Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 Next
Comments 29351 to 29400:
-
Michael Whittemore at 01:10 AM on 1 June 2015Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
After reading Schmidt et al (2014) from the link above they dont use Ridley et al (2014) data which found a lot more volcanic cooling. If you included his findings I think the models are running low, so more than 3 degrees should be expected..
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:49 AM on 1 June 2015The History of Climate Science
"The one thing that I did learn repeatedly was, that if the models didn't agree with reality, that it was the model that was wrong, not reality. "
There is the old saying that all broad, sweeping generalizations are wrong. (Including the one in that old saying...)
Leto has already commented on the phrasing. I'll add the point that Dan Sage's phrasing only is true when you have perfect knowledge of reality. Unfortunately, we never do, which is why Leto makes the comment that (s)he does about error and probability.
Every measurement has errors. I can provide an example of one specific case where a difference between model values and measurements revealed a source of error in the measurements. This had to do with the measurement of diffuse solar radiation. Under very clear skies, some measurements produced values less than that predicted as a minimum using models for Rayleigh Scattering. Rayleight scattering is caused by the molecules of the atmosphere, and no matter how clean the atmosphere is with respect to other scattering particles, you can't stop the molecules from doing Rayleigh Scattering unless you remove the atmosphere entirely.
Were the models wrong? No. The measurements had an offset error related to the infrared radiation flux (a net loss, as the instruments involved emitted more IR than they received from clear skies). Further study of the instrument characteristics revealed the cause of the error and methods to correct for it. The models were right, and the measurements were wrong, because the measurements were not a perfect representation of reality. THe measurement were always a bit low (systematic error).
For further reading on the source of errors in these measurements, a widely-used reference is:
Dutton et al (2001), Measurement of Broadband Diffuse Solar Irradiance Using Current Commercial Instrumentation with a Correction for Thermal Offset Errors, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 18, 297–314.
Dan Sage's understanding of models and data seems rather limited, despite his claims to authority as having worked with computer models for many years.
-
Phil at 23:23 PM on 31 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
In addition to Tom's comments, can I add
1. There are, existing operational electricity storage facilities in the UK, most notably (and locally for the OP author!) Dinorwig which was developed in the 1970's to store excess power from the UK's fleet of Nuclear Power stations - which are as unresponsive to the demand curve as Wind.2. There is an existing trial battery storage system in the UK, admittedly fairly small scale currently.
3. Interestingly this article (republished on the Isentropic web site) makes the argument that the issues with grid storage in the UK are not technological but regulatory.
4. Rather more speculative is the proposed "European Super Grid"
-
Tom Curtis at 22:47 PM on 31 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Lobstonicus @14:
1) It is simply false that windpower cannot deliver reliable, predictable power. Introduction of such systems as Isentropic's Pumped Heat Electricity Storage (PHES, see video below) and now Tesla's new battery systems mean reliable supply from windpower will soon be a matter of course.
2) Not to put too fine a point on it, the "health risks" of windmills are overblown nonsense by a lot of NIMBYs. Here are the infrasound levels from a variety of sources:
Noise Source Measured Level
(dB(G))
Clements Gap Wind Farm at 85m 72
Clements Gap Wind Farm at 185m 67
Clements Gap Wind Farm at 360m 61
Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm at 100m 66
Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm at 200m 63
Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm ambient 62
Beach at 25m from high water line 75
250m from coastal cliff face 69
8km inland from coast 57
Gas fired power station at 350m 74
Adelaide CBD at least 70m from any
major road 76As you can see, the infrasound levels from windfarms are equivalent to, or less than those found from a variety of urban and industrial sources, not to mention ocean beaches. If infrasound from windmills is such a health problem that their development should be stopped, then clearly merely living in a city represents far greater of a health problem, and we should promptly dissassemble all cities (or perhaps merely ban all road transport). Alternatively, if it is acceptable for urban residents to be afflicted with those levels of infranoise, why are rural residents near windfarms entitled to such special treatment.
That, of course, leaves aside the infrasound from ocean beaches, the effect of which (as we all know) drives down ocean frontage real estate values so much (/sarc).
-
Lobstonicus at 21:37 PM on 31 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
The trouble with wind power is that it can't meet our energy needs because it is unpredictable - the wind doesn't necessarily blow when the demand for electricity is high - and we don't have an appropriate technology to store the energy when it is generated.
On top of that, there is a growing body of evidence that industrial wind turbines have their own set of environmental impacts: bird and bat deaths; contamination of water supplies; release of stored carbon during construction; pollution from manufacturing; as well as impact on local residents from noise (especially infrasound) and shadow flicker.
As I write this, wind is accounting for about 18% of our electricity generating capacity. But it's a windy day, and the average over a year is more like 7%. So you need more predictable generating capacity to take over when the wind isn't blowing (i.e. coal, gas nuclear etc.) anyway - the wind turbines don't (and can't) replace other power stations.
It seems to me that the only realistic way of meeting our energy needs without irrevocably changing the climate in the medium term is nuclear power. There's a lot of unfounded scaremongering around nuclear, but I would argue that it's environmental impacts are smaller and more easily contained than the alternatives.
And no, I'm not a climate change denier. I think we're in danger of soiling our own nest to the point of destruction. I just don't see how wind turbines can be the answer to the problem.
By the way, thanks for a good and informative site.
