Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  2546  Next

Comments 126901 to 126950:

  1. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - Exactly as suspected. Zip, Nada, Zero answers. PS: Don't ask me any more questions until you answer mine.
  2. Philippe Chantreau at 20:51 PM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    That last link contains the answers to your post 162. Too much to quote in here, with graphs etc, and I also have other things needing my attention.
  3. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - Are you going to answer MY questions in my Post#162 or not?
  4. Philippe Chantreau at 20:42 PM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    I do not believe that the Wiki article is in error. The reasoning throughout the text is terse and consistent. Where is the error exactly? The disclaimer certainly does not mean that much. Similar disclaimers exist for Wiki links you've used. The downward IR radiation has been observed and measured, a number of papers analyzing that have been mentioned on this site. You were mentioning earlier vector addition of field vectors that, in effect, are identical to the radiation/absorbtion idea that I and Wiki describe. It is formulated differently but it describes exactly the physical phenomenon and contradicts some of your own statements. A comment to G&T (2009) was submitted to IJMPB. You're probably not interested but other readers might be: http://rabett-run-labs.googlegroups.com/web/G%26T2.11.doc?hl=en&gda=GiEkiT8AAAAXmxShcFP2xrtZ1iQa9EYObLHe1BSUDn5EEukXYSRaprw7opP7C43-G-AfaR61VoGccyFKn-rNKC-d1pM_IdV0 Hope john can make that link look better. There is a number of problems with G&T.
  5. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - re: your Post#167 A radiates 90. B1 radiates 60. The field between A and B1 is 30 towards B1. (2nd Law, Heat Transfer equation, Vector addition and Interference) When B1 receives and absorbs the 30 it HAS to radiate it. B1 was already radiating 60 so now it HAS to radiate 30+60 = 90.(Stefan-Boltzmann Law and The Law of Conservation of Energy) That's how thermal equilibrium is achieved. Now A and B1 are both radiating 90. (Zero heat transfer between them...2nd Law, Heat Transfer equation, Vector addition and Interference) This is EXACTLY what I have said in ALL my posts including the extremely simple calculation in my Heat Transfer example in my Post#34. ------------------- Now, answer MY questions in my post#162 !!!!
  6. Philippe Chantreau at 20:15 PM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    You say "Field between A and B1 is 30 towards B1. B1 receives 30 additional so it now Radiates 60 + 30 = 90. A and B1 are now in thermal equilibrium." How is that possible? The 30 is already the result of the subtraction of 60 to 90, and we add the 60 again? You're suggesting that not only B is actually radiating 60 toward A, which you indicated earlier was impossible but also that it is radiating it twice.
  7. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - re:your post #163 The superposition principle always applies. A radiates 90. B1 radiates 60. Field between A and B1 is 30 towards B1. B1 receives 30 additional so it now Radiates 60 + 30 = 90. A and B1 are now in thermal equilibrium. A and B1 can now be considered as a single object, call it X ...and radiates 90. X radiates 90. B2 radiates 60. Field between X and B2 is 30 towards B2. B2 receives 30 additional so it now Radiates 60 + 30 = 90. X and B2 are now in thermal equilibrium. X and B2 can now be considered as a single object, call it X ...and radiates 90. X radiates 90. B3 radiates 60. etc. At the end they are all in thermal equilibrium....radiating 90. ------------------------- The Wiki article is in error. There are many people that don't understand the Physics. The article also says this: "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (October 2007)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation See: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364 http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 --------------- Now answer my questions in my post#162
  8. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau I appreciate the way you answered my question way back (142). That doesnt mean I agree with everything you said, however it was thoughtful and respectful.
  9. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord Whether you are right or wrong, you have fought heroically. Apparently, Tom Dayton is not serious and is just here to play with people's heads.
  10. Philippe Chantreau at 19:27 PM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm sincerely trying to understand and I have been getting info as we exchange posts, isn't that how a fruitful discussion should happen? I am well aware that you did not discover the superposition principle or any other law discussed here. Let's consider the superposition principle and the multiple object experiment: A radiates 90W. B radiates 60W. Net heat flow -30W from A, correct? If we apply the superposition principle with 12 B objects, A radiates 360W total. That's a little strange since the total energy radiated by all the B objects is 720W and A is still only 90W. What's wrong with this picture? Clearly the superposition principle does not apply in this case. OTOH, if we apply a treatment more like in the Wiki article on thermal radiation above, A absorbs 630W, which seems to make more sense but should be impossible with your interpretation of the 2nd law, since none of the B objects should be able to individually radiate anything toward A. What gives?
  11. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    After answering numerous questions (over and over again), I have yet to receive even ONE answer to these simple questions: Any luck coming up with these items? 1. Please supply ANY Law of Science that supports the "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW. 2. Please supply ANY Measurement that shows that CO2 in a Colder Atmosphere can Heat up a Warmer Earth. 3. Please describe (and back-up by Physics) how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C to a whopping +15 deg C. There has been over $200 Billion spent on AGW, there are thousands of papers on AGW, the IPCC has written several reports on it and countless "Scientists" say AGW is real. So, this should a "snap" for you to produce....right? Good Luck! -------------- Also, NOBODY has even tried to do the extremely simple calculation in my Heat Transfer example in my Post#34. Now let’s see YOUR calculations with energy flowing from the colder body to the hotter body. Do the calculations until thermal equilibrium is achieved. Remember that there is ONLY one energy source emitting 5.67 watts/m^2 and the Law of Conservation of Energy says “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”. GOOD LUCK!
