim that both Global Warming & a greater emphasis on renewable energy are all some kind of "Socialist Conspiracy", yet the history says otherwise. In Germany, it was Helmut Kohl-leader of the Christian Democrats-who kick-started that nation's switch to renewable energy (before Global Warming had reached the general public); in the US, the Federal Government who gave the biggest increase in funding to renewable energy projects was Ronald Reagan; in California, it's Arnold Schwarzenegger-a Republican Governor-who has given a huge boost to the renewable energy industry. Former Queensland Premier-Sir Joh-funded a PV power station for the remote community of Palm Island, but the incoming Goss Government canned the project & went with a nice, big & dirty diesel generator instead. In the UK, it was Margaret Thatcher who first really brought the threat of Global Warming to public attention. Now, as someone who identifies as Center-left, if my decisions on Global Warming & Renewable Energy were strictly political in nature, then I'd tend to reject both-due to "guilt by association". However, though I might not have agreed with their overall politics, I'm quite happy to recognize the good they did in this particular area. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:27 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Dr. Pielke is very annoyed to the point of publicly expressing dubious speculations about the honesty of NSF officers because a project of his own to investigate anthropogenic climate change factors was turned down for funding by NSF, unfairly according to Pielke. He's been making quite a stir about the matter so it's no surprise he should turn up on RealClimate promoting alternative anthropogenic climate change attributions. He's waging some kind of campaign, judging by his own words at his blog. -
Marcus at 10:20 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Oh, & further to my last point-this assumes the WORST CASE SCENARIO. In truth, Eyjafjallajökull probably released less than 16 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere &-according to all reports-this was more than offset by the reduction in CO2 emissions due to the grounding of air traffic during this period. Indeed, the best estimates I've heard is that the net impact of Eyjafjallajökull was about -2 million tonnes of CO2. So much for your argument then Eric (Skeptic). -
Riduna at 10:17 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Congratulations, a splendid effort at producing a booklet which sets out in clear, easily understood language what we know about the causes and some of the consequences of Global Warming – or to be more accurate AGW? It is so good that I am surprised not to see the authors name on the present draft. Why? I make a few suggestions and comments below which might (?) improve the content without making it too long. Page 1. Humans are emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 into the air every year. Very true but surely the most important point is that they are doing so by burning fossil fuels rather than fuels from currently living or recently dead sources. The result is of course not only the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere but (a) CO2 which without human activity would never have entered the atmosphere (hence AGW) and (b) the speed with which this is occurring is unprecedented – as is the speed of its consequences. Page 4. So warming causes more CO2 and more CO2 causes warming. But surely it is the other way around because of the high and increasing level of CO2 emitted by humans – More CO2 causes warming and warming causes more CO2, for example as a result of warming seawater giving up CO2, warming tundra giving up CH4, etc. Page 7. Ice sheets are melting loosing billions of tonnes of ice each year. True but would it not be more accurate to say: Land based ice is melting and doing so at an increasing rate, loosing billions of tonnes each year (as shown by Grace satellite measurements) Admittedly the WAIS is a marine ice sheet rather than land based but some parts of it are on land. Page 7. Sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate I largely due to diminished ice sheets). Also true but a very significant cause is also thermal expansion of seawater. Is that worth mentioning? Might the effects of rising sea levels get a mention – specifically the threat to erosion of coastlines, salination of fresh water sources and of course the loss of public infrastructure, housing and industry, as pointed out in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change Report on Climate Change Impacts on Coastal Communities (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ccwea/coastalzone/report.htm) Page 7. Glaciers are retreating, threatening water supplies for millions of people. Might one add: their livestock and agriculture? And if it were only “millions” maybe we should worry less but the threat is probably far greater – affecting hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Again this is confirmed by Grace. Page 7. Might an additional dot be added to draw attention to the albido feedback effect (http://www.examiner.com/x-504-Space-News-Examiner~y2008m9d17-Ice-Melt-Earths-Arctic-Zone-in--HeatCompounding-Decline) which is contributing to both the accelerating rate of temperature increase and ocean warming in polar regions, and retreat of glaciers. Page 9. Map showing Trend in downward infrared radiation. As far as I am concerned it is quite clear and understood. But how about guys and girls who are unfamiliar with this kind of representation? Might a bit more explanation be given of what this ma is telling us? Might it be appropriate to mention in this book the effects of continued increasing CO2 emissions, which of course include the following: • melting of the polar ice caps • dangerous sea level rise and coastal flooding • melting of land based snow and ice, contributing to • shortage of water in densely populated areas • extinction of flora and fauna dependent on cooler climates • increased risk of fire destroying valuable assets • loss of capacity to produce food for rapidly growing populations • increased incidence and severity of climate events • increased water vapor in the stratosphere causing further warming • spread of potentially fatal diseases into areas now free of them • ocean acidification damaging the marine habitat and • threatening a break in the food chain for fish on which humans depend.Response: Thanks for the suggestions. To address some of your comments and questions:- The author's name (John Cook, aka me) is on the inside front cover, the 2nd page of the document
- Page 1: Good points re the speed of the CO2 emissions being unprecedented but there is only so much space so I went with the most fundamental point - we're emitting CO2 (and lots of it)
- Page 4: the central point I wanted to make here was that the CO2 lag doesn't disprove CO2 warming. In essence, it does the opposite of what the skeptic argument is getting at, it actually provides evidence for positive feedback. I decided to go with just this simple point - although mentioning the permafrost, warmer seawater is a nice idea.
