Recent Comments

Prev  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704  705  706  707  Next

Comments 34951 to 35000:

34951. jamesshaffer at 18:38 PM on 15 August 2014
       New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
       

       These findings should not be left without proper attention. Whereas some decision makers and even environmentalists doubt whether a several degree temperature change makes any difference, this study clearly shows that the global warming and its consequences are accelerating. As it was discussed in the following research paper on global warming, http://place4papers.com/samples/global-warming-research-paper the average temperature increase can have serious consequences for the planet.

34952. Tom Curtis at 15:32 PM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       MattJ @1443, the formula for the Clausius inequality is:

        

       That only applies to cyclical processes, and is integrated over the cycle.  You will notice the variant integration symbol used to indicate that fact.

        

       The formula, ΔS ≥ ∫δQ/T, which I gave above is for any closed system, and uses a conventional integration.  That is, it sums over all energy transfers in the region under consideration, and for the time under consideration.

       The Fasullo and Trenberth diagram provides us with total average energy flows per unit time.  From that we can integrate over area and time if we want to, but the result will be the same as simply summing over the power flows in showing that the 2nd law is not violated by the exchange of energy between surface and atmosphere.

       Importantly for this discussion, this is shown without bringing in extraneous factors like the energy input from the Sun, or the energy outflow to space.  In fact, we can model a genuinely closed surface/atmosphere system and the principles involved in the energy exchanges will be the same.  The actual values integrated will not be, for the energy flows will change over time as the surface and atmosphere equalize in temperature.  Such a process would involve every means of energy exchange that actually exists in the atmosphere, including back radiation, and would result in a net increase in entropy.  Further, the surface would cool over time while the atmosphere warms over time.  It follows that back radiation does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and that neither does it warm the surface.

       We can extend this model by opening it to space, and compare to situations, ie, one with an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases, and one without.  If we do so we can show that the surface in the case with the atmosphere will cool slower than the surface without an atmosphere.  However, it will still cool so there will be no question of any violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the atmosphere warming the surface.

       Finally, we can add in the Sun and find an equilibrium situation.  In that case, the surface equilibrium will be warmer with the atmosphere than without.  That, however, is because the slower rate of cooling for a given surface temperature with an atmosphere requires a warmer surface temperature for the outgoing radiation to match in energy the incoming energy from the Sun.  Thus, in this case, it is true to say that the surface is warmer than it would have been without the greenhouse gases, but it is the Sun that warms the surface, not atmosphere.  

       We might say colloquially that the greenhouse gases warmed the surface, just as we might say colloquially that a blanket warms us at night.  In both cases, however, it is strictly inaccurate.  A blanket will not "warm" a cold stone, and greenhouse gases will not "warm" in the absense of the incoming solar radiation because they do not warm at all, they merely slow the loss of heat.

       You comment:

       "But more important: when you say, "the cold atmosphere does not warm the warmer ocean" what do you think happens to the IR photons from CO2 high in the cold stratosphere when they meet the surface of the earth or of the ocean?"

       No.  I do not mistake the net flow of heat with the individual flows of energy.  Nor am I unaware that in the superior formulation of statistical thermdynamics the 2nd law holds only on average, and that the shorter the time interval the higher the probability that it is violated for that short term.  Thus, there are IR photons from the atmosphere that strike the ocean and transfer energy, but there are more IR photons from the ocean that do the reverse so that the the net heat flow is from ocean to atmosphere (and hence it is the ocean warming the atmosphere rather than the reverse).

       Finally:

       "[The] increasing wavelength of each of these stages of radiative transfer each shows an increase in entropy, so that entropy is non-decreasing, as the second law requires. It is even still non-decreasing in the case of cold stratosphereic CO2 adding heat energy to the thin but warmer surface layer on the ocean."

       The wavelength of IR radiation exchanged between atmosphere and surface is approximately the same for any specific atmospheric component, but the difference in wavelength between incoming SW radiation and outgoing IR radiation does indeed show the process to involve an increase in entropy, and to not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

        

34953. denisaf at 13:21 PM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       It is disconcerting that this informative discussion of a climate change issue is misleading in using the term 'anthropogenic'. It implies that humans have produced the emissions that are contibutng to climate change. People have only made (bad) intangible decisions. It is tangible technolgical systems that have done the damage. Better understanding of this causative factor could well lead to improvements in coping with the effect of climate change.