  12. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post #159 Your link does not work. Physlet Illustration: Emission in the Bohr Model http://physics.gac.edu/~chuck/PRENHALL/Chapter%2031/AABXTEI0.html?I1.x=8&I1.y=29 PS: "Packets" are not continuous. ----------- Greenhouse Effect http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/grnhse.html#c1 There are numerous authors for Hyperphysics. The Physics Link equations and descriptions are found in Physics text books. However, this "author" claims that "Infared emission is blocked by the glass" An obvious "error" as ANY spectral emission of a standard Tungsten Light Bulb will show. By the way, in case you didn't notice....it describes a "Glass Greenhouse"! ----------- Hmmm, so Roy Spencer is a "pathological denialist"....not very POLITE are you? ------------- Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364 Notice what is said in the Abstract: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system." AND... "According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation." http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
  13. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Riccardo - re:your post#158 That's exactly what I did in my Post#150 !!! "As you can see: The equation P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) describes much, much more than the Stefan-Boltzmann Law! It is a representation of numerous Laws of Science, Principles of Science and Actual Measurements." Also see my Posts #16,#27,#34,#69, and #144. I am tired of constantly re-posting Physics links and repeating what I have already posted.
  14. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, you managed a single polite response and then degenerated below your previous low level. Since you like moving pictures, here is one showing a moving wave packet (photon) that you keep denying exists as a discrete entity: http://physics.gac.edu/~chuck/PRENHALL/Chapter%2031/AABXTEI0.html?I1.x=8&I1.y=29 One of your favorite sources that you greatly trust, HyperPhysics, has a section on the Earth's atmospheric greenhouse effect, somehow avoiding mention of its violation of the second law. How can the author of that site be so correct about the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but so wrong about the greenhouse effect? Maybe you should go argue with Roy Spencer, since even he realizes that the "violation of the second law" argument is so wrong that it is bizarre. You are no longer amusing to play with.
  15. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, "The equation P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) describes much, much more than the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!" And then, can you describe what this equation tells us? And how it applies to the earth-atmosphere system?
  16. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - Re:your Post #154 First, I did not write or invent the Superposition Principle or ANY of the other Physics links I referenced. Second, I am not your Teacher. Third, I suggest that YOU investigate the Physics for YOURSELF....or take some Electrical Engineering Courses if you have the academic qualifications to do so. Finally, replying to your posts has become an exercise of CONSTANT repetition is really getting TEDIOUS !!!
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 17:22 PM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Since you use Wikipedia quite a bit, I believe it is an acceptable source for you. I found this in the article on thermal radiation, can you discuss? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation "In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared heat is partially regained by absorbing the heat of surrounding objects (the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism). Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 .[3] Using the formulas below then shows a human being, roughly 2 square meter in area, and about 307 kelvins in temperature, continuously radiates about 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts." Note that the surfaces mentioned are colder than the human body considered (296 vs 307K). Isn't that normally impossible? It very much corresponds to the idea I had that bodies radiate and absorb and the net heat transfer depends on the difference between the 2, does it not?
  18. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - re:your post #153 Yes, if T or Tc is greater than absolute zero they will both radiate EM fields EMT and EMTc, however "Wave Interference" will occur creating a NEW WAVE pattern that has a Magnitude of [ EMT - EMTc ] and a DIRECTION of propagation towards EMTc. If EMT = EMTc then the "Wave Interference" will produce a NEW WAVE pattern that has a ZERO Magnitude and there will be ZERO propagation. Just like the Bubble Link shows. Cancellation of Light (This Bubble link is especially well done...even a child could understand it) http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/bubbles/bubble_colors.html I am tired of constantly re-posting Physics links and repeating what I have already posted. Especially if I just posted it!!! Are you starting to understand why this CONSTANT repetition is really getting TEDIOUS?
  19. Philippe Chantreau at 17:09 PM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    About the superposition principle, you say, "The net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually." According to you, each stimulus individually would have resulted in zero radiation from any B object to object A and a transfer to the B object. So, that would mean that, overall, heat is flowing away from A, is that right? How does a field "carry" photon energy? How can photon energy not move, since by definition a photon moves at the speed of light? Thanks for the links.
  20. Philippe Chantreau at 16:51 PM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, "Gee, it seems that if T or Tc is greater than absolute zero they will radiate." Can you expand a bit on that?