-
william5331 at 21:21 PM on 31 May 2015Scientists discuss how strongly a warming Arctic is implicated in extreme weather
Implying that the jet stream pushes weather systems around the world is a little like the plumb pudding model of an atom. It was fine until the solar system model explained a few more characteristics of atoms and this was fine until the sub orbital model explained even more. In fact, the jet stream marks the location where Hadley cells come together and the jet streams form at this junction high in the sky. Between the Polar Hadley cell and the Feral cell is a rising wall of air and between the Feral cell and the equatorial Hadley cell a falling wall of air. Surely these walls of air are what is pushing weather systems and the upwhelling and downwhelling is marked by the jet stream. It may sound like nit picking but perhaps we will achieve deeper understandings just as when each atomic model was upgraded. All this is powered by rising heated air at the equator and falling cold air at the pole. What should be interesting is when the Arctic Ocean collects enough heat in the summer due to being open ocean, to reverse the Polar Hadley cell, especially in the fall as the surrounding land quickly cools off and the ocean is relatively warm. That is just when the grain crops of the Northern Hemisphere are ripening. The junction between the Hadley cells is showing deeper and deeper wobbles. It brings to mind a top that begins to wobble as it slows down just before it falls over.
-
Phil at 19:58 PM on 31 May 2015The History of Climate Science
Dan Sage @25: "The one thing that I did learn repeatedly was, that if the models didn't agree with reality, that it was the model that was wrong, not reality."
Leto @26: This is phrased in such a way that it sounds almost impossible for a rational person to disagree with it...
Imagine how disappointed Dan Sage is going to be when he buys one of these, and finds he can't actually sit in the cockpit.
-
MA Rodger at 19:06 PM on 31 May 2015The History of Climate Science
As well as questioning why the"pause" doesn't get a mention in this post on the history of climate science (the RSS website reference @25 is likely this post by Carl Mears that certainly makes no mention of the “warming hiatus” being "15 to 18+ years" long), DAN SAGE @25 talks of two other topics covered elsewhere by SkS - the CO2-lagging-temperature saga and the controversal lowering of the bottom of the IPCC ECS range in AR5 (which does not justify talk of ECS being "now ... 1degree C, or even a little less", an extremely low value range that has long been proposed by contrarians).
-
Leto at 18:46 PM on 31 May 2015The History of Climate Science
Don Sage writes:
"The one thing that I did learn repeatedly was, that if the models didn't agree with reality, that it was the model that was wrong, not reality."
This is phrased in such a way that it sounds almost impossible for a rational person to disagree with it... but it ends up meaning very little. Whatever modelling you did for the government, I'm guessing they kept you away from all the difficult problems that involve error and probability.
If the best backgammon computer in the world tells me that I should do a certain move, and I follow its advice, and the other guy rolls a double six to win, is the model wrong?
If the best oncologist in the world uses the world's best cancer model to plot the probability distribution function of my survival from the lung cancer he has just diagnosed, and I get hit my a bus on the way home from the appointment, is the model wrong?
Climate models give us a range of outcomes, and the Earth gives us just one possible run. They're not perfect, but the issue of their reliability is far more complex than your cheap drive-by shot would indicate. As Rob P notes, the match to models is remarkable if correct input is used.
-
DAN SAGE at 15:45 PM on 31 May 2015The History of Climate Science
Thank you for the history review. I worked with computer models for many years in the work, that I did for the Federal Government. The one thing that I did learn repeatedly was, that if the models didn't agree with reality, that it was the model that was wrong, not reality. No mention is made of the "pause" in global warming, that the current models failed to predict for the past 15 to 18+ years, while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase. Even the Remote Sensing Systems website, who regularly works with Dr. Santer to provide accurate satellite based temperature data for his models and papers, has noticed this fact/reality. There is also no mention, that the increase in CO2 always followed the increase in temperature in the geological record, as I understand it. I also believe that even the IPPC has had to reduce its estimate of Global Warming sensitivty for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. I believe that some sceintists now believe it is at 1degree C, or even a little less. This would seem to pose no big threat to the world as we know it, since we may run out of fuel to produce CO2, before we increase the level of CO2 to what some may see as hazardous. Thank you for your time.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - See this SkS post: Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming. Climate models aren't omniscient, so once you allow for changes in the solar cycle, natural variability and light-scattering aerosols from volcanic eruptions, the match is quite remarkable.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:10 AM on 31 May 2015Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
I count at least 83 project in the pre-construction phase in Miami.
http://www.condoideas.com/1004_preconstructioncondosmiami.htm
-
wili at 05:45 AM on 31 May 2015Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
Most of the province of Jiangsu in eastern China is underwater or affected by intrusion with just one meter slr. That's about 80 million people just for that province. Some 100,000 people have already been displaced in Pakistan due to salt water intrusion.
In the case of Miami, note that no amount of dams or dikes will hold the sea back since the rock these would have to be built on is itself extremely porous--the sea would just leak through right under the damn.
No one should be building anything new in that area, and we should be starting to plan a gradual evacuation of at least Miami Beach.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:58 AM on 31 May 2015Models are unreliable
Wow. This AlecM guy is a hoot! I love this comment the best...
"PS when I used the old term Emittance instead of Exitance, Wikipedia was altered to remove Emittance! This showed the disinformation process in action. We are being conned!"
It's illuminating in terms of his state of mind.
Moderator Response:[JH] Further discussion of comments posted by AlecM on another website will be deleted for being "off-topic".
-
Tom Curtis at 01:13 AM on 31 May 2015Models are unreliable
MA Rodger @934, Houghton's Fig 2.5 is shown in google preview of the 3rd edition of his work. I assume it is the same as that shown in the first edition, given that figs 2.4 and 2.6 are unchanged between the two editions. In addition to plotting the radiative equilibrium temperature, Houghton also plots the convective equilibrium temperature (or an approximation with a lapse rate of -6 C per km). If Alex M thinks that plot "showed why there can be no Enhanced GHE", he merely demonstrates he has no understanding of atmospheric physics (as if we needed further proof of that). Consulting the 3rd edition, published in 2002, ie, one year after the Third Assessment report also demonstrates neatly that Houghton saw no contradiction between the physics he continued to teach essentially unchanged after he joined the IPCC, the physics that he had taught before hand.