- Page 7: I frequently mention the accelerating ice loss on the website but that page has very limited space as I'm listing a number of different signs of warming. Ice sheets by nature are land based while ice shelfs are floating on the water.
- Page 9: I might have to scratch around for a different depiction of increasing downward infrared radiation. I also found it clear and vivid (and colourful, that was a big factor!) but perhaps a simpler, more intuitive graph would be better. Thinking about this.
- Re other effects of continued CO2 emissions, again, a good list but there just wasn't the space. Of course I could've just added more pages but I think when you're communicating science to a broad audience, you have to be quite harsh in what you cut out otherwise you risk swamping the reader with too much information. This then dillutes your central message. So I chose to emphasise one central message - there's a human fingerprint on climate change then look at the evidence for the fingerprint.
-
A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
johnd > According to what you have stated, if I get a block of ice from the freezer and put it in the room, the ice will emit extra thermal radiation into the room in all directions because it can't sense any incoming radiation. Yes. Remember that every singe molecule in the room is emitting radiation, including your own molecules and the walls surrounding you. What's really important in your scenario then is the radiation of the ice block relative to what is behind it (from your perspective). If it blocks something emitting less radiation than itself, then it adds to how much thermal radiation you are absorbing, no matter the distance. If it blocks something emitting more radiation, it reduces the radiation reaching you no matter the distance. In the first case of course conduction eventually cools you. In both cases in net the ice block receives more radiation from you then you receive from it, so in net energy is moving from the hotter object to the cooler. The difference is that in the first case the rate that energy moves from you to your surroundings is reduced very slightly, in the second case it increases very slightly. The greenhouse effect works to reduce the rate that energy moves from the warm surface up to the cold stratosphere and out to even colder space. Again that is a critical point so make sure you understand it: Energy is still flowing from warm to cold; it's just slowed down. Anyways, it is a physical fact that all objects warmer than absolute zero emit thermal radiation in all directions, irrespective of their surroundings. This is basic physics JohnD, you do your credibility no favors by trying to argue against it (if indeed that is what you are arguing). -
billkerr at 10:03 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
#32 and #33 John, When you say "The reason for the emphasis on CO2 is because it is the most dominant and fastest rising forcing" you are supporting Pielke snrs hypothesis 2b and rejecting 2a. They are mutually exclusive by my reading. Doug and John, The Real Climate discussion that Doug links to predates Pielke snrs invitation for people to improve the wording of the hypotheses if they feel the wording is inadequate, as claimed by Eric in the Real Climate discussion. This Pielke snr post, which also predates the invitation, condenses the different viewpoints. -
johnd at 10:01 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
JMurphy at 09:30 AM, given the article in question was in a newspaper published by the very university the professor is attached to, it would be reasonable to assume it was being reported correctly. Any concerns should be directed at those who compiled the original article. Surely someone involved with the publication itself would have picked up on it before it was published. It may well be that the Dunning–Kruger effect is alive and well at the institution itself, unless there was some mischief being made in an attempt to undermine the credibilty of the professor, which is why he had to move quickly to avoid. -
Marcus at 09:50 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Ah, Eric, still pushing the "Volcanoes do more damage than man" meme-so beloved of the denialist cult. Lets put it into perspective though, shall we? The volcano started erupting on March 27th 2010 &-from everything I've read-had all but ceased its eruptions as of June 15th 2010. Now, assuming that it was releasing CO2 from day 1, & that it was releasing the maximum amount of CO2 from day 1, then that means the total emissions from Eyjafjallajökull were around 30 Million tonnes. Now, from your own admission, Germany's cuts in CO2 emissions-for 2007-2008 *alone*, was around 16 million tonnes. That means that, even assuming the very worst case scenario, Eyjafjallajökull released *less* CO2 than what Germany saved between 2008 & 2010-FROM ITS 2007-2008 CUTS ALONE. Of course, the 2007-2008 cuts were just part of the cuts to CO2 emissions which Germany have been making since 1997. Given that its 2007 emissions were 487 million tonnes, then this means that their CO2 emissions back in the 1990's were somewhere around 650 million tonnes per annum. So you see that, compared with 10 years ago, Germany's CO2 emission cuts (200 million tonnes per annum) have easily dwarfed even the worst case scenario for the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull-& that's even before you consider the 200,000 kiloton per day reduction in CO2 from grounded air travel over the period of the eruption. So you see, Eric, like most denialist arguments, this one is very easily debunked if you spend more than 5 seconds reading-especially when you read *more* than denialist propaganda sites like WUWT. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:30 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
I find it absolutely astonishing how confident JohnD is as he attempts to validate his idea that photons can control their direction of emission by observing their surroundings, or are selected for particular destinations by some mechanism having universal information on the temperature of surrounding objects. Yes, KR, of course it's about NET flow but JohnD is apparently not prepared to admit that because this is a favorite hobbyhorse of impressionists. "How can something cooler warm something that's warmer?" Not a hard question to answer, much more difficult is defending a theory requiring that photons be endowed with information from their future. Forget all the ice cube and fireplace business, JohnD. You're working with a failed idea. Think long and hard about how you were led into repeating it. -