  21. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - re:your post #147 Re: Mass of a Photon I had ALREADY posted this Physics link in my post#126 Photon "In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force CARRIER for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon I also stated in the same post: "- Photons have zero Mass." and "Is it so surprising that opposing EM fields and corresponding Forces will only move the zero mass Photon energy in the direction of the larger force? The “block of wood” analogy should be apparent except that, unlike a “block of wood”, a Photon has zero mass." I am tired of constantly re-posting Physics links and repeating what I have already posted. --------------- You asked... "Obviously, the photon going through numerous absorbtions and re-emissions will take longer to reach the TOA. It means that the atmosphere imposes a longer residence time to IR photons in the periphery of the Earth. Now I'm wondering all the things that happen if the atmospheric composition is changed in a way that further increases that residence time." You can wonder all you like. I have already answered your question in my Post#144 and gave a calculation for the time required to send a signal from the Earth's surface to a satellite 36,000 km away. It takes 0.12 second. How many "Days" did you think it took? I am tired of constantly re-posting Physics links and repeating what I have already posted. ------------------ You said... "Vectors are not physical phenomena, they are ways to represent them. You can play around with formulas and plug numbers in them, that does not provide us with an understanding of the principles described by them." Vectors are used to represent Forces and any quantity that has both a magnitude and a direction...like EM fields. Vector EM fields are another way of describing "Interference" that occurs in the time domain when EM waves interact. I have already provided these Physics Links that completely explains constructive and destructive "Interference" and how they produce a NEW EM WAVE and can completely cancel opposing EM waves. Interference (wave propagation) "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." There is even an animation of continuous waves creating a continouous Interference pattern that produces a NEW WAVE that is CONTINUOUS! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) Cancellation of Light (This Bubble link is especially well done...even a child could understand it) http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/bubbles/bubble_colors.html http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15F.html http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/lightandcolor/interference.html I am tired of constantly re-posting Physics links and repeating what I have already posted. -------------------- You asked... "What happens to the photons emitted by a cooler object in the direction of a warmer object? Do they disappear? Do they turn around? Do they anihilate against photons coming from the warmer object? If yes, how exactly does that happen?" I have already answered this in my Post#126 including links to the Physics. Here is a partial re-post: "Propagating Electromagnetic Fields "CARRY" Photon energy. If an Electromagnetic Field has zero magnitude it will not propagate, hence Photon energy cannot move. The Photon energy is CARRIED in the DIRECTION of the LARGER Electromagnetic Field!...and EM fields ARE VECTOR FIELDS!" I am tired of constantly re-posting Physics links and repeating what I have already posted. ---------------------- You asked... "How about the multiple object experiment? What is the net heat flow for object A? None of these thought experiments requires calculations to be answered, the exact values are of no interest, only the principles. According to the principles, what direction of heat flow must object A experience when surrounded by B through B12?" The "superposition" principle applies. Superposition principle "In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle, also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems, The net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle Interference (wave propagation) "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." There is even an animation of continuous waves creating a continouous Interference pattern that produces a NEW WAVE that is CONTINUOUS! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) Here is an additional Physics Links that show multiple sources and how their waves interact. It includes a animation and a resultant radiation pattern for the multiple sources. http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/rad2/mdq.html
  22. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - Re:Your Post#146 What "tone" didn't you like? Was it: Why don't you save us all a lot of time and BACK-UP your Posts with Physics Links BEFORE posting your un-informed and continually "WRONG OPINIONS" ?? --------- You said... "But objects that radiate have no obligation to do so continuously. Consider two very cold objects--both so close to absolute zero that they infrequently radiate. One is slightly warmer than the other. Most of the time, neither is radiating." Perhaps the "crux of your confusion" is that you have not actually read the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (which I have posted numerous times)? Here is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law again: P/A = BC*T^4 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/stefan.html ----- Here is the Heat Transfer equation: P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan’s constant, A = area, T = temperature of radiator and Tc = temperature of the surroundings or another body. ..when rearranged gives P/A = e*BC*T^4 – e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2) --------------------------- Gee, it seems that if T or Tc is greater than absolute zero they will radiate. Where do you get..."Consider two very cold objects--both so close to absolute zero that they infrequently radiate." What Law of Science did you base that statement on? Really....WHERE did it come from? ----- Here is another statement made by you...."One is slightly warmer than the other. Most of the time, neither is radiating." Again, What Law of Science did you base that statement on?...and where did it come from? -------- Both your statements are CLEARLY dis-proven by The Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Why don't you Post back-up Physics for your statements? Like I said, I am tired of constantly re-posting Laws of Science that your "opinions" are in direct conflict with! -------------- After making the totally wrong statement: "But objects that radiate have no obligation to do so continuously. Consider two very cold objects--both so close to absolute zero that they infrequently radiate. One is slightly warmer than the other. Most of the time, neither is radiating." You continue making false statements like: "Now the cooler object emits a single photon/wavepulse, which travels to the warmer object while the warmer object happens to not emit. So the wave from the cooler object makes it all the way to the warmer object without interference, until it hits the warmer object and the warmer object absorbs that energy. The warmer object thereby is warmed by the cooler object." It is hilarious to see a false statement that violates The Stefan-Boltzmann Law used to justify another false statement that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! I think I have made my point...and no further comment is necessary.
  23. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Ricardo - re:your post #145 The equation P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) is not representative of just one Law of Science (Stefan-Boltzmann Law) Here is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: P/A = BC*T^4 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/stefan.html ------------ Here is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3 -------------- Here is some Electromagnetic Physics: Heat flux "Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux ----------------- Here is the Mathematics of Vectors applied to vector fields: Vector addition of fields... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/mulpoi.html#c3 ------------------ Here is the Law of Conservation of Energy: Conservation of Energy "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html -------------------- Here is the Result of Violating the 2nd Law and/or The Law of Conervation of Energy: Perpetual motion "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed." "Perpetual motion violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both" "A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited 'free' energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion ----------------- Here are some actual measurements that confirm that the Colder Atmosphere cannot heat a warmer Earth. Look at my Post #18 where I provide a link to a paper and measurements done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University proving that Back Radiation cannot reach the Earth. -------------------- As you can see: The equation P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) describes much, much more than the Stefan-Boltzmann Law! It is a representation of numerous Laws of Science, Principles of Science and Actual Measurements.