The preview of the first edition is also interesting in that it contains on page 10 Houghton's explanation of why climate scientists often (though not in GCMs) treat IR radiation from an atmospheric layer to consist of an upward and a downward flux, rather than as radiating in all directions. The reasoning is simple. As Alex M himself points out, "Standard Physics predicts net unidirectional radiant flux from the vector sum of Irradiances at a plane". But if you have radiation from a sphere with equal temperatures at all points, then at any give point above the surface of the sphere it will have equal radiative flux coming in at φ degrees from all downward directions, for all φ. Thus, for a given φ, with that angle will come equally from a circle on the sphere with a center directly beneath the point. If you sum the vectors of all those fluxes, only the vertical component of those vectors will not cancel out. As this applies to all φ, it follows that the integral of the all fluxes from the surface at any point above the surface consists of a net flux with a vertical component only. Similar reason applies for any point below the surface (assuming it is a transparent region). Because of this, the radiation from a given level of the atmosphere can be treated as consisting of only vertical components for simplicity.
This simplifying assumption does not hold if large temperature differences exist between different regions of the surface. This is not always true in the atmosphere, but is often approximately true so that the simplifying assumption makes a good approximation. Despite that it is not used in GCMs and so is not a necessary assumption for the theory of the greenhouse effect. (Note, any time we express the black body radiation in terms of W/m^2 rather than in terms of W/m^2/steradian; we are making this simplifying assumption.)
So, it turns out that one of the biggest problems Alex M has with climate science is a simplifying assumption that is not necessary for the science, is explained in a book he purports to have read, and as it happens, follows reasoning first developed (in relation to gravity) by that well known alchemist, Isaac Newton.Finally, as a note for PostKey, your most recent comment has been deleted by the moderators. That may only be because you are in effect allowing Alex M to comment here by proxy whilst ignoring the SkS comment's policy, although I can think of a number of comment's policies you are also violating by just posting full quotes. If you want help understanding where Alex M is in error, quote only the relevant text. Explain what you do not understand about the quoted material, and make sure you post on the appropriate thread. The last may take a bit of reading to find the appropriate thread, but that same reading may well answer your question. I and several other commenters here are always glad to help people who are seeking understanding, but we have no interest in carrying on a discussion by proxy with a conspiracy theorist and pseudoscientist such as Alex M.
Moderator Response:[JH] Postkey would do well to follow your advice. If he does not, his/her future posts are likely to be deleted.
-
longjohn119 at 00:39 AM on 31 May 2015Memo to Jeb Bush: denying human-caused global warming is ignorant
Well CB you have to understand that they don't care what most people want, even those people who vote for them
What they care about is the Corporations and Billionaires that fund their propaganda campaigns to the hilt .... What they say goes, it's as simple as that.
I'm here at Ground Zero for Presidential Politics (Iowa) and it's amazing how many GOP candidates are climbing out of the GOP Clown Car this year and they all pretty much sazy the exact same thing excpet for Rand Paul and his only difference is about the debacle of the Iraq War and the debacle caused by it in the Middle East today.
You can cut the Cognitive Dissonence with a knife it's so thick here are on one hand they deny Global Warming and on the other hand must support the most Subsidized energy source in the US today, Ethanol based on it lowering CO2 .... Which doesn't really matter because CO2 doesn't cause Global Warming ... but we still need it anyway because it lowers CO2 (Classic circular thinking)
-
MA Rodger at 00:08 AM on 31 May 2015Models are unreliable
The commentor AlecM over at the Torygraph is certainly a blowhard and well out of control. The full post he wrote that Phil @935 quotes from bears being reproduced in full as we get the name of physicists he blames for his pervertion of science. And we also get the name of the scientist he rated as the US top cloud physicist. If GL Stephens did uncover a fatal flaw in climatology in 2010 and been unable to publish, it is not as though he has had problems publishing other works since then.
Houghton's figure 2.5 plots black body radiation against atmospheric temperature/height (unfortunately the actual page is missing from this google preview) but it's probably the IR-induced convection that the blowhard is saying ensures the GH effect is tiny.
And an optical pyrometer? Isn't that a thermometer?
I have measured radiative heat transfer in process plant, made optical pyrometers, done the theory ad nauseum in the days when we used slide rules and Carslaw and Jaeger.
What we now have is a grotesque parody of science based on the 1989 mistake by Goody and Yung where they arbitrarily assumed Schwarzschild's 'two-stream approximation' could translate to bidirectional photon diffusion, forgetting he knew he was dealing with Irradiances.
Houghton, taught standard physics, knew this correct physics and in Fig 2.5 of 1977 'Physics of Atmospheres' showed why there can be no Enhanced GHE. When he co-founded the IPCC he supported the EGHE.
We now have climate models based on 40% more SW thermalisation than reality, the only way the Hansen group could get the numbers to add up in the incorrect physics. The other part of the scam, to use ~double real low level cloud optical depth as a hind-casting parameter to get the right 'positive feedback', was discovered in 2010 by G L Stephens. He hasn't been able to publish this.
PS The Alchemists don't know what an optical pyrometer measures. I do. As for the computer code, I have examined GISS-E and it's not the problem; that is bad physics.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please resist the tempatation to repost the pseudo-science poppycock being posted on the comment threads of other websites.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:36 PM on 30 May 2015Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
Yes, SLR is glaringly impactful, with just the first few meters rendering hundreds of millions areound the world homeless. The many meters after that in the pipeline at present are but dross in comparison.
