Recent Comments

Prev  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  2585  2586  2587  2588  2589  2590  2591  2592  2593  2594  

Comments 129651 to 129700:

129651. cold beer please at 22:17 PM on 7 May 2009
        There is no consensus
        Frankly, I think the Skeptics have won point #3 onthis list at this time in history - there is less and less "consensus" Japan, Jan 2009, has walked away from the IPCC "Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report" that from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ More . . . Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes: "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.
129652. homer at 13:44 PM on 7 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        I would like to add a comment about averages - they are made up of extremes. Perhaps humans get caught up with their own existance, particularly if it is possible that change is a 'threat' to their stable lifestyle. I would be very surprised if the climate remained the same. One area which has been little discussed with global warming is the 'reflective ability of clouds'. As the temp and humidity go up more cloud reflects radiation, so limiting further absorption within the lower atmosphere. Expansion of the tropical zones ought to occur. If the sun is not responsible for variation seen ,could the slight increase in temp be coming from within the earth rather than exterior ? Why assume core activity remains constant ? For 'olympus mons' on feedback - observe a specie of tree which may have existed in an area for say several million years. If its climatic zone is specific then it stands as an example of 'averaging' the seasons over a much greater span than our personal memories. Thank you for the opportunity.
129653. Quietman at 12:33 PM on 7 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "chris at 19:00 PM on 29 April, 2009 Re #327 Your timings and causes are incorrect Quietman. The collision of the African and Eurasian plates that "squeezed out" the Tethys Ocean and drove the crumpling and nappe formation that raised the Alps occurred 20-ish million years ago. It had nothing to do with the PETM." I guess that you should take that up with Dr. Chris Beard (Ph.D.) since I took that right out of his book "The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey". It happens to be key to the study of primate evolution and how we got to Africa from Asia. The mountains did not rise until well after the collision and are not proof that the collision took place as late as only 20 million years ago, especially since our ancestors were in Africa MUCH earlier. Morotopithecus was already bipedal and walking around Africa 23 million years ago. Early Eocene Map (Before landbridge) Miocene Map (after landbridge) Better stick to subjects that your familiar with. Oh wait, I forgot, you not familiar with those facts either.
129654. Rick Gibson at 07:49 AM on 7 May 2009
        There's no empirical evidence
        Let me see if I understand this. This seems to be the argument. First, CO2 levels are rising. Second, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Third, during the last 30 years, global temperatures have been rising. Fourth, the things that ordinary cause temperatures to rise -- such as increased solar activity -- are not causing the current rise in temperature. Therefore, increased C02 is causing global warming. Of these four points, I believe that no one disputes one and two. Yes, CO2 levels are rising. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I do not think anyone denies either of those two assertions. But, there are a number of points that I think an honest scientist would want to explore. How much is CO2 rising, compared to the past? Do we have more or less CO2 now than we did in various past times? When we put more CO2 into the air, what happens to it? Does it get absorbed by the ocean, or does it stay in the air forever? What other things in the atmosphere are increasing or decreasing? I would feel much more confidence in the global warming theory if they would address points of this sort, which seem like pretty obvious questions to me. But, for the moment, lets just say that points one and two are basically undisputed. I believe that is true. Point three is the pivot the argument. The whole theory stands or falls on it. It is basically saying that there is a huge, unexplained increase in global temperatures in the last 30 years, which we have to explain. But is that true? First off, during the last ten years, there has been no increase. Of course, one can say -- and it is true -- that a ten year period means little or nothing in climate science. But think about that. If ten years means nothing, why is 30 years of such huge importance? If the whole theory rests on 30 years, but 10 of those years are AWOL, how good is the theory? And how can we say that the usual suspects do not explain the increase, when there has been no increase for ten years? What we are basically talking about is a twenty year trend, which stopped ten years ago. So what? Excuse me, but I have read enough climate science to realize that 10 or 20 year trends do not mean much. Most climate cycles operate over 100s if not 1000s of years.
        Response: "CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  I do not think anyone denies either of those two assertions"
        
        Sadly, there are many who deny the assertion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, even despite observations of an enhanced greenhouse effect. Much of the discussion on this website of late have been on that topic alone.
        
        "during the last ten years, there has been no increase"
        