  24. Philippe Chantreau at 15:07 PM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, from all the capitalized shouting, it does not seem that patience is your strongest virtue. However, I'm asking that you exercise more of it, especially since my own weakness is to be wordy at times. I have more questions. Anyone else's answers will be welcome too, BTW. I can't help to think that, in order to subtract a field vector from another, the field vector has to exist. Which brings the question, what quantity is represented by the field vector? What is it made of, physically? Considering the Stefan-Bolzman equation that governs heat transfer as you expose it above: P=e*BC*A(T^4-Tc^4) P being the net heat flow. Since P is a heat flow and the result of a subtraction, a priori the terms of the subtraction also have to be heat flows, don't they? If not, what are they? The S-B above should be the same thing as P=(e*BC*A*T^4)-(e*BC*A*Tc^4). It looks like a heat flow, minus another heat flow, yielding a resultant heat flow. Perhaps I'm wrong but this is physics, so these terms do describe physical quantities, i.e. they each correspond to a physical phenomenon. What quantities, what physical realities are respectively described by e*BC*A*T^4 and e*BC*A*Tc^4? Next question: if T=Tc, then P=0. There is no net heat transfer. However, neither e*BC*A*T^4 nor e*BC*A*Tc^4=0. In this case, although the net heat transfer is zero, both terms do exist. Translated in plain language, it means that both bodies radiate and absorb at the same rate. I'd think they have to. Since they have a non zero T, they must radiate; since P=0, they must absorb too, both of them, both at the same rate, which is the same as their rate of emission. The vectors "cancel out" but the physical quantites represented by the vectors do exist don't they? Energy can not disappear. Is there anything in the S-B relation that prevents to describe all other situations as both bodies radiating and absorbing, but at different rates? Back to the block of wood analogy. A force is applied to the block of wood in a certain direction, while a lesser force is also applied to the block. The fact that a greater force is being applied does not make the application of the lesser force impossible, does it? What it makes impossible is a resultant motion that, if represented as a vector, would have a component equal or greater than zero in a direction opposite to the greater force. But the lesser force does exist and can be applied opposite to the greater one, or in any direction for that matter. Can it not?
  25. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Try this out for size. The atmosphere being cooler than the surface can not conduct or convect heat to the warmer surface. This is where the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies. The atmosphere will radiate energy toward the surface regardless of the temperature difference. Electromagnetic radiation is not heat and does not represent a thermal gradient to be dissipated by increasing entropy. ER can traverse the entire visible Universe without loosing it's integrity or energy except to the expansion induced redshift. The Second Law does not apply to the propogation of ER. Am I correct?
  26. Philippe Chantreau at 09:16 AM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Your calculations are of no interest to my questions. You have not really answered any of them. If it bothers you so much, stop repeating the physics and explain how they apply to the situations I described. When RSVP asked a specific question about the mass of the photon, I answered it plainly. Why not do the same? My questions were clearly stated above. They're all tought experiments. I guess we could say you answered the first one, the unhindered photon being hypothetical. Obviously, the photon going through numerous absorbtions and re-emissions will take longer to reach the TOA. It means that the atmosphere imposes a longer residence time to IR photons in the periphery of the Earth. Now I'm wondering all the things that happen if the atmospheric composition is changed in a way that further increases that residence time. Vectors are not physical phenomena, they are ways to represent them. You can play around with formulas and plug numbers in them, that does not provide us with an understanding of the principles described by them. So enlighten us by showing how the formulas apply to the situations given in the thought experiments, why not? What happens to the photons emitted by a cooler object in the direction of a warmer object? Do they disappear? Do they turn around? Do they anihilate against photons coming from the warmer object? If yes, how exactly does that happen? How about the multiple object experiment? What is the net heat flow for object A? None of these thought experiments requires calculations to be answered, the exact values are of no interest, only the principles. According to the principles, what direction of heat flow must object A experience when surrounded by B through B12? I will pay attention to an answer that's well explained. My "opinions" are like scientific knowledge: open to revision.
  27. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, do you remember John Cook's comment about your inappropriate tone? I wasn't so much bothered by your tone before, but your most recent tone does bother me. Please calm down. Please stop using all uppercase letters, because it really does feel like yelling. We do seem to be making progress toward understanding, but your tone is hampering us. I understand that you are frustrated, but don't take it out on me. You wrote:
    "If the Fields are continuous the Interference is continuous and the NEW WAVE is continuous !!! Interference (wave propagation) "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." There is even an animation of continuous waves creating a continouous Interference pattern that produces a NEW WAVE that is CONTINUOUS! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
    But objects that radiate have no obligation to do so continuously. Consider two very cold objects--both so close to absolute zero that they infrequently radiate. One is slightly warmer than the other. Most of the time, neither is radiating. Now the warmer object emits a single photon (i.e., emits a single wave set/pulse), which travels to the cooler object. During the transit time, the other object continues to not emit. Therefore the warmer object's wave arrives without encountering a wave in the opposite direction. Therefore the warmer object's wave proceeds unaltered until it hits the cooler object, and the cooler object absorbs the energy of the wave. The cooler object thereby is warmed by the warmer object. The same mechanism operates in the other direction. Neither object is emitting. Now the cooler object emits a single photon/wavepulse, which travels to the warmer object while the warmer object happens to not emit. So the wave from the cooler object makes it all the way to the warmer object without interference, until it hits the warmer object and the warmer object absorbs that energy. The warmer object thereby is warmed by the cooler object. The warmer object emits more often than the cooler object does, and with more energy in each photon/wavepulse. So the net effect of those exchanges, summed across time, is the cooler object getting more energy than the warmer object does. Which is what the second law of thermodynamics requires.