Miami:
Bangladesh:
-
michael sweet at 22:55 PM on 30 May 2015Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
Sgbotsford,
Tens of millions of people and a substantial amount of the world's agricultural land lie within 1 meter of sea level. Your 1% slope is hopelessly naive. Nowhere within 100 miles of Miami is more than 7 meters above sea level. It is common for there to be 1 foot of rise in 10 miles of drain. Where is your 1% slope? The wells in Miami are located at 3 feet, which is below 1 meter. It is not a question of sea water intrusion, it is a question of inundation.
This map from Climate Central shows inundation levels in the USA. At 4 feet of rise they show Miami nearing island status. In Bangladesh and the Mekong delta it is much worse. A 1 meter sea level rise would cause minor storm surges in Miami to destroy tens of thousands of peoples houses. Imagine a hurricane! It seems to me that no-one would insure property in Miami. They would have no insurance and no water. This cannot be defended or reversed. Levees do not work in Florida. At that point the city would be abandoned. Much of the east coast of Florida is the same.
Read sea level rise maps on the internet with care. Many, including the first hit from Google I got, use satalite radar data to demonstrate sea level rise. This data shows when the tops of trees and the roofs of buildings will be submerged. It also ignors storm surges. It is more important to know when the building will be flooded than when the roof will be completely under water.
-
Phil at 22:49 PM on 30 May 2015Models are unreliable
Michael, Postkey,
Yes in my reply @928, I suggested that to disprove Climate science, you would need to overturn or reject a large proportion of well established physics; it seems Alec M has had to resort to trying to do just that.
The Climate Alchemists from 1989 have imagined a spurious bidirectional photon diffusion argument for which there hasnever been experimental proof..
This comment (somewhat idiosyncratically phrased) is incorrect, photon emission is omni-directional in gases (due to the fact that molecules in gases are, by the very nature of gases, free to rotate) and this is sufficient to account for downwelling radiation - which has itself been measured. However "experimental proof" can also be gained by looking at a domestic light bulb. It would seem that when it comes to evidence AlecM is confusing "looking but not finding" with "not bothering to look"
-
denisaf at 21:57 PM on 30 May 2015Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
Thank you for that contibution of data and understanding to knowledge of the nature of sea level rise, one of the dots supporting the hypothesis of irreversible rapid climate change and ocean acidification.
-
Michael Whittemore at 15:14 PM on 30 May 2015Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
A recently published paper states “we use lidar, Aerosol Robotic Network, and balloon-borne observations to provide evidence that currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15km at middle to high latitudes and therefore underestimate total radiative forcing resulting from the recent eruptions.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061541/abstract
Has anyone seen a graph that takes this into consideration?
-
sgbotsford at 14:29 PM on 30 May 2015Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
Just what are the impacts of a 1 meter rise in sea level?
Ok, a the block of homes closest to the sea have lowered property values or are remodeled to be on stilts. (Figuring a 1% slope)
In some areas there is saline intrusion into fresh water aquifers.
The effect of storm surges is magnified.
What else?
-
Theo168 at 13:27 PM on 30 May 2015A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
I too would like to see an update of this topic, afterall comparing the 'guess' with observation is the foundation of the scientific method.
-
KR at 12:26 PM on 30 May 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
Tom Curtis - "...a point I know we will have to agree to disagree on :)"
Fair enough - we do tend to focus on the accuracy of different regimes of the climate discussion. But for completeness an even simpler derivation of effective emissivity to space is the ~240 W/mm2 emitted to space divided by the ~396 W/m2 emitted from the ground, or ~0.601. Which can also be obtained by looking at the integrated emission spectra observed at the top of the atmosphere versus the blackbody thermal radiation at Earth surface temperature - again a ratio of ~0.601.
Overall I'm very glad we're not redundant commentors - I would just feel silly otherwise :)
-
Tom Curtis at 09:30 AM on 30 May 2015Models are unreliable
Postkey @931, you should always cleary indicate when words are not yours by the use of quotation marks. In particular, it is very bad form to quote a block of text from somebody else (as you did from point 1 onwards) without indicating it comes from somebody else, and providing the source in a convenient manner (such as a link). For everybody else, from point 1 onwards, PostKey is quoting Alec M from the discussion he previously linked to.
With regard to Alec M's alegations, although Carl Sagan did a lot of work on Venus' climate, Mars' climate, the climate of the early Earth, and the potential effect of volcanism and nuclear weapons on Earth's climate, he did not publish significantly on the greenhouse effect on Earth. The fundamental theory of the greenhouse effect as currently understood was worked out by Manabe and Strickler in 1964. As can be seen in Fig 1 of Manabe and Strickler, they clearly distinguish between lapse rates induced by radiation, and those induced by gravity (that being the point of the paper) - a fundamental feature of all climate models since. So Alec M's "mistake 3" is pure bunk. By claiming it as a mistake he demonstrates either complete dishonesty or complete ignorance of the history of climate physics.
With regard to "mistake 2", one of the features of climate models is that introducing a difussing element, such as SO2 or clouds, will cool the region below the element and increase it above it. The increase in temperature above the diffusive layer would be impossible if the clouds were treated as forward scattering only. So again, Alex M is revealed as a liar or completely uninformed.
The surface excitance (aka black body radiation) was and is measured in the real world with instruments that are very substantially warmer than absolute zero. Initially it was measured as the radiation emitted from cavities with instruments that were at or near room temperature. As it was measured with such warm instruments, and the fundamental formula's worked out from such measurements, it is patently false that the surface excitance is "potential energy flux in a vacuum to a radiation sink at 0 deg K". Indeed, the only thing a radiation sink of 0 deg K would introduce would be a complete absence of external radiation, so that the net radiation equals the surface excitance. As climate models account for downwelling radiation at the surface in addition to upwelling radiation, no mistake is being made and Alex M is again revealed as a fraud.