        Statistically, this isn't true, the trend in global temperature has still been increasing. Don't fall into the trap of comparing single points in a noisy signal - that is not the way to determine a long term trend. More importantly, the physical reality is that the planet is still accumulating heat. There is still an energy imbalance. Satellites and ocean heat measurements find more energy is still coming in than going out.
129655. Rick Gibson at 07:28 AM on 7 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        I completely agree with the substantive points made in this essay. I disagree, however, with its conclusion. Let me explain. The basic point made in this essay is that many factors influence temperature change over a time frame of a few years to a decade. Thus, decade long data does not necessarily tell us anything. I totally agree. But, from that you conclude, therefore the skeptics are wrong. No, that conclusion does not follow from your evidence. What your evidence indicates is that the temperature data from the last decade does not prove anything one way or the other. It does not prove the skeptical case. It also does not prove the global warming case. It simply proves nothing. You also do not address the real issue, which is, if we want to assess the theory of global warming, what time frame for climate data is, in fact, relevant? As I understand it, the basic skeptic's case is as follows. There are many natural trends in global climate, which generally operate on a time frame of centuries, not decades. The world, in general, had a cooling period, which bottomed out at roughly the time of the American Revolution. Since then, with some ups and downs, the long-term trend has been up. The global warming theories say that this long trend proves their theory. However, the skeptical answer is that this upward trend: (a) started before the Industrial Revolution; and (b) is a natural trend, which should be expected, after the prior natural downturn. What is the scientific answer to those skeptical points?
129656. Gord at 18:11 PM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - If "refusing to be resonable" includes denying the validity of the fundamental Laws of Science, then I am guilty as charged. Unfortunately, you have confirmed that you are in denial of established science. Too bad.
129657. Gord at 11:25 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Interference "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that result in a NEW WAVE pattern." "The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant displacement at a point is equal to the vector sum of the displacements of different waves at that point. If a crest of a wave meets a crest of another wave at the same point then the crests interfere constructively and the resultant wave amplitude is greater. If a crest of a wave meets a trough of another wave then they interfere destructively, and the overall amplitude is decreased." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference ------------------- Electromagnetic radiation "Interference is the superposition of two or more waves resulting in a NEW WAVE pattern. If the fields have components in the same direction, they constructively interfere, while opposite directions cause destructive interference." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave ------------------------------- The Resultant Electromagnetic Vector Field is the ONLY EM field that can be measured at any single point. It is, in fact, a NEW WAVE produced by interference and the component parts cannot be measured at a single point. The Resultant EM Field will be continuous if the components are continuous. For Heat Transfer by Radiation between bodies, as long as each body has a temperature, the resultant EM field will be continuous. If one body maintains a temperature that is warmer than the cooler body the continuous resultant EM Field will only propagate from warm to cold. There will be zero EM wave propagation from cold to warm and therefore there will be zero energy transfer from the cold body to the warm body. Just like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics clearly states.
129658. Patrick 027 at 09:54 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "You only seem to only read the "parts" you want to see." No, as you can now see, I was getting to that. But no matter, I doubt you'll try to understand the physics. You're just wrong, Gord. There's no use arguing with someone who refuses to be reasonable, so that's it. We're done.
129659. Patrick 027 at 09:50 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "Note that the Electromagnetic Force is also one of the four fundamental forces ....as is Gravity." Did I ever say otherwise? My point was that the second law of thermodynamics does not operate on the same level - there is no 'second law of thermodynamics' field or force, etc. It is a consequence of the statistics of disorganized processes (whatever forces are involved in those processes). ""The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are: the strong nuclear force (which holds quarks together, along with its residual strong force effect that holds atomic nuclei together to form the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (which causes certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces."" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force) I've known that since before I was 10. ""In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules. The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons.""...""The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity." " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force) I've also known that for a long time. I know that the energy flux of an electromagnetic wave is described by the Poynting vector, which is the cross product of the electric and magnetic field vectors - perhaps multiplied by a constant; I don't have all the details memorized but I do understand the concept. ""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 ) Yep, I've known that for a long time, too. "Photons DO NOT PROPAGATE BY THEMSELVES...THEY REQUIRE AN ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD FOR PROPAGATION." "Photon energy is "Carried" by propagating Electromagnetic Fields." This may be splitting hairs, but I think the label 'photon' applies to a wave packet in electric and magnetic fields, so it is a but redundant to say that a photon needs electromagnetic fields to propagate. But I agree that photons do propagate by waves in electromagnetic fields. "EM Fields are Vector Fields and follow Vector Addition Mathematics." "Photon energy can ONLY be carried in the direction of propagation of the EM field." "If the EM field has a magnitude of zero...it CANNOT CARRY any Photon energy." "If two opposing EM Fields are summed....the Resultant Vector Field can only have ONE magnitude and only ONE direction of propagation." "When summing opposing fields produced by Hot and Cold objects, the Resultant Vector Field will ALWAYS propagate from the Hot object to the Cold object." What happens when two wave packets (photons) go by each other in opposite directions. Their fields linearly superimpose. So do their associated Poynting vectors. There may be a moment in space and time where the energy flux is zero. BUT, the wave packets, in their linear superposition, continue to propagate and move on. Each photon continues along with its energy. "There is ZERO EM Field propagation from Cold to Hot and therefore ZERO PHOTON ENERGY can flow from Cold to Hot." This may be splitting hairs, but if you insist on only ever using the resultant field and not any contributing components, then you cannot say that the field propagation from cold to hot is zero if the field propagation from hot to cold is nonzero. If you are refering to the same field each time, then if the energy flux positive in one direction, the energy flux must be negative in the opposite direction. Hence, the resultant field propagation from cold to hot is negative. (***... in a vacuum and in most ordinary materials. It is possible to have a material with a negative index of refraction, and in such a case, group velocity (which is in the same direction as the energy flux) can be opposite the phase propagation. See also 'metamaterials'.) "Further, there is no difference between Electromagnetic Fields produced by macroscopic radiators or microscopic radiators. They both are described by the same Electromagnetic Field physics." Yes, of course. But your apparent assumption that the only meaningful energy flux is that of the total electromagnetic field doesn't make as much sense when dealing with wave packets emitted and absorbed over time intervals smaller than the time of propagation, and it doesn't make as much sense when dealing with macroscopic effects of microscopic processes. If you have two antenna and they are continuously emitting and absorbing electromagnetic radiation with no variance in time (outside of the wave cycles themselves), then I suppose taking the energy flux of each set of waves emitted by each antenna individually may seem less meaningful than taking the total energy flux of the electromagnetic field, which - except for the wave cycles themselves - will always be of one value and will always be in one direction (at any one point in space, or zero. BUT the energy transitions that emit and absorb photons are generally quantized, and a macroscopic object can have many available energy transitions (pairs of occupied and unoccupied energy levels) within any given interval of the spectrum; the density of associated states and the strength of their interaction with photons (in emission and absorption - there is a physical symmetry in that, by the way) help determine optical properties. There can also be many energy transitions (pairs of occupied and unoccupied states) that cannot emit or absorb photons, but in some such pairs, one of the states may also in a pair of states that forms an energy transition that could emit or absorb a photon. Whether an energy transition is available for emiting or absorbing a photon depends on which of the pair of states is occupied. As with the distribution of internal energy among molecules and among their available degrees of freedom (for the energies available - some degrees of freedom are quantized and require a minimum energy available to contribute to heat capacity), there is a tendency for energy to be distributed among states (including photons) in a particular way (for photons, blackbody radiation) when in local thermodynamic equilibrium (a statistical equilibrium, in which individual energy transitions are still occuring, but the reverse transitions occur at the same rate - this equilibrium requires that a sufficient fraction of each set of energy states is occupied so that the rate at which transitions from those states to other states is high enough to balance the rate of the reverse transitions). The point here is, the "two opposing EM Fields" each consist of many individual photons that are emitted from one object and absorbed in the other (and not all in the same set of opposing directions; they are generally emitted and can be absorbed over a wide range of directions, with exchange among objects generally only limited by the solid angle each encompasses relative to points on the other's surface). Summing the two EM fields in a macroscopic average describes the resultant energy flux on a macroscopic scale, but this does not mean that individual photon emissions and absorptions do not both occur in both objects. And on the microscopic scale, these photons' linear superposition can fluctuate, just as the density of a gas fluctuates on a molecular scale (molecules are concentrations of mass). "This is NOT a "miraculous event" as you seem to believe!" Each individual photon is emitted, and then over some nonzero time, propagates to where it is absorbed. If you insist this path never goes from macroscopic colder to macroscopic warmer, then I would like to know either: How is the emission or nonemission of a photon determined by nonlocal conditions at a future time? or: How is the absorption or nonabsorption of a photon determined by nonlocal conditions in the past (because a single photon does not carry information within itself about the temperature of the object which emitted it, only the specific energy transition that emitted it; and remember, in a macroscopic object in local thermodynamic equilibrium, some molecules are more energetic than others, etc.)?
129660. Gord at 09:36 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You only seem to only read the "parts" you want to see. You missed this part: There is ZERO EM Field propagation from Cold to Hot and therefore ZERO PHOTON ENERGY can flow from Cold to Hot. This is NOT a "miraculous event" as you seem to believe! This is also why the 2nd Law does not use the word "net" in it's description and uses "not possible". This completely complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer equations and validates the Law of Conservation of Energy. ------------------- This confirms what I have been saying all along: -The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is correct as written (surprise, surprise). -The Heat Transfer equations are correct as written (surprise, surprise). -The Law of Conservation of Energy is violated if there is any flow of energy from cold to hot (surprise, surprise). -Back Radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot reach the warmer Earth's surface and cause warming (surprise, surprise). -Trenberth's Energy Budget violates both the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Energy and actual measurements. and, - AGW is SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
129661. GMB at 07:30 AM on 6 May 2009
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        We don't want the ocean to absorb all the CO2. If the oceans absorb it all the rest of the biosphere cannot get the benefit out of it. It would be a great tragedy if the oceans were just absorbing it all. But the good news is as you say. The oceans are only absorbing some of the excess. Thats good luck. Only a complete retard would say otherwise.
129662. GMB at 07:27 AM on 6 May 2009
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        "As for human CO2 emissions, about 40% is being absorbed, mostly by the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level over the past 800,000 years (Brook 2008). A natural change of 100ppm takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years." Hang on a minute. Where are you getting THAT from? How are you assuming that? I've never found a CO2 proxy record that comprehensive? If we had such a record we could bring this racket to a close with a bit of luck. What are you going on for that hyper-confident statement? Is it the ice-cores? Or is it just some bogus model that someone plugged into the computer. Obviously if humans have contributed to higher levels thats a good thing. THAT is what the science says. And it doesn't say anything else.