  28. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    "The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4)" All in all, the whole game reduces to this simple expression no one can desagree with (anyone questioning Boltzman?). This will tell us what is the power (energy per unit time) leaving an object at temperature T surrounded by an environment at temperature Tc. So, we should think (hard!) on who's the guy called T and who's the other guy called Tc. And that's it.
  29. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    To me this is one of the many examples that clearly show how the scientific knowledge can be obtain just putting together several pieces ov evidence. The single ACRIM/PMOD issue is not particularly intriguing, "Not terribly much" indeed, and more technical than scientific. But this site is devoted to discussions on whatever irrelevant or false claim is made on the skeptic side. What is looks really weird is that Scafetta 2009 uses the SATIRE model to bridge the few years of the ACRIM gap when the model by itself do not show any long term increase. Does this mean that SATIRE works only for those few years? ;)
  30. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau - Re:your post#135 Again, I am repeating the PHYSICS that I have ALREADY POSTED! The "VELOCITY" that an EM field propogates at through the atmosphere is determined by the DIELECTRIC CONSTANT OF THE ATMOSPHERE! The Velocity of all EM fields in a vacuum is 3 X 10^8 meters/sec. The change in velocity of an EM field propagating through the atmosphere is given by: Wave propagation speed Calculating velocity of propagation V = 1/ K^0.5 where V = fraction of speed of light and K is the dielectric constant of the material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagation The dielectric constant of AIR is 1.00058986 +/- 0.00000050 !!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_constant If we use K = 1.00058986 then V = 0.99971 So the VELOCITY that an EM field will propagate through the atmosphere is 0.99971 X 3 X 10^8 = 2.999 X 10^8 meters/sec !!! This includes ALL the factors found in the atmosphere ! How long does it take for a Satellite Up-Link to transmit it's signal to a Satellite in Geostationary orbit 36,000 km above the Earth? It takes about (36 X 10^6 meters)/(3 X 10^8 meters/sec) = 0.12 SECOND ! How many DAYS did you think it took? ---------------------------- You said... "Yet you do the same thing, merrily interchanging radiative energy and net heat flow." Here is the "MERRY PHYSICS" that I have posted MANY times before. Heat "Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object - this is properly called heating." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/heat.html --------------- Heat Radiation Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan’s constant, A = area, T = temperature of radiator and Tc = temperature of the surroundings or another body. ..when rearranged gives P/A = e*BC*T^4 – e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2) This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Fields. It also complies with the Vector subtraction of Electromagnetic Fields which are Vectors. The resultant Electromagnetic Field will have a magnitude of P/A and have a direction of propagation in the direction of the larger field. There is absolutely no energy flow from cold to hot, complying with the 2nd Law. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 --------------- Heat flux "Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux --------------- Looks like the "MERRY PHYSICISTS" including Stefan and Boltzmann also use "radiative energy" as "heat flow". ------------------------------------------------------ The rest of your post is just more un-informed and wrong "OPINIONS" ! I am tired of constantly repeating the PHYSICS over and over again. Why don't you save us all a lot of time and BACK-UP your Posts with Physics Links BEFORE posting you un-informed and continually "WRONG OPINIONS" ?? --------------------- PS: I did an actual Heat Transfer calculation using the actual "MERRY PHYSICS" developed in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for Heat Transfer. The example is shown in my Post#34 Now let’s see YOUR calculations with energy flowing from the colder body to the hotter body. Do the calculations until thermal equilibrium is achieved. Remember that there is ONLY one energy source emitting 5.67 watts/m^2 and the Law of Conservation of Energy says “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”. GOOD LUCK!
  31. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Tom Dayton - re:your post#134 It is YOU that are confused and obviously can't seem to do any vector mathematics. I never said that "The vector EM field propagating from a warmer object does not sum with (interfere with) the vector EM field propagating from a colder object, halfway between the objects." !!! Where did you dig that little "gem of wisdom" up?? I have already posted this before: Vector addition of fields... Multiple Point Charges Example: E1 = kq1/r1^2, E1x = E1*cos a, E1y = E1*sin a E2 = kq2/r2^2, E2x = E2*cos b, E2y = E2*sin b The resultant Vector E components are computed as: Ey = E1y + E2y = E1*sin a + E2*sin b....because the vector components ADD Ex = E1x + E2x = E1*cos a - E2*cos b....because the vector components SUBTRACT The resultant Vector E will have a Magnitude E = (Ex^2 + Ey^2)^0.5 The resultant Vector E will have a Direction Tan(theta)= Ey/Ex http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/mulpoi.html#c3 --------- Heat flux "Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux --------- Heat Flux is a VECTORIAL QUANTITY and HAS to be computed AS VECTOR QUANTITIES !! This has been KNOWN and USED by ALL Electrical Engineers and Physicists for OVER A HUNDRED YEARS! What don't you get about this very simple FACT ??? --------------------------------------------- You said... "But in reality, the two fields pass each other and hit their respective targets." Wrong again. If the Fields are continuous the Interference is continuous and the NEW WAVE is continuous !!! Interference (wave propagation) "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." There is even an animation of continuous waves creating a continouous Interference pattern that produces a NEW WAVE that is CONTINUOUS! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) --------------------------------------------- You said... "The field that hits the colder object imparts a lot of energy, because that field has a lot of energy, because that field arose from a warm object. So the colder object gets a lot warmer. The field that hits the warmer object imparts less energy, because that field has less energy, because that field arose from a colder object. So the warmer object gets only a little warmer. The net result of those two fields' impacts on their respective targets is that the colder object warms more than the warmer object warms." Wrong again. Just like the Physics links above CLEARLY prove and are ABSOLUTELY vefified by the 2nd Law. -------------------------------------------- I am tired of constantly repeating the PHYSICS over and over again. Why don't you save us all a lot of time and BACK-UP your Posts with Physics Links BEFORE posting your un-informed and continually "WRONG OPINIONS" ??