With regard to his fourth point, I do not know enough to comment in detail. Given that, however, the name gives it away. A parametrization is a formula used as an approximation of real physical processes which are too small for the resolution of the model. As such it may lump together a number of physical processes, and no assumption is made that it is not. Parametrizations are examined in great detail for accuracy in the scientific literature. So, neither Sagan nor any other climate scientist will have made the mistake of assuming a parametrization is a real physical process. More importantly, unlike Alex M's unreferenced, unexplained claim, the parametrization he rejects has a long history of theoretical and emperical justification.
Alex M claims "My PhD was in Applied Physics and I was top of year in a World Top 10 Institution." If he had done any PhD not simply purchased on the internet, he would know scientists are expected to back their claims with published research. He would also know they are expected to properly cite the opinions of those they attempt to use as authorities, or to rebut. His chosen method of "publishing" in comments at the telegraph without any citations, links or other means to support his claims shows his opinions are based on rejecting scientific standards. They are in fact a tacit acknowledgement that if his opinions were examined with the same scientific rigour Sagan examined his with, they would fail the test. Knowing he will be unable to convince scientists, he instead attempts to convince the scientifically uninformed. His only use of science in so doing is to use obscure scientific terms to give credence to his unsupported claims. Until such time as he both shows the computer code from GCM's which purportedly make the mistakes he claims, and further shows the empirical evidence that it is a mistake the proper response to such clowns is laughter.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:38 AM on 30 May 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
KR @34, thanks for the link. Part of my reason for placing the comment on this page was the presence of jg very useful figure in the OP:
It shows not only the approximate value of industrial waste heat (red) but also the change in forcing from anthropogenic factors (orange) and the full solar input with no adjustment for albedo. (Note again, the forcing is not literally an energy input to the Earth, although it does represent an increased energy flux at the surface matched at equilibrium by an equal increase in the outward flux.) One advantage of jg's figure is that it includes every energy flux that could reasonably be supposed to have an impact on the Earth's climate, the others being several orders of magnitude smaller. Of course, of the anthropogenic fluxes, only the anthropogenic forcing is large enough to have a measurable impact on GMST.
@35, I agree that the greenhouse effect can be approximated at the simplest level by treating the Earth as having a relatively low emissivity (0.614 rather than the actual value which is greater than 0.9, and probably greater than 0.95). I think that simplicity is bought at the risk at too many potential misunderstandings, a point I know we will have to agree to disagree on :)
-
Postkey at 07:58 AM on 30 May 2015Models are unreliable
These are the 4 basic 'mistakes'!
1. To assume surface exitance, a potential energy flux in a vacuum to a radiation sink at 0 deg K, is a real energy flux.
2. To misuse Mie theory to claim that clouds forward scatter when in reality the light becomes diffused.
3. To claim black body surface IR causes a planet's Lapse Rate temperature gradient, when it is caused by gravity.
4. To completely cock up aerosol optical physics by assuming van der Hulst's lumped parameterisation indicated a real physical process. In reality, there are two optical processes and the sign of the Aerosol Indirect Effect is reversed. It is in fact the real AGW and explains Milankovitch amplification at the end of ice ages.
Point 4 has messed up Astrophysics as well.
-
KR at 02:18 AM on 30 May 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
The effective thermal IR emissivity of the Earth to space, assuming a balance of 240 W/m2 incoming and outgoing and a surface temperature of ~15C, is about 0.614; that is 61% as effective a radiator as a theoretic black-body.
Varying temperatures are effectively emissivity increases (incorporated in that value), as a warmer region will contribute more outgoing energy (based on the Stephan-Boltzmann equation and the nonlinear T4 relationship) than equally cooler regions will decrease it, radiating more total energy than a thermally homogenous Earth would.
-
KR at 02:06 AM on 30 May 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
Tom Curtis - That's an excellent summary of relative energy magnitudes. I'll add that anthropogenic waste heat (link here), another source bandied about sans evaluation as a primary driver of climate, represents a contribution of perhaps 0.028 W/m2. That's 1/4th of geothermal contributions, 1/100th the contributed energy of post-Industrial CO2 emissions, and an even tinier and less significant fraction of the total greenhouse effect.
Numbers are oh so important.
-
ryland at 01:08 AM on 30 May 2015Scientists discuss how strongly a warming Arctic is implicated in extreme weather
Unfortunately the plight of the Arctic appears to be even more dire due to the Obama administration sanctioning Shell to drill for oil and gas in the region
-
Tom Curtis at 23:46 PM on 29 May 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
CBDunkerson @32:
1) essentially the greenhouse effect comes from condensing and non-condensing gases. The non-condensing gases (CO2, CH4, NO2, O3, etc) have concentrations that do not primarilly depend on GMST, although they are influenced by them. Of them only CO2 and CH4 had appreciable effects in the 1980s, ie, the time period covered by Schmidt et al, and in that period CH4 represented only 1% of the total greenhouse effect. As the vast majority of that 1% came from anthropogenic emissions from 1750-1980, I decided it was easier to just ignore it, and fold it and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases in with the condensing gases.
The vast majority of the "greenhouse feedback" represent the greenhouse effect from water vapour and clouds. These are the condensing greenhouse gases, where temperature very tightly controlls concentration. As a result, there presense in the atmosphere is always a feedback on other energy sources plus the CO2 greenhouse effect. In particular, absent the solar energy input, the greenhouse feedback would be zero; and absent the CO2 greenhouse effect, it would be substantially less (Lacis et al, 2010). I put it as a seperate item because its behaviour is so different at temperature consistent with solar input.
It is, of course, not intended to indicate feedbacks only from the greenhouse effect, or all feedbacks from the greenhouse effect.
