Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 Next
Comments 130251 to 130300:
-
Quietman at 16:41 PM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
"Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work, calling it: “ ...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...[76] " - Wikipedia I don't remember Einstein's exact words about math versus experiment, but they essentially agreed with what Tesla said about his math (just not about his own theory). LOL -
Quietman at 16:31 PM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
ps When making models using math it is nest to keep in mind the statements that Einstein and Tesla made on the subject. -
Quietman at 16:29 PM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick Re: "furthermore, we do understand it." I don't think so. When we identify the nature of gravity we will understand it. Thus far we only understand it's effects and that not completely. What we have is a "working knowledge" of gravity. The same as we have a "working knowledge" of climate. We really do not have all the answers yet. -
Quietman at 16:22 PM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick 027 Re: Quietman - where in the above comments were your friend's and chris's comments about thermodynamics? It was posted in a different thread. See comment 35 here:. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing? ps I had to stop posting in the thread where you asked. Just to open it takes a couple of minutes now (it's too long). pps This thread is also becoming a problem but not as bad. -
Patrick 027 at 14:12 PM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
The composition of subduction-zone magma could/would also be affected by any subducted sediments (though some of that forms an accretionary prism that is not subducted) and also by alteration of the upper oceanic crust by water (hydrothermal vents near the mid-oceanic ridges). -
Patrick 027 at 11:28 AM on 19 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Re 441: "Re: "new equilibrium temperature" discusses thermodynamic laws, implying a closed system. The earth has no equilibrium temperature, it constantly changes. GHGs do control it's limits but never achieve "equilibrium" because the earth "breathes". " The equilibrium in this context is a long-term equilibrium. The equilibrium temperature may refer to the average temperature over time. If the average temperature is higher, more LW radiation goes to space, cooling the climate system off, etc. It is not exactly that simple, of course, because of feedbacks, and the nonlinear dependence of blackbody radiation on temperature, and the potential for changing the spatial and temporal variability of the temperature for a given average. However, the concept still works, as part of a longer-term equilibrium climate. There must be limits to the unforced variability (true that the limits could be a function of time scale), or the probability would be much higher that nothing other than bacteria be alive right now. -
Patrick 027 at 11:09 AM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
""Magma chockfull of silica is viscous (think warm, gooey taffy) and traps lots of gases." " Yes, it is. But geologic emissions are only roughly 2 or 3 percent of anthropogenic emissions and are roughly balanced by the chemical weathering sink. ------------- "This indicates that the magma is mixing with subducted sea bottom." The magma comes from subducting crust and some of the overlying crust. Crust is enriched in silica relative to the mantle, so yes, subduction zone volcanism tends to be more silica rich (and produce less mafic and more felsic igneous rocks) than mid-ocean ridge magma. Hot spot volcanism magma comes from the mantle but penetrates overlying crust, as I understand it - well it's quite fluid (and produces basalt, I think) at Hawaii, but can be quite viscous (and typically felsic) at Yellowstone - my guess is the difference in overlying crust composition is the big factor. Continental crust is more felsic and less mafic than oceanic crust; the mantle is ultramafic. Igneous rocks ----------- felsic --------------- mafic ----| ultramafic intrusive: granite. grano-diorite diorite. gabbro | peridotite extrusive: rhyolite dacite....... andesite basalt | komatiite There are also a class of igneous rocks which are less rich in silica but not mafic; they contain feldspathoids. Chemically, feldspathoid + quartz = feldspar; igneous rocks can contain feldspathoids and feldspar, feldspar, or quartz and feldspar, but not quartz and feldspathoids at the same time because they would have reacted in a molten state to produce feldspar. Of course, during the crystalization process, some crystal grains can form and then (if/when big enough to prevent diffusion toward equilbrium composition) become out-of equilbrium with the composition of the melt... ----------------- "Keep in mind that planetary alignments of that nature are extremely rare and take several years to line up fully and several more to unalign." How rare is rare? "The combined pull of the planets beyond our orbit is greatly underestimated because of the lack of understanding of gravity." If you're thinking of the invocation of dark matter to explain the rate of revolution around the galactic center at great distances, you should know that doesn't apply to planetary orbits around a star. If it did, Pluto would be orbiting faster. If you're thinking of 'reduced mass' instead of actual masses, that's important for objects with masses similar to each other, but with the planets all orbiting the sun, and the sun's mass over 1000 times that of the next most massive body involved, 'reduced mass' is a very minor issue for planetary orbits. It plays a bigger role in the Earth and moon's orbits about their common barycenter, but it's still a relatively small effect, furthermore, we do understand it. Relativistic effects are also relatively minor for the solar system, although it might be necessary to take them into account for Milankovitch-like cycles of various planetary orbits (it makes a contribution to perihelion advance) - where incremental changes build up after many revolutions. This is understood. If you're thinking of the lack of theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics - that's a nonissue for actually using general relativity and it's approximation, Newtonian gravity, for planetary orbits and even dust-particle orbits, charged particle orbits, etc. If you're thinking of radiation pressure, that's understood as well. http://www.etsu.edu/physics/etsuobs/starprty/22099dgl/planalign.htm http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planets.html -