34954. MattJ at 13:19 PM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       Re 1441: Not that awful Trenberth diagram again! Sure, I know the diagram is correct, but people who are climate scientists simply have no idea how confusing it is to people who are not familiar with it. It looks like lots of things should add up that don't.

       But you say one has to do the integration — but then you don't do it. You are doing a sum of watt/m2, which is not even the right units for entropy. Nor are you doing the sum over a cycle/process, which is what the expression you gave for delta S requires.

       But rather than ask for that integration, what I think you really need, so what I will ask for is a clarification of the grounds of your assertion that "But the cold atmosphere does not warm the warmer ocean, and nor is their any apparent violation of the second law." That there is an apparent violation is pretty clear, since lots of people find it apparent. But more important: when you say, "the cold atmosphere does not warm the warmer ocean" what do you think happens to the IR photons from CO2 high in the cold stratosphere when they meet the surface of the earth or of the ocean? Aren't they almost entirely absorbed? And once absorbed, isn't all their energy converted to heat? How could these steps be anything other than "the cold atmosphere warming the warm ocean?

       At this point, I think Robert Murphy is a lot closer to answering my question. I have suspected it has a lot to do with the low entropy energy input from the sun driving the whole process, but even this leaves unanswered questions.

       In particular, if we follow a more modern statement than Clausius's (an idea I have been mentioning for a while), then the increasing wavelength of each of these stages of radiative transfer each shows an increase in entropy, so that entropy is non-decreasing, as the second law requires. It is even still non-decreasing in the case of cold stratosphereic CO2 adding heat energy to the thin but warmer surface layer on the ocean.

       It is much harder to make the same argument from Clausius's form, especially when the author does not even state his form correctly. Clausius NEVER said "Heat <b>generally</b> cannot flow spontaneously".

34955. Ian Forrester at 12:49 PM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       PluviAL the recent data from GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) shows a net loss of ice mass from Anatctica.

       "Over March 2003 to July 2012, East and West Antarctica ice mass change was +97 ± 13 and −159 ± 9 Gt/yr, respectively, with accelerations +18 ± 10 and −31 ± 7 Gt/yr2 , respectively (2-sigma uncertainties) not considering GIA model error bounds. Mass change for the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet is also best modeled with a linear plus acceleration functional model and a stochastic model that considers temporal correlations, giving an ice mass trend of −58 ± 16 Gt/yr and an acceleration of −15 ± 13 Gt/yr2 ."

34956. scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 15 August 2014
       Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes
       

       I have also responded to your model question in the appropriate place.

34957. scaddenp at 11:37 AM on 15 August 2014
       Models are unreliable
       

       On another thread, Donny asks:
       "Let me ask one more question of the accurate models. ... when will the surface temperatures begin to significantly rise again? What do they predict? Also there are so many of them. ... which one should we believe? "

       Since no one else has, I will attempt a response.

       The question implies a considerable misunderstanding of GCMs and their output. Let's start with some basics. Firstly, models are evaluated in terms of their skill. A skillful model gives more information than a naive heuristic. (eg climate will be stay the same). For all the faults of models, (and modellers can quickly point to their deficiencies), they remain the best tools we have predicting future climate. Even the incredibly simple Manabe model from 1975 managed to nail 2010 temperatures pretty well. Secondly, GCMs for all their usefulness are not the basis for AGW and nor are the only way to estimate climate sensitivity to an increase in CO2. That can be done "bottom up" from pure physical consideration of feedbacks, or from empirical means. Whatever way, you end up with climate sensitivity likely in the range from 2-4.5.

       In terms of Donny's question, the next thing to understand is that models have no skill at decadal level prediction of surface temperature (and many other associated parameters). Over short times intervals, the surface temperature variability is dominated by ENSO. This is a chaotic ocean-atmosphere phenomena which is extremely difficult to predict even a few months out. In the El Nino phase, the atmosphere (and thus the surface temperature) gets a huge boost from heat stored in the ocean. Over last 15 years, La Nina or neutral conditions have predominated however. Climate however is about 30-year averages and the effects cancel out. Climate models are skillful estimating future 30-year average.