2) I thought I had already clarrified this point in the paragraph starting, "The most important thing...". In all cases the temperature response to a given factor is:
T = (j*/σ)^0.25, where j* is the energy input in W/m^ and σ is the Stefan-Boltzman constant
For j*= 0.09 W/m^2, T = 35.49 oK
For j* = 240 W/m^2, T = 255.06 oK
But for j* = 240.09, T = 255.09 oK
The crux is that the relationship between energ input and temperature is far from linear, so any energy input with a big impact at low temperatures has negligible impact at high temperatures.
3) No. Values are effectively for 2010 in that I used the IPCC AR5 value for total greenhouse effect. As such, these values include an anthropogenic forcing larger than any of the non-solar energy impacts.
The two major sources of inaccuracy in determining the GMST from a given energy input are the assumption that the Earth is a black body (emissivity = 1), and the assumption that the Earth has a constant temperature at all locations. (I mentioned these briefly among the missing factors.) Of these, the fact that the Earth's emissivity is slightly less than 1 will increase the GMST by about 2 to 8 oK depending by how much the emissivity is overstated. Probably closer to 2 than 8, but absent a global radiation budget model I cannot determine the exact value.
In contrast, unequal temperatures (which certainly exist) will reduce the estimated GMST. In an extreme case where the Earth has a permanently sunlit hemisphere, and a permanently dark hemisphere with constant temperature in each hemisphere, but no energy shared between hemispheres so that the dark hemisphere is much cooler than the sunlit hemisphere, the GMST would fall to 181.31 oK, a drop of 108.33 oK. That is an interesting case in that it approximates to conditions on the Moon. It also shows how large an effect unequal temperatures can have. The Earth certainly has unequal surface temperatures, and they are even unequal at the tropopause from which most IR radiation escapes. Therefore this reduction in expected temperature certainly is a factor. However, again without a complex and accurate model, it is impossible to determine how much of a factor. Indeed, in this case you would need a full climate model, as temperature variation also varies with time of day and season.
Given these two significant, and opposite effect factors which cannot easilly be determined, it is surprising the above calculations are as accurate as they are. Certainly the minor inaccuracy is nothing to be concerned about against that backdrop. In fact, the errors in calculated values from observed values are less than the range of errors between different estimates of the observed values.
-
Postkey at 23:45 PM on 29 May 2015Models are unreliable
Thanks, for all of your replies.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 23:27 PM on 29 May 2015Models are unreliable
Postkey, how shallI say this? The quote you gave is a pile of idiotic nonsense. The radiative physics of the greenhouse effect do not violate the laws of thermodynamics. They predict how much infra red radiation must reach the surface, and that can be measured. It has been measured and is the subject of numerous science papers. It is measured in real time at a variety of locations. It has been measured in the Arctic during the winter, which precludes any other IR source than the atmosphere. The person you quote may not be an egineer, because they normally know better. Saying one "comes from engineering" is rather vague.
There is no perpetual motion machine in the atmosphere, those who try to argue such idiocy do not understand the physics. SkS has entire threads about the subject. Search the site.
The conspiracy theory mentioning Sagan's name is complete bullocks, as he never had anything to do with the climate part of NASA. Without being more specific, it is not possible to answer about Sagan's alleged "mistakes." Considering how incompetent that telegraph person seems to be, the "mistakes" accusations are likely based on incomprehension of physics. I would caution you that trying to engage someone like this will likely be a complete waste of time. You can see indications of that through the 2nd law thread on SkS.
-
BBHY at 22:36 PM on 29 May 2015Memo to Jeb Bush: denying human-caused global warming is ignorant
I am in full agreement with the ad-hominem rule on this site. Let's have at least one place on the Internet where the discussion doesn't descend into name calling and personal attacks.
But I would say this; While we need more politicians to embrace the science, I am almost glad that Jeb denies climate science because I truly want to support a pro-climate candidate yet I have many other reasons why I would still not be able to support Jeb.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:11 PM on 29 May 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
Tom, a few questions from a layman;
- Where are the other greenhouse gases? In the 'CO2' line (CO2 equivalent?) or lumped in with 'Greenhouse Feedbacks'? I know most of them have little impact, but water vapor at least is significant.
- The degree Kelvin figures don't add (i.e. 35.49 Geothermal and 18.74 Tidal, but only 36.17 Geothermal & Tidal combined). I assume this is because each degree of temperature increase requires more 'incoming energy' than the last (i.e. diminishing returns due to increasing outgoing energy). Correct?
- The computed energy & temperature are higher than the observed values. Is this due to the 'Greenhouse Feedbacks' line projecting future impacts?
-
Phil at 20:43 PM on 29 May 2015Models are unreliable
Postkey @925
The section you quote is essentially a conspiracy theory: that errors in physics originally made by Sagan have been continually supressed.
It is worth noting that there have, in the past, been a number of scientific papers published that have challenged or questioned the accepted model of climate change; these include papers by Richard Lindzen, Christy and Spencer, Murray Salby and Gerlich and Tscheuschner. This provides us with evidence of the absense of a conspiracy: the scientific community is perfectly willing to publish a variety of views on Climate Change, even if further examination shows these papers to be wrong, unlikely or implausible.
Thus, had Sagan actually made "4 basic mistakes", and these were hushed up "in the Cold War Space race", there is no way that these mistakes would not have found their way into the scientific literature today. The fame of any scientist able to disprove todays consensus on Climate change would be immense (if only for the amount of physics they would actually have to overturn in order to do so).
A brief viewing of the on-line biographies of Carl Sagan and James Hansen shows almost no intersection; Sagan was an advisor to the NASA space program in the 1970's, whilst Hansen was employed at GISS (which is a division of NASA, but not the one Sagan was advising)
.It is worth noting that Sagan is perhaps an easy target; as a science communicator and educator it is often necessary to simplify the science (It is for that reason , for example, that grossly inaccurate "pictures" of the atom persist today for educational purposes). Thus his public pronouncements may have been less rigourous. But as Michael Sweet mentions above, the development of climate science does not spring from Sagan.