Quietman at 10:22 AM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick Look beyond the eruptions. Why are there eruptions and what do they implicate? A recent article states "Magma chockfull of silica is viscous (think warm, gooey taffy) and traps lots of gases." This indicates that the magma is mixing with subducted sea bottom. All of these volcanos near coasts are there because of the subduction. An increase of volcanic eruptions are symptons of tectonic plate movement and that is the "thermostat" that I already referenced. It's not a slowed process, it's a chaotic process that is now happening but was induced by the 1976 planetary alignment. Keep in mind that planetary alignments of that nature are extremely rare and take several years to line up fully and several more to unalign. The combined pull of the planets beyond our orbit is greatly underestimated because of the lack of understanding of gravity. If you can't see this you can't follow my reasoning for climate changes. -
Patrick 027 at 06:02 AM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
correction: 26/36 ~= 0.722 -
Patrick 027 at 06:00 AM on 19 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Re 176 - that was interesting. Although I already had some sense that a number of faults north of and around India, including some extensional ones, were a consequence of the India-Asia collision. Re 175 - supposing that undersea volcanism were proportional to the number of VEI>=4 eruptions apparent from the surface, and using 16 per 26 years as a baseline: 1970 - 1944 = 26 2006 - 1970 = 36 16/26 ~= 0.615 36/26 ~= 0.722 0.722/0.615 ~= 1.17 A 17 % increase in VEI>=4 eruptions. A 17% increase in submarine eruptions would be some very small fraction of total geothermal heating, having a heating effect much much less than 0.1 W/m2. -
Philippe Chantreau at 20:06 PM on 18 February 2009Climate change on Mars
Quietman, seems you have left the Arctic ice thread, where I was asking you about this comment here on the solar wind. I don't understand what you're trying to say and I don't see anything in the article you link that clarifies it. How does the solar wind "carry" heat? What is your definition of heat? How do you think that heat is normally transmitted through space? What references do you have that particles winds participate in the Earth' energy budget? -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:50 AM on 18 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Mizimi, I am quite aware of that, it's not the point. The point is that ionized particles do not play a significant part in that budget. What is usually considered for Earth' heat budget is TSI, which is light. The remark about IR referred to the possibility that more "heat" (Quietman's words) would be "carried" by the solar winds, the equivalent of an increased TSI, with the increase being in the IR range. The paper cited did not approach that at all. -
Patrick 027 at 05:12 AM on 18 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman - where in the above comments were your friend's and chris's comments about thermodynamics? -
Mizimi at 02:55 AM on 18 February 2009Empirical evidence for positive feedback
re 72...recent research has shown cloud cover is affected by natural aerosols emitted by plants. See comments on the "It's aerosols" thread. -
Mizimi at 02:36 AM on 18 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Just a small point Phillipe, -- the earth's energy budget is dependent on total solar radiation not just IR. -
Mizimi at 02:07 AM on 18 February 2009The link between hurricanes and global warming
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10796-global-warming-link-to-hurricanes-likely-but-unproven.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13226-hurricane-study-whips-up-a-storm.html "Global warming is likely to affect cyclones and hurricanes, concludes a new statement from 125 experts, but they say the evidence for this to date is inconclusive." "There could be an effect but it's impossible to say for sure," says Julian Heming of the UK Met Office. The statement was issued at the end of a workshop organised by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). "The workshop concluded that the increasing economic damage caused by tropical cyclones is to a large extent the result of "increasing coastal populations […] and, perhaps, a rising sensitivity of modern societies to disruptions of infrastructure"." Some of the debate centres around our ability to detect hurricanes which has improved markedly since the deployment of sateliites and would thus affect our perception of hurricane numbers and intensity. -
Mizimi at 01:50 AM on 18 February 2009It hasn't warmed since 1998
Lee: have a look at the site posted by Saluki...it shows 2 out of 3 graphs indicating a temperature decline. Also theWags has a valid point I raised some time ago...namely that the number of stations collecting data has declined alarmingly over the last 20 years, so we should be asking whether these graphs are truly representative of the global condition. See http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html for a graph of stations vs temperature. It also appears that too many of the remaining stations are in the US for a realistic sampling. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:27 PM on 17 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