129663. Patrick 027 at 04:52 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "If two opposing EM Fields are summed....the Resultant Vector Field can only have ONE magnitude and only ONE direction of propagation."..."When summing opposing fields produced by Hot and Cold objects, the Resultant Vector Field will ALWAYS propagate from the Hot object to the Cold object." Thank you, Gord, for finally admitting that there are opposing fields from the Hot and Cold objects. I don't know why you made such a fuss about Kiehl and Trenberth giving the opposing fields - you could have just done the math to find the resultants.
129664. Gord at 21:41 PM on 5 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You said.... "I suspect your work with electromagnetic waves was limited to the macroscopic level (and perhaps had nothing to do with thermal emissions, but rather with emission of waves due to some work input - organized electrical currents and magnetic fields, etc.). For shorter wavelengths, particularly those in which the bulk of radiant energy is emitted thermally at temperatures typical of the Earth and atmosphere, or at any higher temperatures, it is convienient to think of photons. Feel free to take a vector sum of energy fluxes from all linearly superimposed electromagnetic waves if you want to - there is nothing wrong with that, you will get the net energy flux, but this does not change the fact that photons often go by the same location in space in many directions, including opposite directions,...." And, You said... "Your interpretation of it requires miraculous events - that an object emits or does not emit a photon depending on the temperature of another object at some distance and at a future time." "It is not as fundamental as gravity and electromagnetism,...." "It is not a result of some 'physical force' that actually drives heat from a hot object to a cold object in the same way that gravity pulls matter together and electromagnetism describes the interaction of charged particles, etc." ---------- Your statements show that you do not understand Radiative Heat transfer, or even more generally, Electromagnetic Field transfer of energy. Photons DO NOT PROPAGATE BY THEMSELVES...THEY REQUIRE AN ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD FOR PROPAGATION. Heat Radiation Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 --- Properties of electromagnetic waves "An electromagnetic wave, although it CARRIES no mass, does CARRY energy." "A more common way to handle the energy is to look at how much energy is CARRIED by the wave from one place to another." http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/EMWaves.html --- Photon energy is "Carried" by propagating Electromagnetic Fields. EM Fields are Vector Fields and follow Vector Addition Mathematics. Photon energy can ONLY be carried in the direction of propagation of the EM field. If the EM field has a magnitude of zero...it CANNOT CARRY any Photon energy. If two opposing EM Fields are summed....the Resultant Vector Field can only have ONE magnitude and only ONE direction of propagation. When summing opposing fields produced by Hot and Cold objects, the Resultant Vector Field will ALWAYS propagate from the Hot object to the Cold object. There is ZERO EM Field propagation from Cold to Hot and therefore ZERO PHOTON ENERGY can flow from Cold to Hot. This is NOT a "miraculous event" as you seem to believe! This is also why the 2nd Law does not use the word "net" in it's description and uses "not possible". This completely complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer equations and validates the Law of Conservation of Energy. --------------- Further, there is no difference between Electromagnetic Fields produced by macroscopic radiators or microscopic radiators. They both are described by the same Electromagnetic Field physics. Note that the Electromagnetic Force is also one of the four fundamental forces ....as is Gravity. Electromagnetic force "The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are: the strong nuclear force (which holds quarks together, along with its residual strong force effect that holds atomic nuclei together to form the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (which causes certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces." "In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules. The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons." "The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force --- 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 ---------------- This post demonstrates how little you actually understand about Electromagnetic Fields and how they relate to Radiative Heat transfer and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your posts are rife with errors and it is a tedious task to point them all out....and, this post was just a minor start. Of course, you will probably produce a great deal of unsupported rambling opinions and then try to re-write the definitions posted above. Comedy is one of your strong points.
129665. ginckgo at 15:11 PM on 5 May 2009
        A Great Science Fiction Writer Passes - Goodbye Dr. Crichton
        Actually all the novels I've read by Crichton are heavily founded on either misunderstood or misrepresented 'science', so much so that I'd be tempted to not class them as 'science fiction' any more than Star Wars is science fiction. Even worse, there is a strong undercurrent of distrust and even denigration of a perceived scientific elite, plus a fair amount of ignorance of the scientific method. Yes, his books are great page turners, but they are less useful to learn about science, than the Da Vinci Code is to learn about history.
129666. Gord at 09:58 AM on 5 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - Once again, here is the 2nd Law: "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 are YOUR statements: "The NET flow of heat can be and often is the difference between two larger values, the heat flow only in one direction and the heat flow in the opposite direction." "...the "hyperphysics" website seems to imply otherwise, implicitly defining THE flow of heat as the NET of non-work energy flows." --- THE 2ND LAW DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WORD "NET" AT ALL! YOUR INCLUSION OF THE WORD "NET" IS YOUR "OPINION" AND NOT BASED ON REALITY! IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? -------------------- Regarding my statement: "ANY flux that EXCEEDS the 342 w/m^2 of THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE is an UNDISPUTABLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!" Your reply was: "You can't even add or subtract, Gord. My God, how could you have ever been an engineer?" Besides being rude, you have not explained how any Flux could exceed the 342 w/m^2 of THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE and NOT VIOLATE THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!!! Don't you know that ANY energy that exceeds the SOURCE ENERGY means that ENERGY WAS CREATED? The Law of Conservation of Energy CLEARLY STATES...ENERGY CAN NEVER BE CREATED! Yet Trenberth's Energy Budget shows that the Earth's surface radiates 390 w/m^2 WHICH IS GREATER THAN 342 w/m^2 (THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE)!!! Is 390 GREATER THAN 342? Where did the "extra" 42 w/m^2 come from? Come on, Patrick ANSWER these simple QUESTIONS! Or, are you going to attempt a hilarious re-write of The Law of Conservation of Energy too? -------------------- I included a defintion of a perpetual motion machine, but you only replied to "part" of the definition. I will repost what I actually posted: 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 --- Your response was a number of rambling questions which I will not repeat followed by another unsupported "Opinion": "THESE phenomena are not what is meant when one speaks of a perpetual motion machine." Looks like you are ready to re-define what Perpetual Motion is as well! -------------------- Like I said, your Posts are rife with errors and unsupported rambling opinions. Replying to all your errors and unsupported rambling opinions is just too tedious. Your inability to understand even the most basic physics is very apparent from your posts. However, your demonstated lack of scientific knowledge has not impeded your willingness to re-write some fundamental Laws of Science. I find this both amusing and astonishing. It's a good thing that you are an amateur, at least the Public will not be in any danger.
129667. Patrick 027 at 04:09 AM on 5 May 2009
        It's the sun
        OMG, how could you not be getting this!!!??? (Do you not want to get this? Has this whole exchange been a joke to you?) "Once again, I only managed to get past the second line of your post #334 before the tedium of response became too much to handle." THEN CONSIDER THIS THIRD LINE: "If most scientific debates start with acceptance of basic laws, why do you refuse to accept the laws of blackbody radiation (Planck's formula, etc.) - demonstrated by experiments, and clearly given in the same "hyperphysics" website that you quote for the second law." ---------- "In both cases you have re-written the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics based entirely on your "Opinion"!" ... "The rest of your post #334, posts #335, #336 and #337 are rife with errors and unsupported rambling opinions." Are high school and college level physics/science textbooks based entirely on someone's opinion? Are they just someone's unsurported ramblings? (You find a typo here and there, of course, but there's a bigger picture here.) "Yes you have!"[contradicted laws of physics] That's only your opinion, Gord, and not once have you backed it up; it's sad if you think you have. ---------- ""The NET flow of heat can be and often is the difference between two larger values, the heat flow only in one direction and the heat flow in the opposite direction."" IF there is a problem with that statement, it is simply incorrect terminology. YOU had identified each individual flux of energy in Kiehl and Trenberth's diagram as a flow of heat, and I also tend to think of it the same way, but the "hyperphysics" website seems to imply otherwise, implicitly defining THE flow of heat as the NET of non-work energy flows. The strict definition of heat given by "hyperphysics" includes the flow of heat that most of us would call a flow of heat, but it excludes other things most of us casually refer to as heat: internal energy, thermal energy, enthalpy (which can be confusing because 'heat capacity' sounds like it means the amount of heat an object can hold for each unit of temperature increase, whereas, as is implied by "hyperphysics", technically it only means the amount of heat an object gains/loses for each unit temperature change) - and furthermore, a distinction is made between internal energy and thermal energy, the later apparently excluding potential energy involved in molecular motions, etc., which is not how I am used to thinking of it. "In fact, a "NET flow" contradicts "not possible", which is part of the 2nd Law description!" No, it is not possible for the NET flow to spontaneously be from cooler to warmer... What is impossible is for a spontaneous decrease in entropy in a closed system - it is impossible for THE flow of heat to be from cooler to warmer spontaneously - but that can be the net flow of internal energy, thermally-emitted photons, etc. AND I EXPLAINED WHY. ------------------- "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. " Are you now going to say that in a closed system, an electron in an atom must eventually stop moving (and not just pause, but completely stop)? Are you saying that within an object at room temperature, all molecular-scale motions must eventually cease, even if the object remains at room temperature? And so on with chemical equilibrium (that the forward and reverse reactions must both eventually cease?), and radiative equilibrium (that the energy density of photons within a chamber must go to zero?), even if those chemicals, and that chamber, remain at some nonzero temperature? THESE phenomena are not what is meant when one speaks of a perpetual motion machine. The continual molecular motion, the continual exchange of photons, the continual forward and reverse chemical reactions - these are not perpetual motion machines, they do not break any laws of thermodynamics or physics in general, and ... I don't know if most high schools teach much about blackbody radiation, but I expect successful high school science students to know about molecular motions and chemical reactions. ----- "ANY flux that EXCEEDS the 342 w/m^2 of THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE is an UNDISPUTABLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!" You can't even add or subtract, Gord. My God, how could you have ever been an engineer?
129668. Gord at 18:34 PM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You said... "Nothing I've argued goes against high school science or science at any level." Yes you have! I will show just a few of many, many examples. ---------------------------- "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 are some of your posts regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: --- Your Post #253 "With regards to the second law of thermodynamics, what it says about spontaneous heat flow only being from warmer to cooler and not the other way around - it is important to remember that this is NET flow. The NET flow of heat can be and often is the difference between two larger values, the heat flow only in one direction and the heat flow in the opposite direction." --- Your Post #259 With reference to my statement about the 2nd Law "I don't see any mention of "NET" heat flow." You said... "Okay, but that's what they mean. The world doesn't make sense if otherwise - why?" "The atmsophere and surface both radiate in each other's directions and recieve some of each other's emissions. This happens because while one is colder than the other, niether is at absolutely zero, nor is either perfectly transparent at all relevant wavelengths. The atmosphere does thermally emit radiation, and some of it reaches the surface." --- In both cases you have re-written the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics based entirely on your "Opinion"! In fact, a "NET flow" contradicts "not possible", which is part of the 2nd Law description! This is a rather hilarious modification of the 2nd Law that any high school science student would easily pick up. ---------------------------- With regard to the incoming Solar Flux of 342 w/m^2 (the ONLY energy source) and The Law of Conservation of Energy: Your Post #281 "The conservation of energy implies that if an object absorbs more energy than it emits, it will have a net energy gain. If it absorbs less than it emits, it will have a net energy loss." "Set aside the second law of thermodynamics for a moment; having radiant fluxes greater than 342 W/m2 does not violate the conservation of energy." "Mutual exchange of radiant energy could not be used to drive a perpetual motion machine by breaking the conservation of energy because it does not break that law." --- ANY flux that EXCEEDS the 342 w/m^2 of THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE is an UNDISPUTABLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY! Again, ANY high school science student would easily pick up the obvious errors you made in your post. --------------------- I will re-post part of my post #243 that has the definition of a Perpetual Motion Machine: 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 --- Patrick, your Posts above have violated both the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics AND The Law of Conservation of Energy and in FACT, describes a perpetual motion machine. You have done this numerous times in your other posts as well. ANY, high school science student would easily see how you have created a perpetual motion machine. ---------------------- ---------------------- Once again, I only managed to get past the second line of your post #334 before the tedium of response became too much to handle. The rest of your post #334, posts #335, #336 and #337 are rife with errors and unsupported rambling opinions. Far too many errors and to go into at this time, however, I will repeat what I have already posted: --------------- Your posts are a just a jumble of "opinions" with absolutely no supporting evidence at all. What you call "simple observations", "basic logic" and "a general understanding of physics" is about as far away as you can get from a rational reading of the, extremely clear, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In fact, your posts continually use "opinion examples" that not only violate the 2nd Law, they also clearly violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, Electromagnetic Field Physics, Radiative Heat transfer equations, Vector mathematics and actual measurements. Sometimes your posts include rambling opinions and questions that are really "astounding" and demonstrates a total inability to understand even basic physics. The sheer quantity of these opinions and questions (that are so easily answered by most high school science students) are just too tedious to respond to. ---------------------- Most "Scientific" debates start with the acceptance of basic Laws of Science as being valid and proceed from there. Opinions and statements are backed up with supporting evidence and verified scientific measurements. You do not do this in any of your posts.