-
michael sweet at 19:53 PM on 29 May 2015Models are unreliable
Postkey:
In 1896 Arhennius reviewed the basic claculations for AGW and closely estimated the amount of warming we woud see by today. He also predicted it would warm more at night than day, more in winter than summer, more in the Northern Hemisphere, more in the Arctic and more over land than over sea. How could Sagen have made a mistake that affected Arhennius 60 years earlier?
If Sagen had acutally made a mistake, the contributor argues that the scientists who work for Exxon, BP, and Shell are too stupid to recognize that mistake and correct it. Obviously, these companies have scientists who review all the AGW data and correct errors that hurt their story. Do you really think that Exxon cannot find any scientists who could expose a simple mistake? The IPCC report is approved by all the countries in the world. The summary is approved line by line. Exxon, Saudi Arabia and other interested fossil fuel companies have lawers there for the entire discussion.
-
uncletimrob at 19:02 PM on 29 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
I'm personally not anti or pro windpower as I really don't have enough information to base my opinion on, and have never lived near a turbine. I have however some friends in Victoria, Australia who do live near aturbine and say that they are quite noisy. Are they? Genuine question from one who wants to know. I'm also aware of the "turbine" syndrome that in some cases seems to appear merely at the mention of a turbine .....
-
Postkey at 18:49 PM on 29 May 2015Models are unreliable
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11633745/Fossil-industry-faces-a-perfect-political-and-technological-storm.html#comment-2051149797
Moderator Response:[RH] Your post should have been deleted as a "link only" post, which is against the SkS posting policy. Being that others have already jumped in and explain the materials, we'll let this one stand.
If you wish to continue posting please review the comments policy.
-
Postkey at 18:46 PM on 29 May 2015Models are unreliable
This is what a regular contributor to the Telegraph web site has to say.
" . . . the IPCC pseudoscience is based upon 54 years' teaching of incorrect physics.
It all came from Carl Sagan who made 4 basic mistakes but was supported in the Cold War Space Race.
Atmospheric Science then invented spurious physics which it uses to justify the Perpetual motion machine in the models but there is zero experimental proof.
I come from engineering where heat transfer has 90 years of experimental and theoretical proof. it's easy to see where Hansen et al went wrong but they were mentored by Sagan."Did Sagan make 4 basic mistakes?
Thanks.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:46 PM on 29 May 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
I prepared the following in response to a post by Nick on another thread. The contents of that post relevant to this topic have since been (deservedly) deleted, but as it has been an intention of mine to determine and post this list at sometime, here are nearly all energy sources that contribute to the Earth's Global Means Surface Temperature (GMST):
Heating Source W/m^2 0K Solar 240 255.06 Cosmic Background Radiation 3.13E-6 2.73 Starlight 6.91E-6 3.32 Cosmic Rays 3.2E-6 2.74
Meteorites 2.27E-8 0.80 Combined off planet sources 240 255.06 Geothermal 0.09 35.49 Tidal 0.01 18.74 Geothermal &Tidal 0.1 36.17 Total Energy Sources
240.1 255.09 CO2 30.21
151.93 Greenhouse Feedbacks 128.79 218.31 Total Greenhouse 159 230.12 Total 399.1 289.65 Observed Surface Energy
398
Observed Surface Temperature 287.15 The most important factor not shown is albedo, which is included within the solar value for convenience. I have also ignored industrial waste heat, and the effects of emissivity (which increases the effective temperature) and uneven surface temperatures (which decrease it). Also not shown is seismic energy. The reason it is missing is that the vast majority of seismic energy is dissipate as heat deep within the Earth's surface, where it contributes to geothermal energy. Including it as a seperate item would have merely been double counting. Likewise, volcanic energy is included with geothermal energy, and so not shown as a seperate item.
The most important thing to notice is that the smaller items on the list are almost completely irrelevant. Based on caculations above, for example, we can determine that if the Earth floated far from any sun in galactic space, it would still maintain a surface temperature of around 36-37 oK. That represents the combined energy effects of geothermal heat (35.5 oK by itself), the cosmic background radiation, starlight, and cosmic rays. Assuming it orbited a dark star, providing the the further effects of tides and meteors, that would raise the temperature to 37-38 oK. But adding all these factors to the effect of sunlight would only raise the GMST by 0.03 oK, significantly less than the observational error of the Earths absolute GMST. Their contribution becomes even less when the greenhouse effect is also included.
The second most important thing to notice is that, despite their inclusion on the table, the greenhouse effect does not represent an additional source of energy. That is because for every joule returned to the Earth's surface by the greenhouse effect, an additional joule leaves the Earth's surface by means of radiation, increase convection or increased evaporation or transpiration. The greenhouse effect only makes the existing energy sources more efficient at heating the surface by recycling the energy. In that way, greenhouse gases act like blankets (an analogy which is exactly correct with reference to the thermodynamics, although completely inaccurate with regard to mechanism). The values shown for the greenhouse effect on the table, therefore, are best understood as the amount of additional energy from other sources that the Earth's surface would need to maintain the same GMST without a greenhouse effect.
Finally, every now and again, somebody will pop up and insist that geothermal energy or some other equally obscure source of heating is the primary driver of GMST. Such theories fail absolutely once the relative energy inputs are calculated (something they never do). The theories are complete drivel on the same level as those of Flat Earth Society.