You're also suggesting that RC is less reliable than a purely political source (Morano's), which you read and linked. Whatever, again. But that's not all. In our exchange about Mars' climate, you first suggested an argument valid IF (emphasis yours) there was a correlation with Earth' climate. After I pointed that there was no correlation, you come back saying "You are right of course in that there is no correlation between Mars's climate and Earth's" as if that shows no contradiction to your previous proposition. Then you follow with some confused mumbo-jumbo. That's another kind of thing I'm wondering about. Granted, all of us make mistakes and dislike owning them. How many mistakes do you think you can be exonerated from before doubts arise about the good faith? In that same thread, you go on with increased speed of the solar wind as if it is relevant to the Earth's energy budget. I did not elaborate at the time, because I could not see what you were talking about. I still can't. Anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, solar winds are made of ionized particles. The big difference with photons (solar irradiance) is that they travel a lot slower than light, and they have a significant mass and a charge, which is why they can be deflected by the Earth' magnetic field. That is also what makes them of little to no relevance to the planet's energy budget. Where did you ever see a study assigning a forcing to solar winds that would be relevant to tropospheric/stratospheric temperatures? Is there anything in the article you link suggesting that the superhot microflares (which you seem to allude to) actually increase the total IR radiation (how heat is tranported in the absence of a medium to conduct it) leaving the Sun for the Earth? Nothing of the sort. That's yet another example of a cite that does not support your argument and is not even really related to it. How many of these can be ascribed to good faith? If it is really good faith, what else does that indicate? -
Patrick 027 at 16:14 PM on 17 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Where in an open system does conservation of energy not apply if one accounts for the inputs and outputs? Same for mass, entropy (not conservation of, but you get the idea), etc... -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:28 PM on 17 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
So you don't go to RC on your own accord but you'll go to OISM (and link it), Beck's and what not. Right. Whatever. -
Patrick 027 at 13:15 PM on 17 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
"would have to know the EXACT nature of ALL inputs " With regards to the difference between 2 and 3.0001, what would you say about the difference between 2 and 2.9999 ? -
Quietman at 07:19 AM on 17 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
ps I discussed with mu friend the use intended and he agreed that it does apply to this argument as well. So it actually is not out of context. -
Quietman at 07:14 AM on 17 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe Actually it's the hockey stick site. And yes I will read a link that goes to RC when it's used as a reference to see what it refers to, I just don't go there on my own accord. As for chaotic inputs, there are simply too many. The earth breathes much more often than thought, the solar wind has erractic effects and tectonics which nobody at this site appears to understand the consequences of. Then chris reads the terms for Thermodynamic Laws, which were intended for use in engineering closed systems ONLY and tells me that they can be applied to climate. Sorry but that IS where this whole argument falls through. They DO NOT apply to open systems. In order to make these rules apply to an open system you would have to know the EXACT nature of ALL inputs and the simple fact is nobody alive knows these. The evidence is in the CONSTANT discovery that things are not what they appear to be. And I REALLY have trouble accessing this thread at this point. My references have already been posted in the various threads at this site (mostly under volcanos) so I am not posting them again. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:18 AM on 17 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Worth quickly getting back on topic: Arcic sea ice extent has taken a serious hit and would have to grow now at the same kind of rate seen in November to catch up with last year's maximun. Kinda strange. I expect some weather system pushing the ice around and possibly compacting it, but area as shown by cryosphere today seems to have the beginning of a dip also. Hard to tell what's going on. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:47 PM on 16 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Patrick, I recall Quietman saying that he did not trust RC and, as a result, did not read it, althoug his readings (and links) have included niceties like the OISM page. That's the point of my question above. Nice link on Singer. This is the kind of reason why I'm always septical of "skeptics" on blogs. As of today I've seen perhaps 2 or 3 real ones. Ironically, they wouldn't even shape their thinking in terms of "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with AGW, wchich is a little to crude a way to put things. -
Patrick 027 at 10:38 AM on 16 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
"How can limits of a system be properly defined is the system has been determined to be chaotic?" The Earth isn't chaotically gaining and losing significant amounts of mass, even relative to the atmosphere. Aside from that: Divide space (or space-time) into some number of grid cells. Identify the energy, entropy, mass (in terms of chemicals, subatomic particles, etc.), and momentum and angular momentum flows into and out of each cell (define the cells to move with the mass when convenient - for example, define a system that orbits the sun along with the Earth, rather than having the mass of the Earth constantly pass through different grid cells). Identify the chemical and physical reactions within each cell. Balance the energy, entropy, mass, and momentum budgets. DONE! The long term equilibrium climate includes the shorter-term variability. The shorter term variability continues in part due to positive feedbacks but is limited by negative feedbacks that keep the climate within a certain range of behavior; external forcing shifts the whole of such an equilibrium state and positive feedbacks can contribe to that shift. "besides, didn't you just smear Fred Singer?" Fred Singer is either a fool or a liar - or blinded to the truth by some ideology. Who am I to deny him that title, for which he has worked so hard; he has earned it. (try starting with comment 218 at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/are-geologists-different/langswitch_lang/it ) -