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 06:04 AM on 3 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    You asked a question, I gave you an answer. It was about the mass of the photon, not its speed in various media. I guess I could have kept it drier: yes, the photon is massless. The momentum of a photon is a function of its wavelength and the Planck's constant. If you don't like my answer, which I found very clear, feel free to seek another one but if the counterintuitive aspect bothers you, forget about any enquiry on Quantum or Special Relativity, there is nothing intuitive about it. Elementary particles behave both as waves and particles, that's the way it is. Mass and energy are manifestations of matter indeed. A photon is energy; it can "become" mass, but it does not "have" mass. If it "becomes" mass, it ceases to be a photon. If you think that the basic conceptual model of Quantum or SR is off track, go right ahead and challenge it, that's how progress is made. However, unlike some who challenge the consensus model of Earth climate, make sure you know what you're talking about before you cast the challenge. Both theories are actually very consistent. Mass and energy are "equivalent" only for massive particles at rest (zero momentum). C is not a function of anything, it's the energy of a particle that is a function of c. The square of the energy of a particle is the sum of momentum square x c square and mass square x c fourth power (mass is the invariant mass). With zero momentum and a non zero mass, it simplifies to mass x C square. Sorry John, I don't know how to import LaTEX formulas and such goodies.
  33. We're heading into an ice age
    [quote]The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007).[/quote] Solar radiative forcing is not the only change to account for. Solar minimum may also mean less solar wind and solar cosmic rays and geo-magnetic interaction. There is a correlation between solar cycles and the number of galactic cosmic rays, wich can cause more or less cloud formation that can increase the albedo reflecting a significative part of the total sun power. So when we talk about a solar cycle influence we should include also this issue.
  34. High CO2 in the past, Part 2
    Hi Chris: I refer to my posts 127 & 128 & 129 on "How do you know CO2 is causing warming". If you care, I would not mind hearing a few responses there!
  35. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf N. Scafetta 2009 is “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 “The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used.” http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/ Nicola Scafetta Comments on “Solar Trends And Global Warming” by Benestad and Schmidt http://dpnc.unige.ch/ams/ICRC-07/icrc1243.pdf McCracken, K. G. (2007), Heliomagnetic field near Earth, 1428–2005, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A09106, doi:10.1029/2006JA012119
  36. High CO2 in the past, Part 2
    Your posts indicate an odd unwillingness to engage with fairly straightforward analysis and explanations Henry Pool. The answer to your question about "400 ppm that we are heading to..." is addressed in the top post. Why not read it before firing off! Likewise you've fired off some assertion about "Earth's albedo", without seemingly taken the time to consider this, or even to read the work that you are referring to. The Palle et al work on albedo you refer to is published here: E. Pallé et al (2006) Can Earth's Albedo and Surface Temperatures Increase Together? Eos Trans. AGU, 87(4), doi:10.1029/2006EO040002 and in fact the point of the paper is that an apparent increase in albedo (which is somewhat debatable anyhow), doesn't mean that the earth will cool. One needs to consider the source of the albedo change. In this case it seems to be associated with a cloud effect, and since clouds can also suppress radiative loss of the from the earth surface, an increased albedo from clouds doesn't necessarily mean cooling. So your assertion is based on a non-sequitur. Why not familiarize yourself with the work you use to attempt to make a point, before engaging here. It would save an awful lot of time!
  37. ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch
    Thanks for posting that. Another recent paper that addresses this same point is: M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich (2008) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale Proc. R. Soc. A 464, 1367-1385 http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract This addresses the "ACRIM gap" from a different perspective, and shows that the PMOD analysis is not only more consistent with observational evidence and the Wenzler/Solanki analysis (that you refer to), but that if the ACRIM stitching of the "ACRIM gap" were to be correct, that this would essentially overthrow everything that solar science understands about the relationship between solar irradiance and other solar parameters, and between solar parameters and earth climate. e.g. Lockwood and Frolich state:
    Here, we point out that the TSI modelling of Wenzler et al. (2006) from ground-basd magnetograms is also consistent with the PMOD composite and inconsistent with ACRIM and IRMB. The great accuracy of this modeling, and the fact that the facular filling factor is the only free parameter,means that it provides an excellent test. In addition we point out that the ACRIM composite generates some curious phenomena thatwould need explanation. For example, if the ACRIM composite were correct, the strong negative correlation between TSI and GCR fluxes over the solar cycle, for which we have a physcal explanation, would reverse polarity on longer time scales for reasons we do not understand. This would invalidate almost all previous evidence for solar effects on climate on time scales longer than the solar cycle.
    and:
    Extrapolating the long-term drift in TSI required by the ACRIM composite would imply that non-cyclic stars were actually brighter than the cyclic ones and that Am was negative (i.e. the Sun was brighter in the Maunder minimum than now). Note also that the trend in the ACRIM composite on time scales greater than the solar cycle is exactly the opposite to what is asumed in palaeoclimate studies that employ cosmogenic isotopes generated by cosmic ray bombardment of the atmosphere as an inversely correlated proxy for TSI (e.g. Bond et al. 2001; Neff et al. 2001).