129669. Patrick 027 at 03:04 AM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        ""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."" The question of interpretation arises from this: DEFINE HEAT. Apparently hyperphysics defines heat as the net flow of energy when it comes to photons, and perhaps would not consider linearly superimposed fluxes that are components of the whole process to be heat fluxes individually. Is that correct or incorrect? It doesn't matter so much to me - it's just a matter of defining the word; I already understand the concept.
129670. Patrick 027 at 02:59 AM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "Your interpretation of it requires miraculous events - that an object emits or does not emit a photon depending on the temperature of another object at some distance and at a future time." As opposed to local conditions.
129671. Patrick 027 at 02:57 AM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        ... In other words, it would help if you learned the underlying microscopic processes that give rise to thermodynamic properties and laws.
129672. Patrick 027 at 02:54 AM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord, for the last time (PS thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore, but I guess we both can't resist the urge to respond): Nothing I've argued goes against high school science or science at any level. If most scientific debates start with acceptance of basic laws, why do you refuse to accept the laws of blackbody radiation (Planck's formula, etc.) - demonstrated by experiments, and clearly given in the same "hyperphysics" website that you quote for the second law. You have turned that one part of a website into a religious scripture that can only be understood your way - while other parts of the SAME website require a different interpretation when it comes to radiative energy fluxes. "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF SCIENCE and there is absolutely nothing "miraculous" about it!" It is not as fundamental as gravity and electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics, and the conservation laws, and the laws of motion, etc, in the sense that the second law describes behaviors of systems that are obeying these other laws and not doing anything highly improbable (like all the molecules in some macroscopic object suddenly moving in the same direction and speed as a result of random processes on a spatial scale smaller than the macroscopic object). On the other hand, one could consider it more fundamental because it could be expected to apply to a variety of other universes with other physical laws. I agree that it is not miraculous. Your interpretation of it requires miraculous events - that an object emits or does not emit a photon depending on the temperature of another object at some distance and at a future time. I suspect your work with electromagnetic waves was limited to the macroscopic level (and perhaps had nothing to do with thermal emissions, but rather with emission of waves due to some work input - organized electrical currents and magnetic fields, etc.). For shorter wavelengths, particularly those in which the bulk of radiant energy is emitted thermally at temperatures typical of the Earth and atmosphere, or at any higher temperatures, it is convienient to think of photons. Feel free to take a vector sum of energy fluxes from all linearly superimposed electromagnetic waves if you want to - there is nothing wrong with that, you will get the net energy flux, but this does not change the fact that photons often go by the same location in space in many directions, including opposite directions, and for radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium within some isothermal expanse of sufficient opacity, provided isotropic refraction properties of the medium, photons at each energy will be evenly distributed among all directions, all polarizations, all times within a given time interval, all locations within the region considered. For thermal emissions, net flux of photons and thus of their energy is caused by some temperature gradient that can be 'seen' at the wavelength considered - that is, the medium is not too opaque to hide temperature variations from view but not too transparent or reflective (some of the opacity has to be from emissivity) to let those temperature variations be invisible. If you don't trust physicists, talk to other engineers. Ask them about the thermodynamics of blackbody radiation.
129673. Gord at 16:33 PM on 3 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You said... "Furthermore, Gord and some others with related arguments are arguing points that can easily be argued against based on rather simple observations from everyday life, basic logic, and just a general understanding of physics; it isn't really necessary to know all the ins and outs of QED to see that Gord's version of the 2nd law required some rather miraculous processes." I find this statement typical of your posts. ------------------- First, there is no "Gord's version of the 2nd law". "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 I did not write the above description of the 2nd Law nor have I attempted to CHANGE IT, as you have! The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF SCIENCE and there is absolutely nothing "miraculous" about it! You have stated your "opinions" regarding the 2nd Law and actually pretend to have presented evidence that the 2nd Law is somehow lacking. This is readily apparent in your statement that I quoted above. ------------------- Your posts are a just a jumble of "opinions" with absolutely no supporting evidence at all. What you call "simple observations", "basic logic" and "a general understanding of physics" is about as far away as you can get from a rational reading of the, extremely clear, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In fact, your posts continually use "opinion examples" that not only violate the 2nd Law, they also clearly violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, Electromagnetic Field Physics, Radiative Heat transfer equations, Vector mathematics and actual measurements. Sometimes your posts include rambling opinions and questions that are really "astounding" and demonstrates a total inability to understand even basic physics. The sheer quantity of these opinions and questions (that are so easily answered by most high school science students) are just too tedious to respond to. ---------------------- Most "Scientific" debates start with the acceptance of basic Laws of Science as being valid and proceed from there. Opinions and statements are backed up with supporting evidence and verified scientific measurements. You do not do this in any of your posts.
129674. Patrick 027 at 03:16 AM on 3 May 2009
        It's the sun
        ... And importantly, the radiative behaviors of the gases ARE understood.
129675. Wondering Aloud at 06:57 AM on 2 May 2009
        Are sea levels rising?
        I have seen the 2mm/year assumption in a lot of places including in the IPCC report of course there listed as 15-20 cm per century. I agree the 6 to 10 meter claims are rediculous! But maybe you better tell Al Gore. The claim in AIG is 20 feet. I actually don't have a problem believing that 1.5 degree change would eventually cause a 5 meter rise. I don't say it would, some folks claim that would in fact take a 5 degree rise, but I could certainly be convinced by data on that. My problem is with the panic time frame. A change of 5 meters that takes a millenium and simultaneously moves growing seasons North by 300 miles is a heck of a lot less scarry. Then we could talk about what to do about it in real terms.
129676. Patrick 027 at 03:32 AM on 2 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "Those of us in non-theoretical sciences and professions follow the laws of thermodynamics to practical ends and know that they can not be violated. They simply can not be applied to open systems, ie. living things and the earth itself precisely because they are open systems. It's the reason that climate models do not work." 1. Did my textbooks and college and high school courses not benifit from actual experiments as well as mathematical derivations, etc? Being in the field has value. However, if we are not allowed to stand on the shoulders of giants, how would our science and technology (and philosophy, politics, etc.) ever progress? Furthermore, Gord and some others with related arguments are arguing points that can easily be argued against based on rather simple observations from everyday life, basic logic, and just a general understanding of physics; it isn't really necessary to know all the ins and outs of QED to see that Gord's version of the 2nd law required some rather miraculous processes. 2. To say that climate models do not work is innaccurate. They are not perfect but they are good enough for some purposes (probably better than you think). Often in science, technology, and life, there is an important role for useful approximations. 3. It isn't actually necessary to use the second law to analyze the entire system as a whole. That would actually not be so helpful in producing a model. Instead: Use the ideal gas laws and thermodynamics on the small scale. When air changes pressure and then a diabatic heating or cooling occurs, the changes in temperature and density are quite predictable. Some microscopic and small scale processes (momentum, thermal, and mass diffusion and turbulent mixing) - though they can be modelled individually - cannot be modelled explicitly as part of a general circulation model because of limited computing power, but they are understood and can be parameterized. In other words, the underlying physics are understood. The only real limitations are limited computing power, so that the model's grid scale cannot resolve all processes explicitly, so that some processes have to be parameterized, but those processes can be understood. A human is not a closed system; mass goes in and out, energy goes in and out in various forms; yet, we understand fairly well the consequences of eating more or less of at least the macronutrients, excercising, and what happens if you jump in the air (aside from air drag, your center of mass will accelerate downward at approximately 9.8 m/s^2)...
129677. Patrick 027 at 03:10 AM on 2 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Great info, chris! --------- A couple more comments about the second law of thermodynamics: The inability (within bounds of random 'error' of microscopic events - being random, these 'errors' might just contribute to entropy anyway) for a system to spontaneously reduce entropy without increasing entropy elsewhere is a result of the statistics and probability of microscopic processes. It is not a result of some 'physical force' that actually drives heat from a hot object to a cold object in the same way that gravity pulls matter together and electromagnetism describes the interaction of charged particles, etc. -------- Regarding heat transfer by radiation: Radiation is emitted when there are energy transitions between two states available of the kind that will emit radiation (of a particular energy, polarization, direction) and the system (or the relevant portion of it - an electron, a molecule, a crystal lattice) is in the more energetic state. This happens, as I understand it, with some rate of decay - except for stimulated emission (as in a laser), which is dependent on electromagnetic waves passing by, the energy transition between states happens randomly in time, with some probability over any interval of time, so that a population of such energized states will decay exponentially. When a system is in the lower energy state of such a pair of states, there is some probability that radiation of some energy, polarization, and direction, will be absorbed by the system. Other energy transitions can occur without radiation, or with radiation at a different energy, etc, that will put energy into such states so that it can emit radiation, and energy transitions may remove a system from such states without emitting radiation, or emitting radiation at a different energy, etc. The greater the occupancy of some set of states in a system, the greater the rate at which energy transitions will occur to reduce that occupancy. However energy is distributed in a system, a tendency toward thermodynamic equilibrium results in a redistribution of energy until the distribution of energy is such that energy transitions occur at the same frequency as their reverse transitions. What determines blackbody radiation intensity is how much radiant energy there must be for a system at a given temperature to absorb radiant energy at the same rate that it emits radiant energy. The emission of a photon is generally a locally-determined process.
129678. chris at 02:02 AM on 2 May 2009
        Are sea levels rising?
        Re #1 Wondering Aloud, your analysis of sea level changes encompassed in this sentence doesn't accord with the evidence:

        Sea level has been rising for thousands of years and for the last two centuries at about 2 mm per year.

        In fact the evidence indicates that sea levels were pretty steady during at least the two millenia (2000 years) before the 19th century. So sea levels haven't been rising for thousands of years, at all. And of course they've only been rising "for the last two centuries at about 2 mm per year", if one averages over the whole two centuries. In fact if one analyses sea level rise more carefully during this period (see IPCC AR4 pages urled below), they were hardly rising at all during the early part of the 19th century, and only started to accelerate during the early part of the 20th century. See for example the papers cited below [***]. Some of this is summarised in the IPCC AR4 (see chapter 5 pp 408-411, for example): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf Your assertion about claims of imminent sea level rises and so on, seems a straw man argument, since no one considers that 6 or 10 metres of sea level rise is imminent! Unfortunately since you seem reluctant to substantiate your assertions with evidence/sources, it's not clear what to make of them. The bottom line is that rather small temperature rises of around another 1 - 1.5 oC of warming will take the Earth's global temperature to a value that is similar to that existing during the last interglacial 125,000 or so years ago when sea levels were around 4-5 metres higher than now. No one considers that such a sea level rise is "imminent". However it would likely be inevitable in a world with the temperatures we are pretty likely to see at the end of the 21st century, such that our descendents would/will have to accommodate themselves to a committed sea level rise of this order. [***] JA Church et al. (2008) Understanding global sea levels: past, present and future Sustainability Science 3, 9-22 K Lambeck et al. (2004) Sea level in Roman time in the Central Mediterranean and implications for recent change. Earth Planet Sci Lett 224:563–575
129679. Wondering Aloud at 00:21 AM on 2 May 2009
        Are sea levels rising?
        Actually I avoid that thread, it is the one where you are least cionvincing. Opposing understated positves vs sometimes silly exaggeration of negatives. For example 5.74% excess deaths due to heat waves vs 1.59% for cold snaps? Both numbers wildly high and the placing of heat waves deaths higher is just laughable. No matter how shoddy the editorial review process at New Scientist wass I can't believe they published that howler. At best it is an example very similar to the deliberate confusion of sea ice and land ice you were complaining about the other day on that thread.
        Response: If you're not convinced of all the positives versus the negatives of global warming, all the more reason to post your comments there where they're relevant rather than on an unrelated topic. For starters, I suggest explaining exactly what problem you have with the methodology of the heat wave/cold snap research published in New Scientist.
129680. Philippe Chantreau at 15:25 PM on 1 May 2009
        How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
        Looking at the data for global sea ice on Cryosphere Today, considering the bottom red line, daily anomaly. How much of the past 2 years has been spent with a positive anomaly? eyeballing, about a month in late 07-early 08 and about 3 to 4 months in 08. That's 5 months out of 24, or 21% of the time. The rest, 79%, was spent in negative anomaly. What is the direction of the largest anomalies? Negative, as we see late 07 and late 08 reaching or flirting with -3. How large have the positive anomalies been? You have to go back to 1987 to find one that exceeds +1.5; 96, 01 and 08 barely exceed +1. It means that the largest recent positive anomaly does not reach 35% of the largest recent negative anomaly. I'll add that, without the short tiny spike in late 06, you would have 3 straight years of negative anomaly. Do you see something different on that graph? This:"Our analysis, using this specific method of data handling and adjustment, from this set of specific data gathered in this specific way seems to suggest" Is not the same as "the science says". Actually, it is exactly the same thing. IMO you were mistaken if you ever perceived science to mean something else. There is no such a thing as certitude.
129681. Wondering Aloud at 06:54 AM on 1 May 2009
        How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
        Well as of yesterday the anomaly was down some, to +675,000 km2. Thats Still mighty positive and as I characterized it is a small negative in the arctic and a large poistive anomaly in the antarctic. The problem I have with this is it doesn't seem to fit my idea that thickening of the ice in the continental interior and fairly high snow fall are caused by warming of the surrounding sea. It isn't definitive and I didn't say it was. I just don't see how someone draws the conclusion that it fits warming either. I don't know what you're looking at either. I think I am looking at same data as cryosphere today data I am getting it originally through U of Illinois linked site similar address. Odd in that my unsupported assertions are coming from your sources. I told you I have colleagues they are having more trouble with thickening that thinning and that is land based. I also told you that I did not think thickening proved anything. As I have told you before on this, though you may not remember, I will not risk an important piece of research becoming a witch hunt target because some fanatic reader fears their data may damage his pet cause. It is not their intent to enter this debate on either side. They just aren't noting the ice getting thinner, they are having some trouble because thickening has been greater than expected. Chris I will investigate your references if I get a bit of time it would be interesting to know. How does it match up with the permafrost studies?
129682. Wondering Aloud at 03:33 AM on 1 May 2009
        Are sea levels rising?
        I agree John I have no problem with this. Sea level has been rising for thousands of years and for the last two centuries at about 2 mm per year. Here it looks like about 3mm per year? I think we all expect sea level to continue to rise. We would need very large net cooling to get us a negative slope wouldn't we? One point though, the actual skeptic argument is that the 6 meter (lately I've seen 10 meters) plus rise that is claimed to be immenent by the alarmists is not supported by the data and the prediction from 5 years ago that a tipping point had been reached and rapid rise was about to start, specifically at 30 times the currently observed rate, is not supported by the data. Hoping for warming.
        Response: Future sea level rise is a subject of a future post - I started a post on sea level rise about a week ago and the topic grew and grew to the point where I've divided it up into several posts. I'm always saying get the complete picture but it's not easy to communicate the complete picture in a single blog post.
        