       So what do they predict? Well over a 30 year period, they predict the climate will be close to the ensemble mean. They predict that actual temperatures will follow a trace as variable as one of the grey lines on the graph at the bottom of the article. They do not predict a exact path. Rerun the same model with slightly different initialization and you get a different grey line. Do many runs on many models and you get that nest of grey lines which make up the model mean. I am not aware that there is evidence that would suggest that any one of the 10 or so modelling groups is significantly more skillful than the others. The ensemble mean is the average of them all.

       When will you get significant more warming? When the next El Nino cycle happens. If the climate response is more muted than expected, then that will cause some examination of the models. The strength of the aerosol forcing remains an uncertainty as do precise strength of cloud feedbacks.

       What is much easier to predict than surface temperature is total ocean heat content. However, we have only had detailed, accurate measurements since 2004. While OHC continues to climb (unlike the decline in mid-20th C or after Mt Punatoba), then it can be expected that surface temperatures will also rapidly climb in an El Nino.

34958. Robert Murphy at 11:03 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       That is, sure, once one understands that backwave radiation occurs resulting in IR being absorbed and turned into heat, yes, the hottest point is the sun itself, and all the other surfaces heat moves to are colder than that.

       And there's your answer as to why the greenhouse effect doesn't violate the 2nd Law, Matt.  You have to include the Sun's continuing contribution of energy.  If you don't everything else seems to violate the 2nd Law. 

34959. Tom Curtis at 10:15 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       MattJ @1440:

       "Let me try to put that another way: sure in the overall system, all the heat comes from the sun with the heat/temperature of the earth depending on both how quickly heat comes in and how quickly it goes out, so that slowing the rate of outflow raises the temperature. But to explain how this happens involves explaining how the hotter ocean surface can be heated by the cooler atmosphere, an apparent violation of the Second Law: this article 'explains' it only be getting the Second Law wrong, so that it really hasn't explained anything relevant."

       But the cold atmosphere does not warm the warmer ocean, and nor is their any apparent violation of the second law.  The second law, stated mathematically is that for a closed system:

       ΔS ≥ ∫δQ/T

       where S is the entropy, δQ is the incremental transfer of heat, and T is the temperature.

       Therefore to determine the entropy change we need to integrate over all incremental heat transfers.  In the case of the relationship between atmosphere and surface under the greenhouse effect, we need to integrate over all energy transfers between atmosphere and surface.  From the Fasullo and Trenberth, we have this summary of those transfers:

       

       Summing over all such transfers, we find that 356+80+17 =  453 W/M^2 is transfered from the surface to the atmosphere, while only 333 W/m^2 is transfered trom the atmosphere to the surface.  Integrated over all energy transfers from between surface and atmosphere, that is a net transfer of +120 W/m^2 from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere.  That transfer involves in increase in entropy proportional to the inverse of the reduction of temperature involved, ie, proportional ratio of surface to atmospheric temperatures.

       There is only an "appearance" of a violation of the 2nd law because people insist on considering the back radiation in complete isolation, ie, not as part of a system of transfers including those from the surface to the atmosphere.  If you intergrate all such transfers, as is required by the 2nd law, there is transparently no violation of the 2nd law involved.

34960. Donny at 09:39 AM on 15 August 2014
       Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
       

       Ma... I'm not sure if you missed some posts. ... since some were rerouted to more appropriate thread. ... but I was being told that the southern Canadian soil was no good because it had been scraped clean by glaciers.   I was also told it would take millions of years for the soil to recover. .. and I was given a reading assignment.  After doing my assignment the studies found that the soil in surrounding areas took 8000 years to recover.   And since the glaciers left that area 12000 years ago it was backing up what I had said earlier. <Snip>  Now for your second paragraph. ...

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] on very thin ice.

34961. MattJ at 09:21 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       Hi, Tom-

       Thanks for your reply. For sure, Clausius was including such systems as you describe as "without some other change, connected therewith, occuring at the same time". He was even thinking primarily if not entirely of such systems. But how can we be sure that those are the only such changes he had in mind? I had the impression, based on discussions of the Second Law and its various forms in thermodynamics texts by Fermi, Feynman, Pauli and others, that the law, even in Clausius's form of it, covers a more general class of 'changes'. Thus, for example, Pauli paraphrases it as being equivalent to saying "heat conduction is irreversible". But the concepts of irreversibility and reversibility are more general than providing heat or work from outside, as in your refrigerator example. If when you go around the cycle, some thermodynamic variable must be different from the beginning when you get back, the process is irreversible, a change has occurred. It is not just the two thermodynamic variable heat and work that are under consideration.