Quietman at 08:07 AM on 16 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick You might find this interesting: Rift Zones: New Understanding Of Incredible Forces, Oil And Gas Reserves Beneath The Earth’s Surface ScienceDaily (Feb. 12, 2009) -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:56 PM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman, you declared once that one of the RC contributors (you did not specify) was untrustworthy because of some political reason or source of funding, although you gave no specifics. Your judgement in the matter did not take into consideration the scientific quality of his work, which is a fairly objective measure (i.e. the Spencer "claim" detailed above as example of sloppy work). Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion on that. I can understand that would leave aside one scientist's work because you don't like his ideas. Nonetheless, I would think that some level of reciprocity would apply to scientists with ideas you like (what a true skeptic would do), even if you could understandably be more complacent. We're still talking about science here. However, you had no problem spreading links to Marc Morano's propaganda. Morano is not a scientist at all, he is a PR professional working for a politician. What excactly is the rationale here? -
Quietman at 18:30 PM on 15 February 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Volcanic Eruptions Greater than 4.0 Period from 1945 to 1970 (16 major eruptions) Nomen Year Rank Location FERNANDINA 1968 4 Galapagos AWU 1966 4 Sangihe Islands KELUT 1966 4 Java TAAL 1965 4 Luzon SHIVELUCH 1964 4+ Kamchatka AGUNG 1963 5 Lesser Sundas AGUNG 1963 4 Lesser Sundas BEZYMIANNY 1956 5 Kamchatka CARRAN 1955 4 Chile SPURR 1953 4 Alaska BAGANA 1952 4 Bougainville Island KELUT 1951 4 Java LAMINGTON 1951 4 New Guinea AMBRYM 1951 4+ Vanuatu HEKLA 1947 4 Iceland SARYCHEV 1946 4 Kuril Islands Period from 1971 to 2006 (26 major eruptions) Nomen Year Rank Location RABAUL 2006 4 New Britain MANAM 2005 4 N.E.of New Guinea REVENTADOR 2002 4 Ecuador RUANG 2002 4 Sangihe Islands SHIVELUCH 2001 4 Kamchatka ULAWUN 2000 4 New Britain RABAUL 1994 4 New Britain LASCAR 1993 4 Chile SPURR 1992 4 Alaska HUDSON 1991 5+ Chile PINATUBO 1991 6 Luzon KLIUCHEVSKOI 1990 4 Kamchatka KELUT 1990 4 Java AUGUSTINE 1986 4 Alaska CHIKURACHKI 1986 4 Kuril Islands COLO 1983 4 Sulawesi GALUNGGUNG 1982 4 Java CHICHON 1982 5 Mexico CHICHON 1982 4+ Mexico PAGAN 1981 4 Marianas ALAID 1981 4 Kuril Islands ST.HELENS 1980 5 Washington AUGUSTINE 1976 4 Alaska TOLBACHIK 1975 4+ Kamchatka FUEGO 1974 4 Guatemala TIATIA 1973 4 Kuril Islands Source: http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm Results: 10 more eruptions recently with a VEI >=4 than for the same length preceeding period using 1970 as a cutoff. Note: I have no access to the additional activity or the undersea volcanos that are not included. -
chris at 11:15 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
re #445:How can limits of a system be properly defined is the system has been determined to be chaotic?
Again, you need to be explicit. Are all the elements of the system "chaotic"? Are the dominant elements of the system chaotic? Or not? If only some elements of the system are chaotic, what is the amplitude of variation around the equilibrium "set" by the non-chaotic elements of the system....and so on... So we could go back to the Earth's surface temperature. There's nothing particularly chaotic about the Earth's atmospheric composition, and the forcing resulting from the greenhouse effect. Likewise the vastly dominant source of energy into the system (the sun) isn't particularly chaotic as a source of heat energy. The level of solar irradiance drifts up and down slightly with an 11 year cycle in an essentially non-chaotic manner, and the solar constant increases interminably slowly on the multi million year timescale (also non-chaotic), occasionally the solar output does drift slowly upwards or downwards within a relatively small range. So in general it's the internal elements of the climate system that are chaotic. But the evidence indicates that these chaotic elements (outwith extremely rare catastrophic events like extraterrestrial impacts or massive tectonic eruptions) result in "noise" that has a relatively small amplitude. We can see explicitly that El Nino's and La Nina's can temporarily enhance or reduce the Earth's globally averaged temperature by 0.1 - 0.2 oC, that ocean cycles that redistribute warm and cooler waters during rather longer timescales can have similarly small effects on the globally averaged surface temperatures....volcanic eruptions can temporarily suppress temperatures for a few years... …in general (outwith catastrophic phenomena, or small non-predictable variations in solar outputs, such as those associated with the Maunder minimum and such-like) the dominant influences on the Earth’s energy budget aren’t particularly chaotic, and the chaotic elements result in “ noise” characterized as fluctuations around the equilibrium temperature “set” by the dominant forcings (sun, greenhouse effect and the particular extant properties of the Earth like the positions of the continents and mountain ranges, and the Earth’s orbit). ..so again, we need to be explicit about what we’re considering. -
chris at 10:48 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
re #442:chris: First off, one can certainly apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. It only requires that the limits of the system are defined in the context of the particular analysis." Quietman: “No, limits of the system can not be properly defined”