    In essence the physical world does make sense, which is why science is such a successful enterprise...
  38. CO2 has been higher in the past
    Not only is the above attack on Arrhenius an ad hominem, and no reflection on his CO2 science, it's also inaccurate. Eugenics in Arrhenius' time was the study of racial genetics and health. It's absurd to call him a racist- he would have been interested in the genetics of Scandinavian peoples. It's also dubious that he had anything to do with the Swedish voluntary sterilisation program, since it was introduced in 1934, and he died in 1927. A modern doctor giving advice to members of ethic groups on specific genetic disease risks would be doing what Arrhenius would have regarded as eugenics. Of course that doctor wouldn't use that term because of it's association with policies of compulsory sterilisation, genocide and racism from the Nazi period; perhaps Arrhenius wouldn't want to use the term either today. As he's dead, we can't ask him, and it's unfair to smear him with the abuses eugenics came to be associated with after his death.
  39. High CO2 in the past, Part 2
    Quote: "This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm which initiated cooling". So the 400 ppm that we are heading to is not a problem? That would solve our problems.So what are we going to do in Copenhagen? Anyway, it looks like we are heading to global cooling (due to an increase in earth's albedo - since 2000)
    Response: Don't forget that in the late Ordovician, solar output was about 4 to 5% lower than current levels. So 400 ppm is indeed a problem. There is some argument to be made that 350 ppm is what we should be targeting (of course, that's a political impossibility, just a scientific ideal).

    Also, Earth's albedo has shown little to no trend in recent years.
  40. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Philippe Chantreau I understood momentum = mv. What does calling it p buy you except occulting m, or is relativistic momentum something different? You go on to say..."That formula does not say that mass and energy are equivalent, it says that the energy of a particle is a function of the speed of light, the mass and the momentum of the particle." I understood that mass and energy were equivalent manifestations of matter, and the equation you cited was used precisely to describe this relationship. Furthermore I understood that the speed of light was a constant, not a function. So, it doesnt help me to know that "All this is easy to find on physics web sites and such", when these are precisely the inconsistencies I will be finding. I prefer WeatherRusty's explanation which is more straightforward and intuitive... light slows down in glass because it is zigzaging around and taking longer to propagate. Either way, the point of the question is to illustrate that you cant always take verbage from one chapter of a physics book, apply it to problems in another, and necessarily expect things to make sense. And personally, if a thing is said to require a non-intuitive explanation, it is probably because the basic conceptual model is completely off track.
  41. This just in - the sun affects climate
    >>>>UPDATE: I read the Scafetta paper which claims the ACRIM data (which shows slight warming) is more accurate than the PMOD data (slight cooling) because it shows closer agreement with the TSI reconstruction by Krivova and Solanki. I found this curious as Krivova 2007 itself compares its results to PMOD and finds close agreement. So I contacted Sami Solanki, one of the authors of the Krivova model. He replied (very promptly, a very approachable scientist) that they had actually written a paper responding to Scafetta's claims that is currently awaiting publication. I will keep everyone posted when the paper is published.<<<< Hi, I just registered, although I've been reading here for a while trying to educate myself. Thanks for putting together such a useful, easily navigable and attractive resource. I particularly like how the relevant scientific papers are provided and linked. I was wondering if there had been any updates on this, specifically Solanki's response, but generally any refutation or critical discussion about the Scafetta/Willson 2009 paper?
    Response: The response from Solanki and Krivova has been published. I summarise it's findings in ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch.
  42. Philippe Chantreau at 14:22 PM on 2 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    RSVP: the photon is massless but has a relativistic momentum. Its energy is not dependent on its mass but momentum. If you call p the momentum, c the speed of light and E the energy of the photon, you have E=pc. That can be easily found by using the expanded special relativity equation, the one that can apply to all cases, not only massive particles. That formula does not say that mass and energy are equivalent, it says that the energy of a particle is a function of the speed of light, the mass and the momentum of the particle. All this is easy to find on physics web sites and such. Like all elementary particles, it has characteristics of both wave and particle, as in the double slit experiment.
  43. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    The light is also refracted or bent when encountering a discontinuity in density such as a glass surface or from air to water for instance.
  44. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    RSVP, I would suggest that you consider when light passes through a discontinuity or medium of suddenly changing density, the light is diffracted or bent along it's path. The distance traveled to the receiver is thus increased and the time required to get there is increased. Light traveling though a gas is scattered by atoms and molecules repeatedly thus requiring greater time to reach a given point.
