Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 Next
Comments 123501 to 123550:
-
CoalGeologist at 12:15 PM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
John Cook interprets Gary Thompson's misreading of the scientific literature as evidence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but I feel this is a misinterpretation of D-K, and also misses the role of an even more harmful influence in the interpretation of scientific data, which is bias. D&K provide evidence that individuals having a low level of understanding of a topic tend to overestimate their own degree of mastery of that topic; however D&K treat this phenomenon as distinct from bias. While Thompson’s self-assessment might be higher than it should be (or not?), it would be difficult to argue that his knowledge of radiative heat transfer is not substantially greater than average. Why should this knowledge not provide an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, in his reading of the literature? The culprit here appears to me to be the insidious impact of bias. In contrast with pharmaceutical evaluations, or other experiments where human psychology can influence the results, we cannot realistically design a “double-blind” experiment to remove the influence of bias in the study and interpretation of climate change. We are constrained, instead, to making a sincere effort to minimize its impact. Skepticism is fine; however, if we approach climate science with the presumption that AGW is wrong, and that, ipso facto, evidence that appears to support it must be wrong as well, we substantially increase our chances of misinterpreting the scientific evidence by unjustifiably dismissing or ignoring evidence that is inconsistent with our ideology, and by failing to apply the same level of skepticism toward our own reasoning that we apply to evidence supporting AGW. After reading the articles, and blog comments above (including Mr. Thompson’s @#28), I conclude that Mr. Thompson has commited both offenses in the present case, perhaps inadvertently. Simply acknowledging the risk of bias is less than half the battle of eliminating its effects. I have seen many well intended individuals completely undone by bias, of which they seem to have only the faintest glimmering of self-awareness. Given the preponderance of specious arguments in the climate change “debate”, and the pervasive political ideology in AGW skepticism, it’s my conclusion that most of the criticism of AGW is rooted in ideology rather than science, and efforts to build a scientific case typically lead to what we see here. Indicators of the (inferred) ideological roots of Mr. Thompson's position may be found in his “Straw Man” definition of AGW (cf. Post #28 and #33), the politically “loaded” rhetoric in his essay, as well as the political slant of the very webzine where he chose to publish his results. (And while I’m not convinced that Mr. Thompson’s essay itself provides evidence for the Dunning-Kruger Effect, it’s worth considering that the webzine title “The American Thinker” might!) To me, this is the principal battleground of the present climate change debate, while climate scientists continue to do their best to understand the scientific evidence. -
joseph449008 at 11:04 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Please correct me if I'm talking nonsense here... I'm just trying to learn.
I think that's largely correct, Marcel. The irradiance from the Sun also can change, however, as can the bond albedo of Earth. These are relatively minor changes, though. -
Riccardo at 10:54 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
garythompson, i have a couple of comments on your article and, of course, on the explanation given here. The first is not about the science. You accuse the authors of the three papers of substituting actual measurements with model data while you omitted to show the third graph in Chen et al where both model results and data are shown. This a serious omission which undermine your claim. As for the sicence, there is a clear misinterpretation of how the radiative balance works. Indeed, it is not true that one should expect an overall decrease in OLR. If the planet is out of balance, as it is now, and trying to recover it needs to increase the overall OLR by increassing its temperature. This simple concept is unfortunately too often overlooked. What we see in the IR spectra is the superimposition of these two different effects, a decrease of the IR intensity at the absorption bands due to the increased GHG concentration and an increase elsewhere (the background thermal radiation from the surface) due to the increasing surface temperature. No surprise that near the edges of the absorption band the increasing thermal emission may outweight the increased CO2 absorption. On passing, extending the measurement range to lower wavenumber would not add much. Below 700 cm-1 the absorption saturates and the difference would obviously go to zero; you will end up with two spurious peaks on the two sides of the central frequency with zero in between. -
dorlomin at 10:31 AM on 23 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
In terms of the little ice age, would Milankovitch forcing have played a major role in why it got cold? I have always thought that we should be entering a stadial like conditions at this point of the Holocene. -
theendisfar at 10:18 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
Ned, You took the analogy too far and out of context. The Earth and Moon are not compatible with regards to truly making the analogy. My intent was to show that Convection spreads out the energy that would otherwise be trapped all at the surface. Perhaps it was unclear? The Moon's surface area is smaller meaning it gets less solar irradiance, and rotates every ~29 days meaning it gets 14 days of sunlight and then 14 days of night. Lastly, the Earth does indeed have an atmosphere, 5,000 Trillion tons of it, 99% N2 and O2. Do you take an opposition to any of the substance of what I wrote, or were you just looking for something to quip? Fortunately for us, CO2, CH4, water vapor, etc. do in fact warm the planet. Otherwise, Earth would be a ball of ice. Not trying to be a denialist :), but none of the above 'warm' the planet. They simply slow the cooling rate. By how much? CO2 'traps' 2 W/m^2. This is a tiny amount of energy as compared to what Convection and Evaporation transfer from the surface to the Tropopause. See above. Would you happen to have a