Sources:
Solar and Total GHE - IPCC AR5 Fig 2-11
CO2 proportion of GHE - Schmidt et al (2010)
Cosmic Background Radiation - Calculated from temperature
Starlight and Cosmic Rays - Bowen et al (1933)
Meteorites - Lovel, Geophysics II, p. 452
Geothermal and Tidal - Skeptical Science
-
ubrew12 at 10:47 AM on 29 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
The second link is broken (on China's CO2 emissions dropping). It ends in 'dr' and I think should end in 'drop'.
Moderator Response:[jh] Glitch fixed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
-
SchatziesEarthProject at 09:15 AM on 29 May 2015Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
CBDunkerson @10: "You've got to wonder what keeps them going... even when their own best spin proves them wrong they still just keep right on believing the nonsense."
What keeps them going (And I don't think that they believe the "nonsense" for a second. In fact, they may understand the horrific reality better than most which is why they "exist") is that every time they publish their gibberish, it gets cited, re-cited, referred to as truth, ad infinitum. Which, of course, is their sole intent. Their consumer/audience remains people like Marc Morano who just made Tol's ridiculous Fox News article (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/28/climate-change-and-truth-mr-obama-97-percent-experts-do-not-agree-with.html) his website's headline.
It doesn't matter that it's jumbled up drivel. Most Climate Depot readers will just look at the title and feel relieved that all is well in their little world, without knowing the backstory or the reality of the situation. As long as there is a market for Tol and his ilk's phony "research," it will keep getting pumped out. I'm so grateful for SkS. -
bozzza at 09:01 AM on 29 May 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
@25, heat is the last form of energy... it is not a physical object like CO2 therefore they obey completely different rules!
-
JCH at 08:56 AM on 29 May 2015Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
I keep looking for these result to show up on the Colorado Sea Level Research Group website.
-
nick12197 at 07:25 AM on 29 May 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
humanity can take spot CO2 measurements but this assumes homogeneous concentrations, which are not always true. The Committee has often spoken and said, on gases, most of Earth's heat is internal, the reason similar temperatures are found a certain distance below the surface no matter where they are taken. Under Antarctica or along the equator will have similar temperatures at a certain depth (I think it’s fairly shallow, also) Sunlight and surface heat causes daily weather and seasons, of course, but this cycle is on top of the underlying base, natural heat. This is what controls climate, says The Committee.
Greater CO2 and heat cause greater evaporation, more rainfall and both carbon dioxide and rainfall encourage plant growth which consumes the CO2 to produces oxygen. The equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 has been reached long ago and fluctuates along a very narrow band too small to have climate effect. This they say, is because of the principal atmospheric gas, nitrogen, which as we know, dominates.
They say CO2 emissions caused by human activity are insufficient to alter the equilibrium; the plant response to increased rain and carbon dioxide is very efficient. The proportion remains well inside the narrow band that does not affect weather.
Earth climate is affected by the magnetosphere and the planet's molten iron core, from which heat dissipates. Most of Earth's surface is ocean; heat reaches the seafloor, where we do not and cannot measure temperatures. This affects sea water temperatures and currents, much more sensitive to small changes. (liquids much denser than gases) These are the causes of the erratic weather patterns we have felt on Earth, attributed erroneously to manmade global warming.Moderator Response:Welcome to Sks. Please take the time to study the comments policy on this site. When you make a claim that is contrary to well known facts, then you should provide link to the sources of your information. Whatever your "committee" is, it's source of information is laughably and grossly wrong. Please dont waste people's time by commenting on an article you obviously havent bothered to read.
For the point of this article, note the linked video showing the variation of CO2 both vertically and horizontally. Note also this image which demonstrably show no such assumption of uniformity is made. You might like to also note the OCO-2 satellite which continuously measures CO2 concentration.
I suggest you take time to read some of the climate myth articles to become better informed before commenting further. And note that the extra heating from CO2 is around 100x greater than the total geothermal heat flux.
Offtopic comment has been deleted but a commentator has helpfully provided you with more information. See here
-
CBDunkerson at 22:45 PM on 28 May 2015CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
jd_germany, assuming we are talking about the 'cosmic ray hypothesis' which holds that 'a decrease in cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere could lead to decreased cloud formation and thus increased solar radiation reaching the surface' (there are others) then there would be no change in the 'greenhouse effect' and we wouldn't expect to see the cooling of the upper atmosphere (i.e. stratosphere) which is characteristic of greenhouse warming (yet, we do).
Similarly, if global warming were being driven by increased solar radiation (introduced by cosmic rays or otherwise) then we would expect to see the greatest warming increases during the day (we don't), in summer (nope), and near the equator (wrong again).
In short, this 'hypothesis' is sort of the opposite of scientific progress... multiple lines of evidence all converge to show that it is false.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:15 PM on 28 May 2015Memo to Jeb Bush: denying human-caused global warming is ignorant
Interestingly, recent polls show that even 48% of Republicans favor taking actions to combat global warming... but virtually every GOP politician at the national level still denies that we can do anything about it. The problem is that the half of GOP voters who reject reality are much more vocal, and determined to do nothing about global warming.
-
jd_germany at 17:45 PM on 28 May 2015CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Quick question: What would the cosmic ray hypothesis say about the effect on upper atmosphere temperature change?
-
bozzza at 16:34 PM on 28 May 2015Memo to Jeb Bush: denying human-caused global warming is ignorant
More advanced thinking could only ever be done by a few individuals anyway- by definition- thus we can now see emotion was always able to inspire or crush the individual. The only difference in higher thinking abilities between us and the people of eons ago is education gained via through eons of lesser and lesser non-descript method toward matters.
The elite and the proles depend on a bright spark from the masses who number 90%: then it all changes and the next revolution of thought and/or action is awaited upon.
Emotional IQ comes down to panic control: pilots and so forth concentrate on such skill sets whereas most don't. Those who succeed in any endevour can control panic to a greater degree than those that don't.
Prev 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 Next