       I also have to point out that I am not assuming "that the 'warming' of the Earth by greenhouse gases is analogous to the refrigerator case." Rather, I am pointing out that even when you say that it is based on "the  far simpler case of decreasing the efficiency of heat transfer outwards from a body warmed by a still warmer source", you are still leaving something out.

       That is, sure, once one understands that backwave radiation occurs resulting in IR being absorbed and turned into heat, yes, the hottest point is the sun itself, and all the other surfaces heat moves to are colder than that. But there is still the case of the cold atmosphere transfering heat to the warm surface to accomplish that "decrease of efficiency of transfer". Explaining that event's consistency with the Second Law is what is left out.

       Let me try to put that another way: sure in the overall system, all the heat comes from the sun with the heat/temperature of the earth depending on both how quickly heat comes in and how quickly it goes out, so that slowing the rate of outflow raises the temperature. But to explain how this happens involves explaining how the hotter ocean surface can be heated by the cooler atmosphere, an <b>apparent</b> violation of the Second Law: this article 'explains' it only be getting the Second Law wrong, so that it really hasn't explained anything relevant.

       If you really think Clausius' statement was meant to apply only in the context of heat engines and closed cycles, then it is useless to use his statement of the Second Law in this article, since, as you yourself point out, the analogy of a refrigerator (a heat engine of a particular sort) and the climate system is not very good, and can be quite misleading. The article should then use a completely different formulation, one that has been proved to generalize to the climate system, such as "in an isolated system, entropy is non-decreasing". But this particular option has its own difficulties, I think I understand why the author chose not to use it.

       Finally, concerning Phil's point. Yes, it was mentioned, but only later, and the author did not even seem to notice that he was contradicting himself, putting an unnecessary burden on the reader to resolve the contradiction, all still without a clear and correct statement of the law. Good expository prose does not do this: you get the statement exactly right the first time, and then explain as necessary the technical or otherwise surprising sense of the expressions used. Or you use a special case as a stepping stone to the final, full generalization. But even the appearance of self-contradiction defeats the purpose of the article — and creates a lot of room for the quibbling and carping we saw in 1400 posts.

       Not to mention there is still this crippling problem of the word 'generally' being used in the alleged statement of Clausius' form: no law of physics has such weasel words as 'generally', that makes the 'law' useless for generalization. No wonder Clausius himself never said that!

34962. PluviAL at 09:12 AM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       Check! Steve: However, the estimates for Antarctic contributions are less than clear. It could be that more of the sea level rise is from Arctic changes, in which case Antarctica might be a neutral to date, or even increasing. Links to evidence would be most interesting now. My intuitive fear is that Antarctica can contribute more either way than we are estimating. I can see West Antarctica contributing water, and East Antarctica absorbing it in big numbers; we just don't know.  

       One mm is not insignificant. The spheroid will adjust, as per GIA, rebound, you point out. For perspective, 10 inches is equal to the mass of 3500 three gorges dams (TGDs). Ten inches would be historical for Antarctica, but we are in geologically historical times.

       From my work on Pluvinergy, rhythmic GIA over millennia is a better candidate for tectonic plate movement motivation than liquid core circulation. Sorry, my work is all conjectural, but it is fun to think about, and frankly, it is a lot more convincing than conventional theory. PDF for the argument available if anyone is interested.

34963. Tom Curtis at 08:10 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       MattJ, the exceptions that Clausius allows for with his clause "without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time" covers situations such as those found in refridgerators, in which heat is pumped from a colder interior to a warmer exterior, but only at the expense of pumping additional heat from a still warmer furnace (via power generation) to drive the process with a net increase in entropy for the entire process.  What you are missing is that the "warming" of the Earth by greenhouse gases is not analogous to that case.  Rather, it is analogous to the far simpler case of decreasing the efficiency of heat transfer outwards from a body warmed by a still warmer source.  Therefore, the exception is not involved.  Including a more explicit statement of the exception (more explicit because it is mentioned in the OP as noted by Phil) would therefore in no way help decrease scientific confusion about the greenhouse effect and thermodynamics.  Rather, trying to explain the greenhouse effect by analogy to refrigerators will increase that confusion.