Of course the “system” can be defined. One just has to be explicit about the phenomenon under discussion. So if the evidence indicates that the Earth’s “energy budget” is defined by the forcings arising from the Earth and the elements of its climate system (the land, oceans, atmospheric composition, continental locations, mountain ranges, air and ocean currents, land and sea ice, orbital properties..etc), and the sun and its properties that defined the insolation levels, then these are the elements that “define” the “system”. We might choose to consider other elements under quite specific circumstances. On the 100 million year timescale we might choose to incorporate the passage of the solar system through the spiral arms of the galaxy, and thus consider variations in the cosmic ray flux and its putative climatic influences. And then we would incorporate this into the “definition” of our “system”. Of course this is of little relevance to the effects of changing greenhouse gas levels over several decades or centuries. Or we might choose to consider the Earth’s temperature response to forcings resulting from asteroid impacts or massive tectonic events. Again this isn’t of much relevance to our consideration of the Earth’s evolution to a new equilibrium temperature defined by an enhanced greenhouse forcing under consitions of relatively constant insolation…. …and so on… So the “limits of the system “ can be properly defined. It’s a question of being clear and explicit about what we are addressing. -
chris at 10:10 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
You don't really understand Quietman. I made a specific point about the Earth's temperature response to an enhanced forcing. Your friend posted some unrelated stuff about entropy and thermodynamics. I'm not trying to disprove your friends "definitions". Why should I want to do that? Your friend's "definition" have no bearing on my post. That's not very surprising since s/he apparently wrote in a context completely unrelated to my post. If you can't address the subjects of my posts Quietman, just keep schtum. It doesn't make any sense to trawl the blogosphere to find someone else's post that might have some vague relationship to mine! If you think I'm "denying" some well-characterized climate cycles, why not just direct me to the relevant post? You can give the url of the relevant thread, and all the posts on every thread is numbered. Just post the url(s) and the post number(s). Otherwise please stop making unsupported accusations insinuations. As for "equilibria" in relation to the Earth's surface temperature:... A considerable amount of scientific analysis supports the conclusion that the Earth's surface temperature responds to enhanced greenhouse forcing with a rise near 3 oC per doubling of atmospheric CO2 (between 2 - 4.5 oC at 95% certainty according the the IPCC compliations of the available evidence). Right now the Earth's temperature is fluctuating around a temperature "set" by the current solar irradiance and greenhouse gas levels (and incorporating insolation patterns, albedo and water vapour feedbacks, atmospheric aerosol levels, the position of the continents and location of major mountain chains, and so on). The Earth's temperature isn't rock steady, but undergoes fluctuations around the equilibrium temperature that results from the summation of forcings; these fluctuations are a result of cyclic and stochastic elements of the climate system. If the atmospheric CO2 levels double, the Earth's temperature will evolve towards a new equilibrium temperaure that will be somewhere around 3 oC warmer than the temperature around which the earth currently fluctuates. It's useful to understand that this temperature rise is the rise that will occur at equilibrium, since we understand very well that the inertias in the climate system (e.g. the massive ocean thermal sink) have the effect of damping the Earth's temperature response to a change in forcings. In other words, while the evidence indicates that the Earth's temperature response to enhanced greenhouse forcing is around 3 oC per doubling of atmospheric CO2, this temperature change will take many decades to be fully realized. That's a very straightforward, uncontroversial, and explicit use of the concept of equilibrium in relation to the Earth's surface temperature response to a change in forcings. If you feel the need to quibble with that, please do so on the terms of my post, rather than through completely unrelated notions of "thermodynamic laws" or "closed systems" or other extraneous stuff that someone might have posted on some blog somewhere. -
Quietman at 09:43 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Patrick Sorry, but this page has become too long and takes forever to load. I'll look to see your posts in other threads. But I will leave you here with this thought: How can limits of a system be properly defined is the system has been determined to be chaotic? -
Quietman at 09:38 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
correction to 442 Re: "new equilibrium temperature": This phrase discusses thermodynamic laws, implying a closed system. The earth has no equilibrium temperature, it constantly changes. GHGs do control it's limits but never achieve "equilibrium" because the earth "breathes". -
Quietman at 09:37 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
ps Who is Fred Singer? The name sounds familiar. -
Quietman at 09:30 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Patrick Sometimes a smear is truly deserved ("we are all toast" Hansen); besides, didn't you just smear Fred Singer? Is turn about not fair play? Is it not "we are all toast" Hansen who smears everyone else on the planet that disagrees? Re: "First off, one can certainly apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. It only requires that the limits of the system are defined in the context of the particular analysis." No, limits of the system can not be properly defined. -
Quietman at 09:22 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
chris So you can't disprove my friends' definition just because he said it better than I could? You have not denied the existance of climate cycles? Go back and reread your responses. You have a short memory. You denied natural cycles the very first time I brought up the subject. Re: "new equilibrium temperature" discusses thermodynamic laws, implying a closed system. The earth has no equilibrium temperature, it constantly changes. GHGs do control it's limits but never achieve "equilibrium" because the earth "breathes". -
chris at 08:48 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
#432 How dishonest you are Quietman.Chris has demonstrated his true faith by attempting to apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. And when I post a good explanation using a quote from a friend that was able to better express it than I, he attacks me personally, just like you did.