link to an actual AGW Hypothesis or Theory? It is quite difficult to refute something that cannot be or has not been described accurately. Perhaps you can expand on your statement if one does not exist. Given that Convection and Evaporation exist, how does the GHE slow the cooling of the planet without slowing the Convection or Evaporation rates? The GHE is a terrible misnomer. Whatever gets trapped, will simply use convection or evaporation as there is nothing impeding them. Perhaps you take issue with this statement? Being new here I should expect some misunderstanding and jabs. Please note, I am a lover of nature, I hike, I camp, and I ALWAYS carry out more trash than I take in. With regards to AGW, it is the scientific method that led me to become a skeptic, not politics. If you think getting clever with me improves your position here, by all means continue, but at least attack the substance rather than picking apart side note analogies. With that, no harm no foul. Have a good one, looking forward to your rebuttal. The End is Far -
AndrewY at 09:52 AM on 23 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
CBDunkerson, thanks for pointing that out, I had missed the timing of the volcanic eruption event shown in Figure 3 (I should have guessed given that the temperature dip is such a sharp/strong feature). That's actually a relief, it means that in reality the dip in temperature is unlikely to happen at just that time (as I said, I had imagined it may have been due to some more predictable natural climate cycle, it would have been terrible timing). Strangely, I find myself happy at the news it is shaping up to be a really hot year (and that's not just because I live in the UK :o) -
Steve L at 09:44 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
garythompson @ 28 quotes himself for the AGW hypothesis: "increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival." My question isn't a technical one: where did this definition of 'the AGW hypothesis' come from? It doesn't seem like a very scientifically-stated hypothesis. Is it anything more than a strawman? -
carrot eater at 09:38 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
yeah. a lot of G&T is just irrelevant. I'm inclined to guess that nobody really reviewed it; it's not just bad, but it's full of inappropriate language. -
Is CO2 a pollutant?
I've just been reading the G&T paper. Oh, my. To quote Wolfgang Pauli "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -
Pierre-Normand at 09:18 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
The "clack" line is black, of course. -
Pierre-Normand at 09:11 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary Thompson, In your AT piece you said: "All three of the links referenced here devote the latter sections of the papers to removing the impact of surface temperatures and water vapor and graphing the OLR that is associated only with trace GHGs. The authors perform this trick (there is that word again...) based on the climate models and not through actual measurements, and surprise, surprise -- these simulated results show a reduction in OLR emission with wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. Computer-simulated results based on climate models are never a replacement for actual measured data [...]" But the authors cited compare the increase in absorption to the increase the models predicted would occur at those wavelengts. So, the model differential outputs get compared to the subtration of the two observed spectra. Look at figure 3 in Chen et al.. The clack line on this graph is the result of directly subtracting IRIS data from TES data. Yet, in the your AT piece you only displayed the first two figures and suggested IRIS and TES were identical. Figure 3 shows that they aren't regardless of the model predictions. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:10 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary Thompson says here: "I tried to be very clear in the article that the authors came to very different conclusions than I did and the authors were very clear as to why they came to those conclusions." In the comment thread of your blog, he says this: (Posted by: gdthomp01 Feb 18, 03:07 PM) "But even on the wavelengths shown, there was no decrease in OLR at those wavelengths so I still felt comfortable drawing the conclusions I did - and the authors of these papers (using simulated results from climate models) drew those same conclusions using these wavelengths although they weren't based on the actual measurements." This is hard to reconcile with the conclusion of the Chen article that I quoted above and clearly addresses the measurements: " Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra." In addition to the measurements, it would be strange for them not to examine model results, since these were the very subject of the paper. They found the model results to correspond very well to the observations, contrarily to what G. Thompson suggests in his conclusion. Thompson's conclusion also misrepresents the intention of the autors by alluding to possible dishonest conduct, or attempts to "trick" the reader, a reference to the well publicized hacked e-mails. G. Thompson: "All three of the links referenced here devote the latter sections of the papers to removing the impact of surface temperatures and water vapor and graphing the OLR that is associated only with trace GHGs. The authors perform this trick (there is that word again...) based on the climate models and not through actual measurements, and surprise, surprise -- these simulated results show a reduction in OLR emission with wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2." This in complete disagreement with Chen's conclusion (see above), since they clearly address the observations. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 09:04 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