        As for your last comment, thoroughly read all the positives versus the negatives of global warming and tell me you're still hoping for warming.
129683. Olympus Mons at 03:05 AM on 1 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        [ Response: Here is a good summary of the empirical evidence for positive feedback in the climate system. ] Don't think so. You should update info. Of course looking these up on the web is excruciatingly difficult. Now, finding stuff that takes the AGw stance is by the millions. Most of what is postulate there is old stuff. Very much pre “oh my god, global temps are not increasing anymore”. But, anyway, here goes a couple to help out: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radiobremen.de%2Fwissen%2Fnachrichten%2Fwissenawipolararktis100.html&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0= http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/24/2552225.htm
129684. Olympus Mons at 03:00 AM on 1 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        [ Response: Here is a good summary of the empirical evidence for positive feedback in the climate system. ] Don't think so. You should update info. Of course looking these up on the web is excruciatingly difficult. Now, finding stuff that takes the AGw stance is by the millions. Most of what is postulate there is old stuff. Very much pre “oh my god, global temps are not increasing anymore”. But, anyway, here goes a couple to help out: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radiobremen.de%2Fwissen%2Fnachrichten%2Fwissenawipolararktis100.html&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0= http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/24/2552225.htm
129685. chris at 02:24 AM on 1 May 2009
        How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
        Re #1 WA This doesn't seem right either in the light of the scientific data. Why not cite the sources of your assertions?