  45. How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
    Gheewhizz -- it got awully quiet now? Check this graph here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/ The most interesting thing about this graph is that the forcing due to the brightening of earth in 2005 is more than 6 W/m2 larger compared to 2000. This alone is like double the forcings attributed to the greenhouse gases. (but the forcing of the greenhouse gases is in the opposite direction). If this trend continued past 2005 then this more than cancels each other out. Taking the earth's albedo of 2000 as zero, then in 2005 we were back at where it was in 1985 So the effect of the global warming is now being undone! If this carries on long enough we will go back to a situation where we were will go into global cooling. Why is this happening? Apparently in one report I read that this brightening is due to an increase in the absorptive wavelengths of a) carbon dioxide b) oxygen (ozone) c) water (I hope I can still find that report again) This does make sense to me: a) I have been saying this along: there must be a cooling effect of CO2! So as CO2 increases, so will some of earth's albedo increase! The correct answer in 127= 1)!!!! b) back in 1985 I was still working in the electronincs industry desperately trying to get rid of CFC's. Working in a team at a big multi national we eventually succeeded by 1990 at replacing all the processes where we used CFC's. It was not long afterwards that the rest of the electronics industry followed us.(Our slogan was: we are ozone friendly) The refrigeration industry also found alternatives.So it seems all CFC's were banned. Some human activities produce ozone. So obviously what is happening now is that ozone must be increasing - hence more UV light is being blocked and is emitted by earth. c) Going by plane you notice that one of the activities most easily observed from above is the gathering of water by man. You see many dams, mostly for irrigation but also consumption. This is usually very shallow water, which easily warmps up. As a result, there must be an increase in the formation of water vapor. We know that water vapor reflects a lot of radiation! So, if this trend of an increasing albedo of earth continues, there is of course no more global warming. I donot know what the trend after 2005. I will try to find out, unless someone has these figures?
  46. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Somewhere I read that light is a particle. I wont say who said this. Light propagates more slowly in anything but a vacuum. If for instance it is propagating through air and then hits a new medium like glass it somehow "decelerates" instantaeously, then when emerges out a slower medium will "accelerate" instantaneously. Supposedly photons are particles containing energy. Physics says that energy and mass are equivalent, so when the photon decelerates or accelerates instantaneiously, why doesnt this require or release an infinite amount of energy? Is a photon massless? If so, how then can it contain energy if mass and energy are equivalent? I suspect there is some off-the-shelf explanation for this question containing semantic gyrations that satisfies conventional wisdom.
  47. Polar bear numbers are increasing
    See Cold Beer Please post in the Artic Ice thread: "Beginning in early January 2009, sensor drift caused an underestimation of ice that grew until the error was finally caught in the mid-February. Internet visitors who look to the NSIDC for data sent emails to the center and, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean. (See NSIDC)" From NCPA: "Though polar bears are uniquely adapted to the Arctic region, they are not wedded solely to its coldest parts nor are they restricted to a specific Arctic diet. Aside from a variety of seals, they eat fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses. In addition, as discussed above, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived. Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline: Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing. Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable. Another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears - are increasing. The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown. Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations." www.ncpa.org/pub/ba551/ -
  48. Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
    The formation of Atlantic hurricanes also appears to be strongly influenced by Saharan dust. The dust from the Sahara tracks westwards into the ocean and causes local cooling, depressing the temp. below thresholds needed for hurricanes to form. ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.../20080039568_2008038939.pdf - summarises the work by Lau & Kim.
  49. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord, thank you for your copy and paste some of the relevant physcal concepts. But you forgot a couple, heat trasnfer and absorption. After that you can expand the them.
  50. Philippe Chantreau at 04:59 AM on 2 November 2009
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate
    Gord @ 131, you're not answering the question. The question is in fact a thought experiment, which is as follows: We are observing 2 IR photons emitted simultaneously from the surface of the Earth. One is going its merry way to the TOA unhindered. The other bumps into a gas molecule, becomes kinetic energy, the molecule re-radiates that kinetic energy quantum as a photon at the proper wave length, that photon heads out in a random direction, bumps again in a gas molecule, and so on and so forth until it reaches the TOA. Which photon arrives first at the TOA? In the case of the objects at different temperatures, there will be photons emitted by the cooler object toward the warmer object. Representing their sum as a vector is only that: a representation, which is convenient. However, that does not change the fact that, physically, there will be photons emitted by the cooler object toward the warmer object. What happens to them? We could consider vectors as forces, since you mentioned it, which was a good idea. An individual is applying a force to a solid in certain direction. It makes the solid move in that direction. Another individual is applying a lesser force to that same solid in the exact opposite direction. The solid, and its movement, are affected by the lesser force, are they not? The direction will not change, the velocity will, but the surface of the solid, if somewhat soft, will deform at the point of application of the lesser force, will it not? In the links and quotes above, seems to me you are playing on words. These quotes don't say whay you say they say. Their fault is to somewhat abuse language for the sake of simplification, but the expectation is that one knows the obvious fact that the direction of the net energy flow (to space) is conserved. Especially for John's quote; in his context, "warms" means "changes the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation." The result is raised equilibrium temperature. You're playing around with the fact that words are employed outside of their pure thermodynamic meaning. Yet you do the same thing, merrily interchanging radiative energy and net heat flow. Here is another thought experiment: Hot object A radiates energy in the form of IR EM radiation. Object B, next to A, radiates same type of energy at 2/3 the rate of A. According to your interpretation of the 2nd law as you expressed it earlier, no IR EM energy at all can travel from B to A. We add objects B2 through B12 (they all have the same characteristics) in the vicinity of A, all the B objects are evenly spaced around A. What is the net heat flow for object A? According to your interpretation of the 2nd law, none of the B objects can radiate any heat toward A, and A should still radiate and not absorb. Is that really what is going to happen?

Prev  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  2546  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us