I find this very interesting. From my admittedly low level of understanding, it seems that the main point is the following. Let us for the sake of the argument ignore all the complications of climate, and only discuss the effect of greenhouse gasses. This is a very crude simplification, but lets make it anyhow. Then a certain concentration of greenhouse gasses will correspond to a certain ground equilibrium temperature. At this temperature, the Earth will radiate exactly as much heat as it absorbs from the sun. If the actual temperature on the ground is lower than the equilibrium temperature, the ground will warm up. As it warm up, the Earth radiates more heat, and eventually equilibrium will be restored. So we do not expect to see a net influx of heat at any particular time, we expect (in the first approximation) an approximate balance between the more or less constant influx from the sun and the total heat radiation from Earth into space. What will change if we increase the amount of greenhouse gasses is not the total amount of radiation over all wavelengths (that will be approximately equal to total influx, and thus constant), but the distribution of the radiation over wavelengths. If the heat radiation from the Earth increases at some wavelengths it must also decrease at some other wavelengths, because in the first approximation we expect the total amount to be roughly constant. Since we know that the Earth has has warmed in the period 1970-1996, we would naively expect an increase in the total amount of heat radiated from the Earth. This cannot be, and has to be explained somehow. The AGW hypothesis explains this is saying that some of the radiated heat is trapped, shifting the escaping radiation down at some wavelengths. I believe that it does not say that the total amount of escaping heat has changed - just its distribution along the spectrum. Please correct me if I'm talking nonsense here... I'm just trying to learn. -
garythompson at 08:22 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
I am the author of the AT piece. First off let me tell the website admin (John Cook) that I really like this website. This and Realclimate.org are the two main sources I go (daily) to see the science debated and talked about. as I stated in the article, I’d rather debate the science than talk about the IPCC, Climategate, Jones, Mann, etc. All of that makes good news stories but it doesn't get to the heart of this issue which is the science. And the fact that I frequent these sites and join in the discussions means I’m comfortable with criticism and having an open conversation about the science. I appreciate the comments/questions already posted and let me see if I can answer those who have asked something specific of the author (me). First off, I never stated in the article that I was disproving the greenhouse effect. My aim was to disprove the AGW hypothesis as I stated in the article "increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival." I think I made it clear in the article that the greenhouse effect is not only real but vital for our planet (since we'd be much cooler than we are now if it didn't exist). Also, my aim was NOT to misrepresent the conclusions of the authors of the original 3 papers. I tried to be very clear in the article that the authors came to very different conclusions than I did and the authors were very clear as to why they came to those conclusions. There were three links to papers in this article and John chose to talk about one of them here (which happened to be the 2nd link) so I’ll take that one first. It is true that there is a spike down of about -1K in the region of 700-710 waves/cm but the rest of the range which extends to about 780 waves/cm, shows a the delta either zero or positive. The CO2 absorption range that is covered in the paper - as John pointed out and many know - extends further to the left and peaks at around 667 waves/cm so we don’t know what the data showed below 700 wave/cm. But if someone were to take this data - as given - and convert the BT measurements to OLR flux numbers (W/m2) I believe we'd see an increase in OLR flux (1997 vs. 1970) since the delta over the majority of this range (again, not the complete range but the range in this paper) will contribute positively to that delta. I didn't go through this exercise and plug this into the Planck function, integrate between the absorption wavelengths as listed in the paper and then compare the 1970 with 1997. I don't have the real data and to try and grasp that from a graph would be silly. Visually, this apparent lack of decline of OLR seems pretty obvious to me (when looking at the actual measured data). I suggest you take a look at the first link in the article as well. When looking at the graphs of the actual measured data in this paper, it becomes even clearer that there is an increase in OLR from 1970 to 1997 in the range where CO2 absorbs IR. The third link is the more updated Harries paper that several have posted about here so I did include that in the article as well (this compared OLR 2006 vs. 1970). In my opinion, this data falls into the same category as the paper reviewed here by John - a small -1K spike in the lower frequency OLR (again, it's not really the 'lower' frequency since the graph starts well to the right of the peak absorption for CO2) but then back up above zero for the higher frequencies in the CO2 absorption zone (which is also nicely grayed out in the more recent Harries paper). My point in this article was to show that you can see from the actual measured data that OLR is not decreasing in the area where we'd expect it to because of all the extra CO2 we've been spewing into the atmosphere (and just for the record, I am not arguing this CO2 rise - the Mauna loa data is easy to interpret). I was also pointing out the question that puzzled me - why the authors put so much value in the graphs that they produced via models - which showed a very large, significant drop in OLR in the CO2 range. We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere about 17% from 1970 to 2006 (328ppm vs. 383ppm) and the OLR appears to have remained constant when you look at the raw data from these three papers. Does that mean water vapor is generating OLR that doesn't get absorbed by CO2? As John alluded to in his Q/A with Harries - I’d really like to see this data extended out to the 600 waves/cm to see what happens at the peak absorption wavelength of CO2. I’m fairly swamped at work this week and will check back if there are more direct questions you want to ask me. I only mention this so that no one takes my non-response as non-interest. If you have questions regarding details of this article I’ll try and respond as timely as I can. If there are no questions I’ll just sit back and enjoy the conversation and criticism. ok, let me have it.....Response: Gary, many thanks for commenting. You're correct in that your article wasn't about 'disproving the greenhouse effect' - I've updated that wording to 'disproving the enhanced greenhouse effect' which I believe more accurately represents your position.