First off, one can certainly apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. It only requires that the limits of the system are defined in the context of the particular analysis. In any case, I haven't discussed the "laws of thermodynamics". I described a very basic response of the Earth's temperature to an enhanced forcing. I pointed out that the earth will tend towards a new equilibrium temperature around which fluctuations occur due to stochastic and cyclic elements of the climate system. There's nothing very controversial or mysterious about that.. Secondly, you didn't post " a good explanation". You cut and pasted a completely unrelated post of some person on some other blog written presumably for some other purpose. Thirdly, I didn't "attack" you "personally". I pointed out that your posts didn't address my post at all. And how could a "cut and paste" from some unrelated blog by some person who hasn't read my posts, constitute a response to my post on this message board?But I also see the rest of the picture that you and chris refuse to acknowledge, ie. you are both in denial of natural cycles, chris even moreso than you.
Examples please. I'm not "in denial" of any "natural cycles" for which there is evidence. There's clearly an 11 year solar cycle. There are cycles involving ocean circulation (the PDO for example). There are ocean circulation variations that are apparently more stochastic in their temporal evolution (ENSO, for example). There are cycles in the orbital properties of the earth (Milankovitch cycles) that govern insolation patterns that drive glacial-interglacial-glacial transitions....and so on.. So which "natural cycles" am I "in denial of" Quietman? Specific examples, please. All of these topics involve science, evidence, rational analysis, and on this message board, honest attention to the postings of others. If you can't deal with these issues, and other's posts in that philosophy, why not just ignore the posts that you happen not to like? -
Patrick 027 at 06:44 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
"IF N increases with height, then LRS increases. This tends to decrease w. " I knew that didn't sound right! Increasing N while leaving m unchanged decreases the denominator [ k^2 + l^2 + (m*Hzs/LRS)^2 + 1/(4*LRS^2) ] and thus increases w. m must be proportional to N to maintain constant w. Thus, N increasing with height requires an increase in m to maintain constant w. u decreasing with height requries a decrease in w, requiring even more increase in m. Both effects tend to make the phase planes farther from vertical and closer to horizontal (the tilt away frome vertical increases). The vertical component of group velocity will generally increase at first as the tilt increases, but will reach a maximum value and then decrease. When u gets low enough, w goes to zero and then negative - and then m becomes large and imaginary (further decrease in u allows the magnitude of m to decrease but it will remain imaginary). the wave cannot propagate further. It may reflect back down; however, the variation of group velocity may cause the amplitude to become large at some level, to the point that there is wave-breaking, which is one way for wave activity to be absorbed in an irreversable manner, as described with regards to sudden stratospheric warmings (which reduce u, thus lowering the level to which the waves can propagate, etc...). Another thing that could happen is that where some component of group velocity is low, wave activity lingers, allowing more thermal damping to occur (the wave involves adiabatic temperature changes which tend to cause radiational cooling or heating). Clarifications: when a component of a wave vector is imaginary, the rate of exponential decay in that direction is proportional to that component's magnitude; thus the distance scale of penetration is inversely proportional to the magnitude, and thus is directly proportional to the magnitude of an effective imaginary wavelength. Regarding total internal reflection - the reflectance will of course be reduced if some wave energy is able to leak (tunnel - via the evanescent portion of the wave) across to a second interface where the wave can again propagate. --- Of course, temporal variations in wind can alter the result: If a wave propagates up to some level, and then the wind speed falls at that level, it takes the wave with it, so then the wave can propagate up further where the wind speed was lower, with less refraction. So short-term temporal variations in the basic state may also allow some leaks in the barriers to propagation. -
Patrick 027 at 06:12 AM on 15 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
"Patrick, Ann Coulter is nuts." No argument there! - unless we suppose that her value system is tilted towards notoriety and money and very far from truth (although that could also be said to be 'nuts'), in which case she is just making a living the way she wants to do it. Nice links! -
chris at 06:06 AM on 15 February 2009Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
Re #37 Your friend hasn't given an explanation. The post of your friend bears no relation to my post. You can't just copy a post from some other blog because it's vaguely related to the subject. Why not get your friend to answer my post? I'm not sure what your making such a song and dance over this anyway, since my posts on equilibria on this thread are completely non-controversial... -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:39 PM on 14 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Patrick, Ann Coulter is nuts. Her crazy antics are the only stratageme she could muster to avoid being completely ignored. "Disprove those scientists." Let's take the example of Roy Spencer. Not only the errors in his UAH satellite data were noticed by others, they were also corrected by others, while Spencer and Christy merrily let all sorts of politically motivated individuals exploit the erroneous data, which they knew to be flawed. If any scientist not liked by deniers would go anywhere near such behavior, they'd asked for his/her head on a platter. But let's ignore that and just look at his more recent pastime: trying to show that the increased atmospheric CO2 owes nothing to human generated CO2. So far that has not gone well and led him to all manners of extravagant claims that "skeptics" trying to keep up appearances are trying to mitigate. However, it is the way he fumbled his maths on one of these claims that is really amusing. Spencer's "demonstration" is in this WUWT post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/ It's rather funny that, with all their pompous tone, none of the posters notices how fundamentally flawed the mathematical argument is, until someone shows that you get the exact same result with any 2 unrelated time series subjected to the same treatment. Watts tries to divert attention from the core issue near the end, then he simply closed the thread for comments. Spencer's lack of understanding of his own maths is covered in this post: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/a-bag-of-hammers/#more-1435 That's a mathematical disproof, good enough? -