34964. Phil at 06:18 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       MattJ's original request:

       Far better would be to use Clausius's own translation of his statement of the law: "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time."

       is adequetly met by the word "spontaneously" in the OP version.

        

       but I would like to believe that a lot of the thrashing in the discussions attached to it could have been avoided if Skeptical Science would edit the article to make the correction

       In this I think you are naive; G&T's misformulation was too attractive for climate change deniers to resist, and they have continued to try and make it stick no matter how the 2nd Law was formulated.

       My own observation on the ensuing exchanges is that MattJ appears terribly confused about the distinction between energy and heat transfer; he should get that straight first.

34965. Dikran Marsupial at 05:46 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       MA Roger, the point I was heading towards was that if photons from B that are abosorbed by A do transfer heat energy from a cooler object to a warmer one, then for MattJ's interpretation of the second law to be obeyed, there must be "some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time" and I was going to ask what it was.

       Of course if you adopt the modern statistical intepretation, there is no need to find the "some other change" as the second law only applies to the net transfer of heat, and there is no problem. The reason why we don't need to explain why it doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics is because it is not precluded by more modern interpretations of the second law in the first place.

       I suspect the problem is that Clausius would have been easily able to measure temperatures of objects (and hence the net transfer), but how would he be able to detect the fact that the radiation is bi-directional between the objects?   Not too surprising then that he didn't make the distinction between transfer of heat and net transfer.

       The funny thing is the Science of Doom page gives exactly the same definition of Clausius' second law as the SkS page does.

       Anyway, MattJ has exhausted my patience, some people are fundamentally unable to see any point of view other than their own, and being unwilling to engage in a thought experiment designed to highlight where the disagreement lies suggests that they don't want to see any point of view other than their own.  This is a pity, as if  MattJ were right, it would be the most efficient way of demonstrating it.

34966. shoyemore at 05:42 AM on 15 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33A
       

       I once amused myself with a fantasy future where every adult inhabitant of planet Earth has to "cultivate" an artificial "tree" that removes over time the amount of CO2 corresponding to that person's cumulative carbon footprint, maybe more in this century.

       If you think of paying a tax instead, there you have carbon taxes, in a way.

       The ant thing is interesting, though. Our new insect masters, turned into our saviours?

34967. MA Rodger at 05:11 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       Dikran Marsupial @1434.

        

       You might find the comment @1435 a bit odd as you are, I think, confused by the comment @1433. The implication you make from the beginning of the final paragraph is contrary to the less ambiguous statements later in that paragraph. "...I already made it clear that I do undestand that the energy transfer you refer to is real. But simply acknowledging that it takes place does not address the issue: how can it take place without violating the Second Law?"
       MattJ is saying that photons do really pass from B to A but in so doing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is violated and this phenomenon thus requires explanation.

       Goodness!! It appears the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is breached!!!

34968. MattJ at 04:58 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       Dikran-

       Also, simply answering "since you are still requiring radiating CO2 molecules in a -20C stratosphere to heat up an ocean layer that is on average above +20C" with "I pointed out this is not the case is not helpful. Which part of it do you disagree with? Are you going to claim there is no LWIR coming from the stratosphere? Or that the stratosphere is warmer than the ocean surface? Even if the backradiation were mostly coming from the troposphere, it would still be going from cooler to warmer, yet transfering heat to the warmer ocean surface. The only difference is that the temperature difference is not as dramatic. But it is still there, and with the inconvenient sign.

       Now glancing back through the comments on this article, I noticed some tried to explain this by saying that the Second Law applies only to a closed system, or to "net heat". But Clausius never made a distinction between 'heat' and "net heat". And in the statement of the Second Law itself, he does not state any restriction to "closed systems" (but since he was speaking in the context of heat engines, one can make a case for that). So one must either prove that Clausius's statement either appies only to closed systems, generalizes to "net heat" or use a more modern form of the Second Law that is already known to apply to "net heat". Or take the Science of Doom approach, which as I already mentioned, works, but is awfully indirect; it is difficult to use in discussion with laymen or skeptics because of the long winding path through Kirchoff and Stefan-Boltzmann.

       But this Skeptical Science article takes none of these routes; it doesn't even get the statement of the Second Law correct. That is a serious shortcoming.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of escessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the policy and adhere to it.