I'm not sure that the authors do put so much value in the simulated graph (eg - Figure 1c from Harries 2001). The main point of their papers is to compare the measured data with the simulation (Figure 1b) to show that our understanding of the enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by observations. The use of modelling to filter out the effects of humidity in order to show the isolated effect of trace gases is not a crucial part of the paper (but it is interesting).
I'm not optimistic that we'll see the analysis extended to 600 cm-1 as that is limited by the 1970s satellite data.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments and expect (nay demand) that commenters here will abide by our commenting policy and treat you with respect. -
joseph449008 at 08:16 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
The drop on the left is probably CO2. The drop on the right is either Methane or water vapor. The drop in the middle, I'm not sure. It could be CO2 as well. It could be Ozone. (I have a subscription to spectralcalc.com this month - still hasn't run out.) -
carrot eater at 08:02 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
Ugh. All that effort, for no resolution? Just note the inconsistencies in your own statements. First the problem was of magnitude, not principle. Then, you changed and there was a Second Law problem. But you couldn't find anyplace where net heat transfer went in the wrong direction. You must realise that G&T's argument won't allow for the 25 C wall to radiate towards the 50 C wall. This is simple stuff, which is why the scientific community can just dismiss G&T out-of-hand. It's just that wrong. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:52 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
What Thompson does with the Chen 2007 paper is take the IRIS measured data graph (1970) and compare it to the TES measured data graph (2006), for brightness temperature. It's rather strange that he would do that, since there is a graph in the Chen paper that does exactly that and also compares the modeled results, it follows right after the other 2 graphs, the ones showed by Thompson. Then comes Chen's conclusion: "The TES data compare very well with the IRIS data, suggesting successful normalization of the different instrument characteristics. The TES and IRIS difference spectrum covers the time range of 1970 – 2006, a period of 36 years. Simulated spectra represent the state of the HadGEM1 coupled model for 1970 and 2006. Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra. The methane signal is deeper for the observed difference spectrum than the modelled difference spectrum, but this is likely due to incorrect methane concentrations or temperature profiles from 1970. In the future, we plan to extend the analysis to more spatial and temporal regions, other models, and to cloudy cases." Thompson makes no mention of that conclusion at all and does not delve into the details of how exactly he "suuperimposes" the TES and IRIS brightness temp curves, nor what would be the expectations considering how GH gases have varied over the 36 years. -
Ned at 07:47 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
Without an atmosphere to convect much of the energy away from the surface, the surface would be much hotter and radiate at a higher energy similar to the moon. There's only one problem with this elegant hypothesis: the mean surface temperature of the Moon is colder than the Earth (around -20 C). In fact, since the Moon has a lower albedo than the Earth, in the absence of warming by greenhouse gases, the Earth would actually be even colder than that. Fortunately for us, CO2, CH4, water vapor, etc. do in fact warm the planet. Otherwise, Earth would be a ball of ice. This has been coming up a lot lately, for some reason. I just recently corrected someone else who was making the same mistake here. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:29 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Ubique, the "article" discussed does not really address any issue of magnitude. It confuses the readers by misinterpreting graphs picked from a peer-reviewed publication and suggesting conclusions based on the misintepretation. In doing so it completely fails to consider the very paper in which the graphs were found. I don't see how it could be of any interest whatsoever. -
suibhne at 06:29 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
carrot eater KR CBDunkerson Philippe Chantreau I think we are starting to repeat ourselves here. There is no point in restating positions endlessly. As I have stated, a peer reviewed article maybe passed for publication going over the same ground as G&T and will no doubt be commented on. Thank you for an interesting discussion. This forum provides a space where rational discussion can take place. This is a topic where irrational emotion based mud slinging is all to common and does neither side of the debate any good. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:10 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Ubique at 04:05 AM on 23 February, 2010 In order to "seriously challenge" the AGW hypothesis, Thompson's paper would need to be free of the errors John identified, misinterpretations that leave Thompson's argument seriously deficient. Can you refute John's analysis? -
Riccardo at 06:00 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
RSVP, the continuos part of the spectrum comes directly from the surface and reflects surface temperature. The atmosphere is overall much colder, i.e. much lower emission intensity and a peak shifted to lower wavenumbers, and being almost transparent has a lower emissivity. On the contrary, the level at which the strong absorption bands saturates reflects the tropospheric temperature or, to be more precise, the air temperature at the height from which IR escape directly to outer space. -
theendisfar at 05:54 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