Patrick 027 at 17:22 PM on 14 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
"are your opinion, not fact. " It is probably their opinion that their points are facts or are backed up by the facts. PS it is a fact that my opinion is ____. It may be someone's opinion that ____ is not a fact. It may be a fact that an opinion can't be justified. FACT: Ann Coulter seems to think she has a right to her own facts... -
Patrick 027 at 17:14 PM on 14 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman - not to come down too hard on you (especially since I've forgotten what the paper with all the citations was about (I'd look now but I've got to go in a few seconds)), but: "Chris has demonstrated his true faith by attempting to apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. " There's nothing wrong with applying the laws of thermodynamics to an open system so long as one accounts for the openness of the system. One method of creationists is to IGNORE the openness of the system. "You cherry pick and so does chris, or should I say reverse cherry pick, selectively ignoring those parts in the paper that disagree and then interpreting those papers as either supporting your view or not supporting mine." Taking points in isolation may not support anything or else make for a confusing mess. If area A warms by Ta and area B cools by Tb, the areal average warms by (Ta*A - B*Tb)/(A+B). If that value is positive, it doesn not require ignoring Tb to recognize the average's sign (although one needs both the averages and the variations to get the complete picture, but one can ignore a single grain of sand on the beach and still calculate the mass of the Earth). "But I also see the rest of the picture that you and chris refuse to acknowledge, ie. you are both in denial of natural cycles, chris even moreso than you." Are they in denial or do they disagree with you about which natural cycles or variations are significant and which ones are not and the significance relative to anthropogenic effects? "Disprove those scientists you disagree with rather than attempting to smear their reputation." "You make yourself sound like a Hansen clone. If you can't disprove something then it's more likely true than coming from someone that's crazy. " Sometimes a smear is truly deserved (Fred Singer); besides, didn't you just smear Hansen? -
Patrick 027 at 16:57 PM on 14 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Refraction: Okay, so these waves propagate, and w depends on the wave vector (among other things: Hzs, N, f (or AV and f_loc..., beta (or more generally the IPV gradient))... w is relative to the air as it moves. the phase speed in the x direction = cx = w/k. This is the speed through the air. The air moves, so to find the speed in the x direction relative to the surface, one must the x component of the (basic state) wind, u. Generally, for figuring out wave refraction and reflection, it is easiest to assume constant w relative to a common reference frame (such as the surface, or perhaps following the air at a reference location in the atmosphere (one must then account for horizontal or vertical wind variations when considering the w following the air at other locations). Then, if there is an interface across which some conditions change, then the component of the wavevector parallel to that interface must be the same on either side, but the component perpendicular to the interface can change as sharply as the interface is sharp. This wave vector component must be adjusted to maintain the same phase speed in the directions parallel to the interface on either side, relative to a common reference frame. Then, considering a steady state condition, one must have no convergence or divergence of group velocity times wave energy density. Since the group velocity can vary across the interface, the energy density must vary as well. This may require a change in amplitude across the interface. In the vertical direction, the amount of vertical stretching can change sharply, but more generally, RV and vertical displacments will vary continuously. In order to avoid a discontinuity in total amplitude for an interface for which the amplitude difference between incident and refracted waves is nonzero across a relatively sharp interface, one can add the amplitude of a reflected wave on one side to make up the difference. Because the reflected wave also has group velocity and energy density (a function of amplitude), the nondivergence of wave energy flux and continuity of amplitude of wave fields (RV' and S'(? or vertical displacement?) - for an electromagnetic wave, the anology would be the amplitudes of the magnetic and electric fields of the wave) must be addressed together (a system of equations) to find the solution. Once such a steady state is found, one can consider states that evolve in time, by introducing wave packets - regions of nonzero amplitude waves - that propagate with group velocity, which partially reflect and refract at the interface and follow the group velocities of the reflected and refracted waves, respectively, with the proportion of energy going one way verses the other being determined by the solution of the aforementioned system of equations. The squares of the wave numbers appear in the dispersion relationship. With the components parallel to the interface being fixed, one must vary the components perpendicular to maintain the required w value. The situation can arise when the solution is that the square of the wave number goes to zero or is negative. In the zero case, the wave number must then go to zero, which means that