34969. Dikran Marsupial at 04:51 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       MattJ wrote "but then you immediately switched to talking about something else" no, as I said it was a metaphor to help you to understand the issue.  It is a shame that you did not engage with it.

       "Nor are you addressing the issue by asking about photons" you assume you understand the point I was making, which evidently you do not.  The fact that you refuse to answer the question suggests to me that you are not willing to have your argument put to the test, and therefore should not be surprised if you are not taken seriously.

       As it happens, for radiative transfer, it is exactly what happens to the photons and energy they carry that is important.

       I am always amazed how rare it is in discussions of climate change for people to be willing to answer simple direct questions and will go to such great lengths to avoid doing so!

34970. wili at 04:48 AM on 15 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33A
       

       I'm not sure if SkS prefers to steer clear of reporting on specific extreme weather events (I can imagine that could become rather overwhelming these days), but there have been some pretty amazing downpours recently in Detroit and in the US northeast:thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/13/3470759/flooding-downpours-climate/ www.climatecentral.org/news/10-images-explain-northeast-flooding-17895

       (Did I do it right, this time?)

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Yes, you activated the link correctly. You can also embed a link into the title of an article which is preferable where appropriate. 

34971. MattJ at 04:18 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       Dikran-

       Yes, you did "point out that is not the case", but then you immediately switched to talking about something else, the several heat transfers that <b>are</b> in the direction of decreasing temperature, without addressing the real issue. That is why I asked you to "read what I actually wrote".

       Nor are you addressing the issue by asking about photons. The question is not "do photons take energy away from B and add it to A". The question is how this can happen without violating the Second Law. You should have not even asked the question not only for this reason, but because I already made it clear that I do undestand that the energy transfer you refer to is real. But simply acknowledging that it takes place does not address the issue: how can it take place without violating the Second Law?

34972. wili at 04:16 AM on 15 August 2014
       Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
       

       Thanks, Bob.

34973. wili at 04:09 AM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       Thanks, Steve. If you wouldn't mind sharing any links you found useful, I would be even further in your debt.

34974. Dikran Marsupial at 03:50 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       MattJ wrote"Please read what I actually wrote"

       I did, you wrote "since you are still requiring radiating CO2 molecules in a -20C stratosphere to heat up an ocean layer that is on average above +20C" and I pointed out that is not the case.  A blanket is just a useful metaphor I introduced to illustrate why that is not necessarily the case.  Now it seems the fastest way to reach agreement is by consideration of the thought experiment.

       Now you agree that body B emits photons that are absorbed by A.  Do you agree that this photon takes away some energy from B and adds it to A?  yes or no, if no, explain why.

34975. Chris G at 03:28 AM on 15 August 2014
       New study finds fringe global warming contrarians get disproportionate media attention
       

       Call me cynical, but I don't think the media outlets seek any sort of balance; they simply seek to sell advertisements while telling their stories.  Controversy makes for more interesting stories; so, they seek controversy.

       If they simply tell people there is no real controversy, these are the facts, then they loose market share to the agencies telling a more interesting story.

34976. Stephen Baines at 03:19 AM on 15 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32A
       

       We just had an extraordinary event here on Long Island in NY.  Islip airport reported getting no less than 13.5 inches of rain (more than 34cm) in a single day, almost matching the record for the entire month of August and easily surpassing the state 24h precipitation record from hurricane Irene in the Catskills (11.8").  Incredibly, almost 10 inches (25cm) fell within two hours, between 6Am and 8AM.  

       Besides flooding, we now have beach closures, too.  We have combined sewage overflow systems in many places around here, especially NYC. When it rains heavily like this the sewage treatment plants get overwhelmed and raw sewage gets dumped directly into the rivers, bays and ocean.  So not only do we have to deal with the direct effects of flooding, but also the indirect effects on water quality and knock-on hits to human health and the economy.  It will be extrememly expensive to fix our sewage system so such events won't cause significant water quality crises in the future.

34977. MattJ at 03:16 AM on 15 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       Dirkan-

       Please read what I actually wrote and respond to that instead of rebutting a climate-denial argument I never used or supported. I am not talking about nor implying that "a blanket heat up a warmer body that is under the blanket". Unlike certain denialists, I understand that the heat transfers in the blanket example are all from higher temperature to lower, so that there is no need to invoke the "without some other change" clause in Clausius's statement of it. Nor do I doubt that in your black body example, both objects emit photons absorbed  by the other.