Chris G, Whether the cooling/heating (transfer of energy) is radiative, convective, or done by evaporation, it is a transfer of energy no less, no energy ceases to exist or is created. Evaporation does not remove energy from the Earth's thermo system, however it does transfer ~30 Sextillion (1 Million Trillion) joules (~2300 Joules/gram) away from the surface to the upper Troposphere every ~10 days, Radiation takes over from there. Recall that the Earth's average Surface temp is 14 C and it is reduced to -56 C as convection takes place (PV=nRT) up to the Stratosphere. Radiation transfers energy at 300,000,000 meters per sec (speed of light (c)) while convection does it on a much slower, albeit larger, scale ranging from less than 1 m/s to less than 100 m/s. Radiation is very quick, but lacks force, convection is very slow but has lots of force. If you look at this from a standpoint of Work it becomes clear that convection does far more work than Radiation within a convective zone. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html Any IR "trapped" is literally trapped at the surface. If the IR is trapped at 1 meter, it is at the surface 150 Million times per second, very much like never leaving the surface, at 10,000 meters, altitude of the Tropopause (end of convective zone), it is reduced to 15,000 times, but still very much like never leaving the surface. The IR that escapes directly to space, which is most of it, nearly reaches the orbit of the moon over the same period. Knowing that a cubic meter of water at 14 C contains about 1.2 Billion joules, trapping 2 joules/sec amongst the 1.2 Billion will not raise the temp given that it takes around 4.1 Million joules to raise it 1 C. Given the Earth experiences 12 hours of night as well, this bodes poorly for the AGW Theory. (BTW - Is there an actual AGW Theory? Not being crass, just have never seen it described as a Theory like Evolution or Relativity) Lastly, you are correct, not to the exclusion, but given two paths, it will take the path of least resistance up to the point where the most efficient is saturated (this happens within millionths of sec over and over again) so Convection and Radiation do occur at the same time within the Troposphere, just more energy is being transfered via Convection. So while CO2 may trap 2 Watts (joule/sec) amongst the billions via radiation, entropy dictates that it will simply use convection or evaporation as a more efficient means to escape instead. There are many paths to the Tropopause and only one outside of that. Without an atmosphere to convect much of the energy away from the surface, the surface would be much hotter and radiate at a higher energy similar to the moon. A convective zone essentially spreads the energy, that would otherwise all be trapped at the surface (2D), over a larger volume (3D). Increasing volume reduces pressure and temperature. -
Riccardo at 05:47 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
Chris G, I may be wrong but as far as i can remember the first to account for humidity and radiative-convective equilibrium was Manabe et al. 1967. -
Is CO2 a pollutant?
I've had interesting discussions with friends regarding entropy and the Earth. The energy flow from the Sun at 342 w/m2 enters and leaves - the Earth acts like a pass-through at that macro level. Due to the insulating properties of the atmosphere, local entropic reversal through plant growth, and other effects, the energy level at the surface _appears_ anomalously high. But if you think of the Earth as an energy "bucket", it becomes clear. Incoming energy falls in, an equivalent amount pours out, while the Earth holds a continuously overturning level of energy. What we're looking at with global warming is that the edges of the bucket are getting higher (more insulation), and the level of energy at the surface of the Earth increases. That doesn't change the steady state input/output rates. -
carrot eater at 05:20 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
suibhne: The net exchange between surface and atmosphere is in the direction from surface to atmosphere. There is no problem here. Remember my example of the wall at 25 C and the wall at 50 C? Based on your current reasoning, it would be impossible for the 25 C wall to emit any radiation that is then absorbed by the 50 C wall. You've already admitted that such radiation does take place, so now you are arguing against yourself. As your statements are now inconsistent with each other, please clarify an argument. In so doing, show exactly which flow in the Trenberth diagram is objectionable, for which thermodynamic reason. -
RSVP at 05:04 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
The article states... "Thompson looks at several peer-reviewed analyses examining satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation" If "outgoing" simply reflects the raw data of temperature as measured by pointing the detector towards the Earth, it would seem that these curves represent a superposition of both Earth surface and atmospheric radiative emissions. It would seem like what matters is where the extra temperature is coming from. If it is coming from the surface of the Earth, that would support evidence for AGW. But if it is coming from the atmosphere, it would actually imply something a little different, more like a GHG heat conduit effect. -
Riccardo at 05:04 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Ubique, a little below the fourth graph: "So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven." -
Riccardo at 05:01 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Leo G, that's a good one, really a lot of massaging in the MP3 compression algorithm. -
Tom Dayton at 04:57 AM on 23 February 2010Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
TruthSeeker, statistics does not equal science. Statistics is one tool in the scientific toolkit. For example, there are many more aspects of decision theory that are used, than statistics per se. Furthermore, even statistics is not monolithic. You've got your descriptive statistics and your inferential statistics, Bayesian and non-Bayesian,.... Even within inferential statistical tests such as the one Jones was asked about, there are multiple possible tests addressing the same phenomenon. For such a test to bear on a decision about the existence of a trend, that test must be sufficiently powerful to detect a trend of that size against the background of the particular level of noise in that sample of that particular size. The trend in global temperature long has been known to be so small compared to the noise, that a sample of 15 years is unlikely to reach statistical significance at 95% confidence level. That's why climatologists don't often bother looking at samples of just 5 years or 10 years, and only sometimes at samples of 15 years. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:40 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