JMurphy at 09:30 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
caerbannog wrote : "This little item will tell you all you need to know about Watts' followers" To which johnd replied : "It certainly does. They instantly know that one can't believe all they read." Charming but very revealing of the mind-set that is so-called skepticism. An innocent professor is on the receiving end of cowardly hate mail, and johnd is unconcerned. Perhaps he deserved it, eh ? As for the Wattsits not believing all that they read, they have plenty of experience of that every day on WUWT. The trouble is, the Dunning–Kruger effect prevents them from realising it. -
kdkd at 09:29 AM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
I downloaded BP's data that he used for the "quadratic fit", and without further information it's impossible comment on the validity of what he did, apart from noting that looking at the regression diagnostics for a linear fit, there are few questions about the validity of the linear regression, and I'd question the need to use an alternative approach. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:26 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
John Russell... I just watched that video. I knew about the study done on vapor trails during the few days after 9/11 but I somehow missed the extent of the warming they turned up. One degree C is nothing short of startling. Thanks for posting that, Guillaume. -
Phila at 09:24 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
#29 "They instantly know that one can't believe all they read...." ...unless it's posted at WUWT, in which case it's basically beyond reproach. -
kdkd at 09:16 AM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken #119 BP would need to present regression diagnostics to show the validity of his quadratic fit compared to a linear fit. As it stands he presents too little information to assess its validity. My impression is that there's nothing to choose between a linear or quadratic fit, but I'd like to see the AKI statistic for each fit before making a definitive conclusion Your approach is profoundly unscientific anyway - you hide behind a spray of semi-technical meanderings. here is yet another explanation of why your approach lacks validity. -
KR at 09:07 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
johnd, doug_bostrom - you agree. NET heat aways moves from hot to cold, at a rate determined by the sum of energy fluxes in all directions. johnd - Just so you know: this was actually a long and painful topic a while back, where certain posters stated "heat always goes from hot to cold", claiming that no energy went from cold to hot, arguing that the greenhouse effect violated thermodynamics. They were quite wrong, of course, but that particular phrase was code for quite an argument. Hence visceral gut-clenching reactions for a number of people, myself included! -
Riccardo at 08:53 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
johnd, think about net radiation fluxes and everything turns out to be quite obvious. The ice cube emits radiation, more than any object at a lower temperature in fact. If ambient temperature is colder than the ice cube, it will "warm" you, if we agree that "warm" means that you loose less heat. Also, remember that thermodynamics works with a large number of objects, with just two molecules it does not make any sense. A molecule will emit it's excess energy regardless of the surrounding. But we are way offtopic here. -
johnd at 08:28 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
e at 07:55 AM, the wood fire we have burning right now is not keeping the room warm enough. According to what you have stated, if I get a block of ice from the freezer and put it in the room, the ice will emit extra thermal radiation into the room in all directions because it can't sense any incoming radiation. How far would I have to stand from the block of ice to benefit from such additional thermal radiation given I am colder than the fire but warmer than the ice? -
johnd at 08:17 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
doug_bostrom at 07:49 AM, what you appear to be saying is that if a molecule of CO2 is at point A, and another molecule of CO2 is at point B, if molecule A is cooler than molecule B, molecule A has no way of knowing that the energy being radiated towards it by molecule B is greater than the energy it, molecule A is transmitting, and molecule A will still radiate and transmit energy to molecule B. Making the analogy with your car, if you happen to enter onto a one way road the wrong way, you'll continue down the off ramp on until the car travelling up the off ramp collides with you enabling your car to transfer it's lower energy to the other higher energy car. It seems to me that if that occurred that neither car would be transferring it's energy from it's point of origin to it's destination other than to the point of collision where it is dissipated. However if the collision was between your car and a bird, which gets stuck in your radiator, your car having the greater energy would absorb the energy being dissipated by the bird and be able to continue on to deposit the nett result at your destination as long as the bird was the only other traveller on the road travelling against your direction. -
A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
To add slightly to my comment above: ... all objects warmer than absolute zero emit thermal radiation in all directions. -
A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
johnd > the radiation of heat is always in one direction, from the warmer body to the cooler. No John, that is incorrect. The net radiation absorbed + emitted is dependent on an object's surroundings, but all objects warmer than absolute zero emit thermal radiation. Perhaps you are thinking of conduction? The amount of thermal radiation emitted by an object is determined entirely by its own temperature, not by the temperature of its surroundings. The trick is working out is which is the warmer body and which is the cooler, which seems to be the basis of much of the debate over global warming. The surface of the earth is warmer than the atmosphere at higher altitudes, the earth itself is warmer than empty space, and the sun is warmer than the earth, nothing "tricky" about it.
Prev 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 Next