the wave length in that direction is infinite (the phase planes are parallel to that direction). In the negative case, the wave number must be an imaginary number. This means that the wave fields do not oscillate in that direction but instead grow or decay exponentially. Exponential growth may be allowed if the wave energy is coming from that direction, but usually exponential decay is the solution that fits physical reality. This is an evanescent wave; it remains wavelike along the interface but decays in strength away from the interface and cannot propagate wave energy indefinitely away from the interface. However, some portion of the wave may penetrate all the way to another interface (that portion obviously exponentially decreasing with distance); if the wave can have real values of wavenumbers on the other side of that interface, then that portion of the wave activity can 'leak' through the barrier and propagate again after the second interface - the wave tunnels through the barrier, just as in quantum mechanics, the wave nature of an electron allows it to tunnel through barriers. IMPORTANT Example: for the planetary waves described by: w = beta*k / [ k^2 + l^2 + (m*Hzs/LRS)^2 + 1/(4*LRS^2) ] The phase speed = cx = w/k the phase speed in x relative to a reference level is u+cx = u + w/k Note that k is negative, so cx is negative. For an interface that is horizontal, we need to maintain constant CY = v+cy and CX = u+cx. Just considering u+cx: cx = CX-u w = k*(CX - u) = |k|*(u-CX) IF u decreases with height, w must decrease. IF N increases with height, then LRS increases. This tends to decrease w. To maintain constant w with increasing N, m^2 must increase. If changes in u cause w to go to a large enough value, the denominator [ k^2 + l^2 + (m*Hzs/LRS)^2 + 1/(4*LRS^2) ] must get smaller than [ k^2 + l^2 + 1/(4*LRS^2) ] while if w must go negative, then the denominator must go negative - either way there is a point where m^2 must also go negative, and the wave becomes evanescent. I think this also implies 'total internal reflection' - the reflected wave is as strong as the incident wave. More generally, if the interface is sloped, k and l might also change. A wave packet with some northward group velocity component might produce a reflected wave packet with some southward group velocity component, or maybe vice versa. The refracted wave's phase line orientation in the horizontal and it's group velocity direction in the horizontal may also be different... -
Quietman at 10:30 AM on 14 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
ps I compare AGW alarmists to creationists because they use EXACTKY the same tactics and arguments. -
Quietman at 10:29 AM on 14 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Re: "You keep on citing stuff that does not support what you say it does and when called on that by Chris, you go on accusing him of bias or "not liking the authors" without ANY basis for the accusation. You give credence to far fetched ideas with a scant or non existent publication record while holding doubts on published ideas that have succesfully cleared authentic scientific scrutiny. When confronted with that, you resort to the tried and true, whiny excuse of creationists, i.e. "scientific journals are biased against our ideas so we can't publish." Pretty sad. You're not showing any true skepticism." Chris has demonstrated his true faith by attempting to apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system. And when I post a good explanation using a quote from a friend that was able to better express it than I, he attacks me personally, just like you did. Your citations of my using papers that do not support my views are your opinion, not fact. You cherry pick and so does chris, or should I say reverse cherry pick, selectively ignoring those parts in the paper that disagree and then interpreting those papers as either supporting your view or not supporting mine. I acknowledge AGW, I do understand how GHGs function and fully realize that this would be a much colder planet without them. But I also see the rest of the picture that you and chris refuse to acknowledge, ie. you are both in denial of natural cycles, chris even moreso than you. Disprove those scientists you disagree with rather than attempting to smear their reputation. You make yourself sound like a Hansen clone. If you can't disprove something then it's more likely true than coming from someone that's crazy. -
Quietman at 10:02 AM on 14 February 2009Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
chris You did not like my answer so I posted a friends explanation. He knows much more than I do about theoretical physics than I do. My knowledge of physics is limited to that needed for engineering, ie. I had to work for a living, I'm not an academic. That fact that you also don't care for his explanation either is quite telling. ps I do not "hunt" the blogosphere. I asked a friend that had a better explanation than what I gave for permission to repost his comment from my daily visited science columns (not a blog, a news casting site that mostly covers evolution and paleontology (but also includes algoristic alarmist propaganda). -
chris at 06:32 AM on 14 February 2009Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
Re #35 I've addressed your point. Your response is to hunt around the blogosphere to find some post that seems like it might possibly be relevant to mine. In fact it isn't. If you can't answer for yourself, just leave it. -
Patrick 027 at 04:59 AM on 14 February 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
change Hs to Hzs to be clear: w = beta*k / [ k^2 + l^2 + [(m*Hzs)^2 + 1/4]/LRS^2 ] or w = beta*k / [ k^2 + l^2 + (m*Hzs/LRS)^2 + 1/(4*LRS^2) ] Notice how similar this is to the dispersion relation for barotropic waves and for the Cushman Roisin solution (absent the part where the Cushman Roisin solution has w going to infinity). Graphing w in wave-vector space, using coordinates k, l, and m*Hzs/LRS, contours of w are spheres. w has a finite maximum value along the k axis. All cross sections that pass through the k axis are identical; all that are parallel to the k axis are similar - hence the behavior of group velocity and phase speed in any such plane projected onto x,y,z coordinates (but with scaling z according to Hzs and LRS)...
Prev 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 Next
