Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 Next
Comments 124751 to 124800:
-
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. -
CBDunkerson at 01:26 AM on 23 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
Actually, both the discovery of the greenhouse effect and thermodynamic laws were first announced in 1824. However, the problem here isn't that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics... it is that you don't understand those laws. As you are attempting to apply them the Earth could be no warmer than the temperature generated by incoming solar radiation... yet it is ~32 C warmer. The planet is NOT a solid ball of ice. Ergo, your understanding MUST be incorrect. How is that possible? Well, for starters you are trying to determine entropy while leaving the energy SOURCE (i.e. the Sun) out of your system of observation (atmosphere and planet only). -
danielbacon at 00:53 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
http://www.eumetsat.int/.../pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf I think this is the newer study to the (Harries 2001). If it is the place it above and delete my post thanks. -
Dennis at 00:45 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Remember last weeks postings on the Dunning-Kruger effect? Well, Gary Thompson's writing is a perfect example of it. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:01 AM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
It seems to me, that the main theme here is "skepticism" about the American Thinker, not only "Longwave radiation" ... Is so surely my earlier (deleted) comment was not about what You write?Response: That comment was deleted because it was off-topic - it seemed to come out of left field and I struggled to see what it had to do with the discussion at hand. I'd say it was more appropriate in a discussion of what's causing the rise in atmospheric CO2. -
suibhne at 23:50 PM on 22 February 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
CBDunkerson 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. Why do you think that every Physics or Thermodynamics textbook would back me up on this? The laws of thermodynamics were there before and after any supposed new theory such as Greenhouse theory. They can not be set aside. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:38 PM on 22 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
HumanityRules My comment is a little late, but ... - Warming, e.g. in the Older Peron - was global, but higher in NH. The current warming is also greater for NH. Responsible for changes in the THC - North Atlantic deep - below the shelf - narrows the "bottleneck" ... The spectacular example - most of Antarctica, over the past 35 years, is cooled (http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/05/080507132855-large.jpg), which is typical for the Millennium cycles, although the reasons may be Miscellaneous (e.g.: "A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850." E.R. Thomas et. al., Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 35, L01706, doi: 10.1029/2007GL032529, 2008). -
CBDunkerson at 23:27 PM on 22 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
AndrewY, assuming that you are referring to Figure 2... it should be understood that the sharp dip shown 'coming up' is the result of a randomly placed major volcanic eruption (as can be seen by the corresponding downward spike in the black line at the top of Figure 3). Thus, while a volcanic eruption could happen in that time frame and have that sort of short term cooling impact, there is no scientific data suggesting that this WILL happen... our ability to predict volcanoes is extremely limited. The random eruptions were included only to show that they have little impact on the long term trends. That said, your observation about short term fluctuations testing "faith in science and reason" is very much what we've been living through this past decade of only mild warming. If it, and the accompanying denial, continued we could very well miss our chance to stop GHG emissions from reaching dangerous levels. However, that seems unlikely to be the case... predictions for the current year suggest that it is going to have a high temperature anomaly. Indeed, last month was the hottest January ever recorded and the third highest anomaly month (after two in 1998) in the UAH records. February looks on track to be similarly high. If predictions for 2010 hold out then it is likely that carefully constrained 'no statistically significant warming since 1995' bit will go poof. -
Ned at 23:09 PM on 22 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
HumanityRules, I think it's great that you're asking so many questions. My question to you might require a little introspection. I don't know whether you had seen the original post about this graph at "American Thinker," but if you had, would you have put in a comparably aggressive effort to question Gary Thompson's representation and conclusions? In other words, are you this skeptical towards claims on both sides of the issue, or only in one direction? Perhaps you would have ... but if so, you would have been pretty much alone among Mr Thompson's audience. I didn't read through all the comments over there, but I did examine the first 20 posts. Not a single one raised any questions about Gary Thompson's mis-representation of the paper. Instead, here is a summary of those 20 comments:- Expressing congratulations: comments 1, 2, 12, 15, 18, 20
- Promoting conservative political agenda: comments 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17
- Attack on scientists: comments 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13
- Statement that AGW is a hoax/fraud/scam: comments 10, 11, 13, 14, 17
- References to Al Gore: comments 7, 11
- Praise for Lindzen or other prominent "skeptics": comments 9, 10, 15
- Linkage to other climate-"skeptic" issues: 13 (snow this winter), 18 (claims of ice age in 1970s), 19 (Medieval Warm Period, hockey stick, etc.)
- Linkage to other issues: comments 10, 17 (both advocating use of DDT as a pesticide)
Response: After posting this article, I was a bit annoyed with myself that I forgot to read the comments on the American Thinker article - there may have been someone who raised similar objections and hence the author's response would've been interesting. If all comments were similar to the first 20, I'm glad I didn't waste my time. -
HumanityRules at 21:50 PM on 22 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Whoops my bad. They do mention the 1997 El Nino but not the 1970 La Nina. Still not so happy with the one liner suggesting it may just shift the base line. The reversal of the trade winds during these two periods is surely going to have a major impact on the atmosperic components over the Central Pacific and elsewhere. -
Argus at 21:33 PM on 22 February 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Riccardo : '' None of them ever said they were going to delete the email.'' Maybe not, but this quote is rather close (from Phil Jones). Close enough for me!: ''If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone...'' -
AndrewY at 21:30 PM on 22 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
First, thanks a lot, John, for your work on this site, it is a great resource and your writing is clear, accessible and objective. I have to say that I see a very worrying feature in this prediction of the global temperature anomaly. In all cases there is a brief rise and then a considerable decline in the global temperature over the next decade. After that (from around 2020) the global temperature climbs very rapidly. This is presumably because natural climate variation/cycles first hold back the global warming trend, then after 2020, combine to reinforce it. I realise that climate models don't predict these relatively short term trends very well, but if this temporary reversal of the warming trend actually happens in this decade, it will make it a lot more difficult to convince politicians and the public that global warming is a serious problem that requires radical changes to the way we generate and use energy (and resources). How terribly ironic if such a temperature decline actually happens just at the time when a concerted effort to reduce GHG emissions is most vital! It will truly test humanities faith in science and reason. -
Riccardo at 21:22 PM on 22 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
HumanityRules, 1) no, different absorption bands have different strength. As you can easily see in panel a, the band at 970 cm-1 is minuscule. The difference is scaled proportionally so is minuscule as well. 2) From the paper: "All the principal features due to changes in CO2, CH4, O3, temperature and humidity are well modelled, as are the small changes due to the chlorofluorocarbons (for example, at 850 and 920 cm-1) and weak CO2 bands (for example, at 795 cm-1)." It appers that John actually read the paper. 3) didn't understand what the point is. 3) this paper shows the increasing absorption of CO2 and other GHG. This is unambiguous whatever H2O might have done. The conclusion that it "[...] is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate" is appropiate. -
70rn at 21:15 PM on 22 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@7 The absorption regions used these graphs - specifically the ones between 700 - 800 cm^-1, are not attenuated by h2o and as such change at that range in the spectrum cannot be attributed to it. Below 700 cm^-1 the absorption regions of co2 and h20 begin to overlap, so change in that region can be correlated to co2 alone. Point 2. There is no co2 absorption range at 970 cm^-1 that i am aware of, though i believe there to be a 03 region somewhere there about. -
Pierre-Normand at 21:15 PM on 22 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
I had posted a comment on JREF regarding this Smoking Gun. It's not so very often that I can be ahead of SkepticalScience!Response: It's not that hard to get the scoop on me - I'm hardly known for my promptness or punctuality :-)
Prev 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 Next