Suibhne "I understand that you would like me to say that IR radiation is exactly the same as heat but I am afraid that it is not." But that's exactly what you're saying, in fact. You're saying that, because the heat transfer must be from hot to cold (surface to atmosphere), IR radiation from atmosphere to surface can not exist. At all. So, whether you realize it or not, you are indeed saying that IR is heat. Or, at least that's what G&T are saying, and you seem to agree with that. I don't know how to say it so that you understand: the heat transfer happens from the surface to the atmosphere. Do you dispute that? Can you look at Trenberth diagram and see that it is actually what is represented there? If not you are experiencing a fulminant case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Nothing anyone can do. As for the entire system, at TOA, there is 342 in and 342 out. KR explains the rest fine. -
Leo G at 04:35 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Riccardo @ 17 - {to easy to call data massaging whatever analysis is made on the raw data} TO make comments like this easier for my brain to "get", I try to find an anology in my world. The one that jumped out at me this time was MP3 players. They are able to squeeze so much information onto their drives, by "massaging" the data with an algorithym. Only keeping so much of the "raw" data, then when needed, "putting" it back in place. Anyway this works for me. Keep up the good work, enjoy your posts. -
Chris G at 04:09 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
For what it is worth, my understanding is that some of the very early climate models failed to include convection, with the result that arbitrarily high temperatures could come out of them. Indeed, some were even on the wrong side of the triple point of water; it was self-evident that something significant was lacking. -
Is CO2 a pollutant?
From the wiki: "In thermodynamics, work performed by a system is the quantity of energy transferred by the system to another due to changes in the external parameters of the system. If these changes happen in a reversible way, then the performed work does not lead to a change of the entropy." "Work can be zero even when there is a force. The centripetal force in a uniform circular motion, for example, does zero work since the kinetic energy of the moving object doesn't change. This is because the force is always perpendicular to the motion of the object; only the component of a force parallel to the velocity vector of an object can do work on that object. Likewise when a book sits on a table, the table does no work on the book despite exerting a force equivalent to mg upwards, because no energy is transferred into or out of the book." Work requires a NET TRANSFER of energy. A balanced thermodynamic system does no work, even if energy (carried by IR, convection, conduction in the current discussion) flows both directions between those systems. In this regard the atmosphere is our table, the earth is our book - force is applied, no work is done, but the steady state condition is that the book is off the floor. Heat flow/entropy delta (net change) is zero for a steady state thermodynamic condition, energy flow isn't. Stop willfully confusing net entropy changes (heat) with balanced energy flows. Now if the steady state condition is disturbed (more CO2 blocks more long wavelength IR, more insulation) steady state temps on the surface will change to a point where the net energy flow is again zero (a hotter surface that radiates enough to compensate for the insulating properties of the atmosphere). Heating and cooling are directly reversible, and hence no change in entropy occurs (see first quote). suibhne, you've repeated yourself multiple times with that error about heat flows. It's not heating in a steady state system, regardless of non-zero bidirectional energy flows; no work is done. -
Ubique at 04:05 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
John: "The American Thinker article does not disprove the greenhouse effect." Agreed - but as I read it, it does not set out to try and do so. What it does is seriously challenge the hypothesis that "... Increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival." The issue it addresses is one of magnitude is it not? -
Chris G at 03:57 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
theendisfar, I'm familiar with the concepts of evaporative cooling, latent heat, PV=nRT, and all that good stuff. However, for instance, evaporative cooling, is a transfer of energy, it does not cause the energy to cease to exist; since the air and water are still both within the earth system, evaporation does not, by itself, remove energy from the earth. And, entropy does not say that energy will take the least resistant path to the exclusion of all others. -
Riccardo at 03:38 AM on 23 February 2010Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
TrueSeeker "First, the significance of Jones statement is that you cannot, scientificly, make the conclusion that there has been heating from 95-2009." This claim is utterly wrong. You cannot determine a stistical significant trend if you limit the period to 1995-2009. But still, you can scientifically make conclusions on this period if you expand the time range. You could also use the period before that, extrapolate the trend and the confidence interval and see if the data from the following period are still inside the limits. We can draw the scientifically sound conclusion that from the '70s up to now there has been a statistically significant trend and also that it is reasonably well aproximated by a straight line. -
suibhne at 03:16 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