        WA: "....but I think most are still finding tha Antarctic land bound ice is not decreasing and that near the pole (the larger portion of the continent) it is increasing in thickness."

        There are continuous analyses of polar (Arctic and Antarctic) land ice, using either the GRACE gravity calculating satellites or satellite altimetry, and these show that Antarctic land ice is decreasing. Some of the most recent data can be found here: Chen JL et al. (2008) Antarctic regional ice loss rates from GRACE Earth and Planetary Science Lett. 266, 140-148 and here: Moore P and King MA (2008) Antarctic ice mass balance estimates from GRACE: Tidal aliasing effects J. Geophys. Res. 113 art # F02005 which show Antarctic polar ice mass loss of around 164 +/- 80 km(3) per year in the period April 2002 - Jan 2006. As John Cook has shown in his top post it's very easy for the unscrupulous to misrepresent the science in this area. So statements like "near the pole (the larger portion of the continent) it is increasing in thickness", are misrepresentations of the important question (of whether Antarctica is in net mass balance or is growing or shrinking) since no one expects that in the high altitude polar interior the ice cap won't increase in thickness somewhat as snow is deposied there. The question is whether melting at the edges of the ice cap (we're not talking about sea ice) is greater than the accumulation of snow/ice in the interior. The science indicates that the net mass balance is negative. It's not a huge amount of mass loss in the grand scheme of things, but no-one expects a very significant mass loss in Antarctica, at least for a while; Greenland melt is a much greater concern. However we may as well address the science rather than base our "understanding" on unsupported assertions!
129686. Olympus Mons at 02:19 AM on 1 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        David Horton, None of those measures would do anything to offset AGW. Absolutely nothing. You can’t answer the question (the Roger Pielke paradigm), can you?
129687. Olympus Mons at 02:17 AM on 1 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Oh, and btw, the question of "what would have to happen to make me doubt AGW" or what is “inconsistent with AGW theory” is valid for anyone here who believes in it. Because if you don’t know this…
129688. Olympus Mons at 02:01 AM on 1 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Steve L at 04:57 AM on 29 April 2009 Steve, now I’m the one confused. I’m no expert on the science of global warming, but I’m pretty sure, doubling CO2 on the atmosphere will only be able, per se, to increase temp 1 degree per W/m2. If these were what are at stake here, we would not be here. There would be no issue at all! So this is not the global warming theory. The global warming is about positive feedbacks (as you say climate sensitivity, right). It is about cloud cover, it is about water vapor. It is about behavior on LW and SW radioactive values. So yes, it is all about the positive feedback of cloud cover and what is the behavior of the extra amount of water vapor when that same water vapor organizes itself in precipitation systems. Are those precipitation systems a positive or negative feedback; is cloud cover a fixed value and, since it isn’t, in that form is it a positive or a negative feedback. If you know any scientific study that tries to postulate that those are positive feedbacks, please redirect me to them. Because most scientific paper I’ve been able to grab about this issue, are by any means --- Jokes. I confess that regarding how those feedbacks operate my source is reading Gavin Schmit and Real climate. I know not a reliable source and that is why I'm asking for something more trustworthy. Thank you for your time.
129689. chris at 01:55 AM on 1 May 2009
        How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
        Re #1 WA You make a number of unsupported assertions that don't seem to accord with the scientific evidence:

        The original theory that warming would occur first near the poles and most at night is certainly now refuted as well, unless the time lag is MUCH bigger than thought.

        (i) night/day warming: There has been considerably more warming at night compared to daytime warming. The most recent analysis is: Vose, R.S. et al. (2005) Maximum and minimum temperature trends for the globe: An update through 2004. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23822. and the data can be accessed from the IPCC report (AR4) (see page 244): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf During the period 1950 - 2004, night-time (minimum) warming considerably exceeds daytime (maximum) warming. Night-time warming is around 1.15 oC during this time (over land) whereas daytime warming is around 0.75 oC. The details are complicated by other factors. For example the aerosol load has suppressed daytime warming somewhat in the early period of the analysis and the last 15-20 years has seen some cutback of aerosol load over total land surface which has seen daytime temperatures rebound somewhat in the more recent period. But overall night time warming has significantly exceeded daytime warming. (ii) warming at poles: Modelling since the early 1980's predicted that enhanced greenhouse-induced warming would be focussed in the Northern polar regions leaving the Antarctic regions relatively unaffected for considerable periods. For example a recent review of early modelling of the ocean response to global warming described predictions from early modelling: S. Manabe and R. J. Stouffer (2007) Role of Ocean in Global Warming J. Meterolog. Soc. Jpn. 85B 385-403 quoting from this article in the sections describing the predicted hemispheric asymmetry (much greater N. hemispheric polar warming and delayed Southern polar warming): Discussing the early models of Schneider and Thompson (1981) to evaluate the delay in the response of the sea surface temperature to gradual increase in CO2, Manabe and Stouffer say:

        [“Their study shows that the time-dependent response of zonal mean surface temperature differs significantly from its equilibrium response particularly in those latitude belts, where the fraction of ocean-covered area is relatively large. Based upon the study, they conjectured that the response in the Southern Hemisphere should be delayed as compared to that in the Northern Hemisphere because of the inter-hemisphere difference in the fraction of the area covered by the oceans.”]

        In a later model Bryan et al (1988) made the same sort of analysis, investigating the role of the oceans in modulating the response of surface warming to enhanced greenhouse gases.

        [“They found that the increase in surface temperature is very small in the Circumpolar Ocean of the Southern Hemisphere in contrast to high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere where the increase is relatively large.”]

        It’s not just the oceans per se of course. It’s also ocean and air currents, and particularly the mechanisms governing the efficiency of surface heat transfer into the deeper oceans. If this is efficient, the deep oceans will absorb heat and there might be little measured surface warming, at least for a while. So (speaking of Bryan et al (1988)) again:

        [“However, the detailed analysis of the numerical experiment reveals that the absence of substantial surface warming in the Circumpolar Ocean is attributable not only to the large fraction of the area covered by the oceans but also to the deep penetration of positive temperature anomaly into the oceans.”]

        Later models predict the same hemispherical asymmetry that is seen in the real world. e.g. discussing the simulations of Manabe et al (1992):

        [“Figure 3 also reveals that there is a large asymmetry in surface warming between the two hemispheres. In the Northern Hemisphere, the surface warming increases with increasing latitude, and is particularly large in the Arctic Ocean. This is in sharp contrast to the Southern Hemisphere, where warming is relatively large in low latitudes and decreases with increasing latitudes. It becomes small in the Circumpolar Ocean of the Southern Hemisphere, particularly in the immediate vicinity of Antarctic Continent.”]

        Why is this, one might ask?! Here’s what Manabe and Stouffer say:

        [“One can ask: why the polar amplification of warming does not occur in the Southern Hemisphere, despite the existence of extensive sea ice which has a positive albedo feedback? As discussed in the following section, the absence of significant warming in the Circumpolar Ocean of the Southern hemisphere is attributable mainly to the large thermal inertia of the ocean, which results from very effective mixing between the surface layer and the deeper layers of ocean in this region. This is in sharp contrast to the Arctic Ocean, where very stable layer of halocline prevents mixing between the surface layer and the deeper layer of the ocean.”] [“In view of the absence of significant surface warming, it is not surprising that the area coverage of sea ice hardly changes in the Circumpolar Ocean despite the CO2-doubling.”] (n.b. remember this is a prediction from a model; we’re nowhere near CO2 doubling yet!). However that's what we're seeing in the real world.