carrot eater KR CBDunkerson Philippe Chantreau It is impossible for HEAT to flow from a lower temperature atmosphere to a higher temperature planet unless work is done on the system to make it possible. This is not a wild throw away remark but is the settled view of the Physics community. It would make more sense if you would say explicitly that CO2 and water vapour are a machine that works on the atmosphere to pump heat to the surface from the atmosphere. This would then take the discussion back to other familiar situations and conclusions could be drawn. I understand that you would like me to say that IR radiation is exactly the same as heat but I am afraid that it is not. More interesting is the news that there is perhaps a peer reviewed article addressing the same area as the G&T paper. Perhaps the publication of this paper will move the discussion on. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:14 AM on 23 February 2010Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
TruthSeeker @ 100 Nobody is using the trend from 95-2009 as evidence for global warming, laregly because the timescale involved is too small to average out the effects of internal climate variability due to things like ENSO. See the paper by Easterling and Wehner mention in posts 24,37 and 38. It is seen in model output as well. ISTR tamino had a good example on his blog where he made a time series composed of noise plust a linear trend. It was possible there to find periods of cooling, even though the signal *by construction* had a constant rising linear trend. Also the enhanced greenhouse effect *does* suggest that Earth's total heat content will rise, as it puts the planet out of radiative equilibrium, which won't stop until the radiating layer warms up to the point that a new balance is reached. That does not mean though that in the short term exchanges of heat between oceans and the atmosphere can't result in warming oceans and cooling atmosphere; there is still an increase in heat overall content. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:13 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
G&T are the ones trying to obfuscate things by equating IR radiation and neat heat, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. I'll quote myself: "heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere." That's a short, albeit accurate summary of the Trenberth diagram and I'm very confident that thermodynamics are on my side with this statement, you disagree? It does not prevent some IR radiation from flowing between atmosphere and surface. You can disagree with that if you want but I'll still trust the instruments measuring it and calculations showing it. You've been asked repeatedly to show where the Trenberth diagram violates any TD law. You keep on saying it does without having provided an answer. You have nothing of interest to say. -
Riccardo at 02:44 AM on 23 February 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
TruthSeeker, much easier indeed. Stations at high latitude have shown on average a lareger increase in temperature. The effect of removing those stations would be a reduced anomaly. Remember, anomaly is not absolute temperature. Also read my comment just before your if you prefer the opinion and the "massaging" of the data of an old time skeptic. -
Riccardo at 02:33 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
TruthSeeker, to easy to call data massaging whatever analysis is made on the raw data. Do you really think that cutting edge science is made with just a thermometer, a tape meter and a screwdriver? Do you think that you can just fly a satellite and it will say "hey, this is the number you were looking for"? It's silly. Look around other scientific fields or even what is behind many technological applications and you'll find even more data "massaging" than in Harries paper. -
theendisfar at 02:30 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
Chris G, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat While it takes 99 joules to raise 1 gram of water 99 C, it takes an additional 2260 joules to get it to change from a liquid to a gas. This seems odd given that our oceans are not boiling yet we have a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere. so let's put it another way. It doesn't not take 2260 joules to vaporize a gram of water. The second link provided gives a satisfactory explanation as to why. -
TruthSeeker at 02:22 AM on 23 February 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Excellent write up. I accept the argument as presented and it has changed my opinion on the subject. I now agree with the premis that Heat Islands are not responsable for recording increased temperatures. What about the criticizim that their has been a reduction in temperature stations over time, and that the ones being excluded are sites that have been historically recording "cooler" temperatures than the average. It seams it would be easy to prove or disprove that one. -
Riccardo at 02:19 AM on 23 February 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Argus, did it never happen to you to say in a private conversation "if he does this i'm going to kill him" or "i love this thing, i'm going to steal it" or something like this? Wow, that's incredible. -
TruthSeeker at 02:17 AM on 23 February 2010Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
Dude, This is the worst argument that you have ever made. First, the significance of Jones statement is that you cannot, scientificly, make the conclusion that there has been heating from 95-2009. That is scientific fact. This is in direct conflict with the fact that CO2 rates have continued to rise in that same time frame. Second, what is with this Heat Content argument? It is nothing more than a distraction. The orginal premis of the whole global warming "problem" is based on temperatures that will continue to rise, and this is not the same as heat content rising. If I have a pot of cold water, and supply it with a temperature of 101 C. the pots heat content will continue to rise, but the applied temperature stays the same.Response: I have to disagree with you there - I've made worse arguments on several occasions (finding those instances I leave as an exercise to the reader).
I go into more detail about why heat content is a more appropriate metric for measuring global warming than surface temperature on the global cooling page. The land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.
That's not to say surface temperature is unimportant. But by looking at surface temperature in proper context, you can see why it shows so much variability - it is a small part of a climate which exchanges heat between its various components such as the ocean exchanging heat with the atmosphere. We mustn't forget that global warming isn't just about graphs and statistics - it's the physical reality of the planet steadily accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. -
theendisfar at 02:09 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
Let's suppose (in the worst case) every ounce of IR energy were absorbed within a few meters. This would simply raise the radiative heat source a few meters off the ground... or is the energy just going to stay there forever hovering over the ground? That would be on average 240 W/m^2. For dry air, it takes ~1,300 joules to raise a cubic meter of air (1.3kg) 1 degree C. So it will take approximately 5 seconds to raise the temp 1 C. As the temperature of that cubic meter of air increases, its density decreases and moves the heated volume skyward to be replaced by a lower temp volume of gas (nature abhors a vacuum) and the process repeats. As the volume rises, pressure decreases and so does the temp from PV=nRT. It takes energy to move that volume of gas, in fact it takes ~88,000 Watts to move a 1 m^2 column of dry air 1 meter/sec skyward. The Earth only radiates at 240 Watts, which makes sense given that Radiation is the least efficient means to transfer energy while convection is very efficient. Entropy states that energy will take the path of least resistance or the most efficient path. Once Convection is no longer available as a means to transfer energy (i.e. Tropopause), then Radiation becomes the only means of cooling. Note that the Earth's convection zone, the troposphere, would only be 8 mm high if the planet was 100 meters in diameter. While that is a very short distance, convection moves massive amounts of energy within that zone. The wind that drives sailing vessels has huge amounts of force behind it. That energy comes from convection, which comes from the surface heating the air just above it. -
Is CO2 a pollutant?
suibhne: Once again you mistake the tree for the forest. Simple black body radiation (yes, simplifying for this discussion) emits from any object at levels corresponding to temperature. The Earth radiates the ~390 w/m2, plus another 100+ or so in conduction/evaporation. [Note that the measured bidirectional energy flow is 4x higher in radiation than conduction/convection.] The atmosphere radiates 342 (note, less!) towards the Earth. That and the 168 solar irradiance sum to (wait for it) 0. That's important, suibhne, _zero_. This is a steady state thermodynamic balance, and WORK is not being done. The atmosphere bounces a great deal of the energy emitted by the earth right back to it (like a silvered thermal blanket) - no work is done, just a different steady state condition than with no atmosphere. You have again argued from a portion of the equation, not the sum; looking at a part of the energy flows rather than the summation. As for the Earths surface being warmer than space, the solar irradiance impinges on the earth, lower wavelength/lower energy (IR) is emitted (simple entropy there, the earth isn't a perfect mirror), and CO2 with an IR absorbance peak retains it. Enough said. You first need to look at the summations in the steady-state thermal diagram, and realize that if work is being done it wouldn't be steady-state. Second, "It is impossible for HEAT to flow from a lower temperature atmosphere to a higher temperature planet unless work is done on the system to make it possible" realize that the presence of something warm (the atmosphere) keeps neighboring things warm (the Earth) by slowing/balancing energy emission rates. Again, this is a summation of all energy flows. And third, the energy flows of IR, conduction, and evaporation are easily measured and known - the GT assertions apparently denying IR energy exchange to the contrary are simply and provably wrong. I realize this isn't the last word on the topic; I assume that you will have some response. However, this is the last that I will post unless you have an actual and substantive point. -
theendisfar at 01:42 AM on 23 February 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
Alexandre, Why thank you! I welcome your assistance, for starters though, let's just begin with ONE formula and as many coefficients as required. Your language suggests you have a superior understanding or was it condescending in nature. I would like to find out. -
carrot eater at 01:29 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
suibhne Finally, you've decided to explicitly accept the G&T position. OK. Now, where in the Trenberth diagram is heat flowing the wrong way, suibhne? Please point out exactly where the wrong way transfer is.
Prev 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 Next