        So the delayed warming in the deep Southern oceans and Antarctic is consistent with models/predictions from more than 20 years ago. and so on….
129690. chris at 19:00 PM on 29 April 2009
        It's the sun
        Re #327 Your timings and causes are incorrect Quietman. The collision of the African and Eurasian plates that "squeezed out" the Tethys Ocean and drove the crumpling and nappe formation that raised the Alps occurred 20-ish million years ago. It had nothing to do with the PETM. The PETM was an event of widespread gobal warming and considerable extinctions associated with the massive release of greenhouse gases. It coincides temporally (as Patrick has indicated) with the opening up of the North Atlantic as the plates seperated centered around what is now Iceland, and dated around 55-56 million years ago. Whatever the ultimate cause of the release of the greenhouse gases (both CO2 and methane are implicated) the evidence indicates a very massive (several thousand gigatonnes) release of isotopically-light carbon (i.e. tectonically-derived, or methane hydrates...) into the atmosphere. see for example: M. Storey et al. (2007)Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Opening of the Northeast Atlantic Science 316, 587 - 589 abstract: “The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) has been attributed to a sudden release of carbon dioxide and/or methane. 40Ar/39Ar age determinations show that the Danish Ash-17 deposit, which overlies the PETM by about 450,000 years in the Atlantic, and the Skraenterne Formation Tuff, representing the end of 1 ± 0.5 million years of massive volcanism in East Greenland, are coeval. The relative age of Danish Ash-17 thus places the PETM onset after the beginning of massive flood basalt volcanism at 56.1 ± 0.4 million years ago but within error of the estimated continental breakup time of 55.5 ± 0.3 million years ago, marked by the eruption of mid-ocean ridge basalt–like flows. These correlations support the view that the PETM was triggered by greenhouse gas release during magma interaction with basin-filling carbon-rich sedimentary rocks proximal to the embryonic plate boundary between Greenland and Europe.”
129691. Philippe Chantreau at 16:51 PM on 29 April 2009
        How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
        WA, We must not be looking at the same graph. The global anomaly (red line bottom part of graph) shows several excursions and even long periods around -2 with troughs down to -3. The periods of positive anomalies are not only fewer and far between but none reaches even +2 in the recent past, which seems to be what you consider. The very way your sentence is worded is strange and could mean many things. Anomaly positive now and for "much" of the past 2 years. How much? Is it more than the time spent in negative anomalies? What is the direction of the largest anomales? How large have the positive anomalies been, compared to the negative ones? I don't really care who your colleagues are but references once again would be helpful. Are you saying that Grace has it wrong? What ice are we talking about? Land based, shelf, sea ice, coastal, continental? I don't know much about the Steig paper except that skeptic blogs seem to have made it a target. I know that this statement of yours: "suggests warming the last 50 years but cooling for the last 30" does not make sense at first glance. O.M.: A reversal of the trend over the next 20 years would not a priori comply with the consensus model. But then again the speed of the recent negative trend is far beyond what the model suggested so it does not comply either.
129692. David Horton at 14:10 PM on 29 April 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        #15 Well OM: 1. Rapidly phase out coal mines; invest heavily in energy conservation measures and renewable energy sources; end land clearing. 2. Hmm, tricky, but I'm expecting sainthood. You see even if I am wrong (and I dearly wish I was), the measures in the first answer would make this a much better planet for all its inhabitants (human and non-human).
129693. Patrick 027 at 06:17 AM on 29 April 2009
        It's the sun
        If we're talking about PETM - well I don't have all the timings memorized, but the more familiar culprit, so far as I am aware, is rifting between Greenland and the rest of North America.
129694. Steve L at 04:57 AM on 29 April 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Dear O.M., Your comments are frustrating to me. You say the theory 'resides on the fact' ... fact A, fact B(1), and fact B(2). You should provide citations that support your assertions that AGW depends on A, B(1), & B(2). If you did that, readers would be able to figure out what you're saying. Of course, doing that would also mean you would have in your possession a good clue as to why those assumptions would be made. AGW does not, however, depend on positive feedbacks -- anthropogenic CO2 provides a positive forcing regardless of water vapour; however the response of water vapour to the CO2 forcing will enhance the climate's sensitivity.
129695. Olympus Mons at 03:28 AM on 29 April 2009
        How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
        Hi Philippe Chantreau, If artic ice keeps on regaining mass and aproaching to median 70-00value will you begin to cast doubt on AGW theory? if not, what would? thank you for your time.
129696. Olympus Mons at 03:20 AM on 29 April 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Hi Steve L Can you provide scientific arguments that clouds are a positive feedback on CO2 warming? Because the theory resides on the fact that they are! Can you provide scientific arguments that increase temperature, from CO2 added, will increase precipitation systems and that those systems are a positive feedback? Because the theory resides on the fact that those are a positive feedback. – If they don’t, there is no AGW.
        Response: Here is a good summary of the empirical evidence for positive feedback in the climate system.
129697. Steve L at 00:39 AM on 29 April 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        W.A. -- could you point me to the late '80's / early 90's paper by Hansen and/or Schneider where they indicate 2-3 C by the year 2000? Regarding disproval of AGW, etc, my understanding is that theories are discarded when others are shown to be better. More usually, modifications are made to an existing theory to improve its predictive power. Interestingly, estimates of climate sensitivity to 2x CO2 have been quite invariant. See: http://tinyurl.com/yzdled (>30 years ago 1.5-4.5 C) http://tinyurl.com/66tphc (4th IPCC note#4 2.0-4.5 C) Those who think AGW is not scientifically supported should provide scientific arguments (especially on a website dedicated to examining those arguments), and they should hopefully use citations to bolster their arguments.
129698. Wondering Aloud at 23:23 PM on 28 April 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Lee I was trying to explain that a theory that fails to explain the observations. All observations, not just selected ones, must be discarded. A theory is an explanation it must explain what has been observed and be useful to predict the results of future experiments. What I am trying to get across is that if their is one piece of evidence that contradicts theory the theory is the thing that is wrong. This is not a majority vote, if 99.9% of data support a theory and 0.1% disagree that means the theory is wrong and that's all there is to it. This is the way science works and the politicization of this issue is what is creating the huge backlash. In reality when a theory is well established we look for errors first and then for modifications or a variable we missed. This is where we are right now. It is clear that the hypothesis of AGW by CO2 as popularized by people like James Hansen and Steve Schneider 20 years ago, i.e. 2-3 degrees C net warming by the year 2000, was totally wrong. The theory has to change and is changing. Back off a bit let honest science debate, pretending the science is other than it is harms your cause.
129699. Olympus Mons at 23:07 PM on 28 April 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        David Horton, 1)What action do you expect out of govements that can have any, any impact on global warming? 2)do you aknowledge that taking action has consequences too. If time disproves AGW, what should the penalties be to people like you? thank you.
129700. Olympus Mons at 22:09 PM on 28 April 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        David Horton, 1)What action do you expect out of govements that can have any, any impact on global warming? 2)do you aknowledge that taking action has consequences too. If time disproves AGW, what should the penalties be to people like you? thank you.

Prev  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  2585  2586  2587  2588  2589  2590  2591  2592  2593  2594