       I thought I made that clear when I said that " it [radiative heat transfer from cooler to hotter] is still a violation of the "imaginary second law", but not of the law as Clausius really stated it".

       Rather, the point I am trying to make is that different from that. Actually, I am trying to make three points: 1) the statement of the Second Law attributed to Clausius in the article is incorrect: it is not what Clausius said, nor is it even correct 2) you simply cannot build a correct scientific explanation/argument on an incorrect version of one of the fundamental laws 3) partly because of this mis-statement, the article has <b>not</b> explained why the cold CO2 in the stratosphere can transfer heat to the warmer earth and ocean surface without violating the Second Law.

       There was a good article on ScienceOfDoom that I always have trouble findiing when I look for it, it did explain why this transfer can take place — but only by referring to Kirchoff's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, pointing out that since these law were themselves derived from the Second Law, the results must be consistent with it.

       This approach is sound, it is correct, but it is awfully indirect. And it too relied on getting the statement of the Second Law correct, which this Skeptical Science article does NOT do.

       That is why I say that as a bare minimum, the article should correct the Clausisus quote and state the Second Law correctly. But it would be so much better if in addition to this, it can directly state what the "some other change" is when cold GHGs manage to transfer heat to the warmer thin surface layer of the ocean.

34978. Stephen Baines at 02:53 AM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       PluviAL

       The link between Antarctic sea ice and land ice is nebulous as far as I know from the literature I have seen.  The two things seem to be controlled by different things.  See the relevant posts here.

       That same post indicates that, despite the apparent increase in water vapor, Antarctica appears to have been a net conrtibutor to global sea level — i.e., the melting effects are outstripping the possible increases in precipitation.

       There could be seismic implication of sudden retreat of land glaciers, just as we are still seeing isostatic rebound from the retreat of the last glaciation.  Ice accumulation is pretty slow however, so we're not likely to see huge effects from accumulation of snow.  1mm of ice on top of miles of ice already there will be barely noticeable at depth.

34979. Steve Metzler at 02:43 AM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       Duh. "...the atmosphere can hold 7% more moisture...".

34980. Steve Metzler at 02:41 AM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       @wili #1:

       I was just looking up this very figure the other day. According to everything I've read, that atmosphere can hold 7% moisture for every 1C increase in average temp. Since we have increased the average temp by ~0.8C from pre-industrial, your 6% figure is about right.

       
       I thought the 7% figure was originally attibuted to Trenberth, but couldn't trace it to him specifically.

34981. MA Rodger at 02:26 AM on 15 August 2014
       Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds
       

       Donny @59.

       
       You continue you troll-like interventions here.
       You say "those figures were not mine" yet you were telling us @50 "so let's discuss what we have learned." You now disown your own interpretation of the learning you previously accepted and adopted. Most informative.

       Now when it comes to soil development, it would be good to hear the wise words of somebody qualified in perhaps Environmental Biology. Yet despite you claiming to be such a one, you then tell us "There are different deficiencies that can add to a soil not being suitable for agriculture. .. some like pH can be remedied very quickly." (Unedited quote) So a question - in referring to an exemplar deficiency caused by pH that "can be remedied very quickly," do you refer to soil acidification or soil acidity? And another - how does this fit within the "different deficiencies" present in the soils of Northern Canada discussed here? You tell us "some ... can be remedied very quickly" but what of the important ones, the ones with non-trivial solutions, deficiencies that presumably if not "remedied" will do more than "add to a soil not being suitable for agriculture," the ones that mean farming cannot begin at all, deficiencies like zero soil depth.
       Of couse you may feel your expertise does not stretch far enough to make a useful judgement on these matters. But, hey, here is your chance to show us what you're made of.

34982. PluviAL at 02:25 AM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       I'm usre we all know or can gather this but, for reference, 3 millimeters then is equal to the full capacity of the Three Gorges Dam, and 1 inch is equal to 25 mm.

34983. PluviAL at 02:21 AM on 15 August 2014
       Global warming is moistening the atmosphere
       

       The finding may be bigger than it looks, becasue a wetter atmosphere should create greater ice deposition on Antarctica. Is there evidence of this? Does it contribute to greater sea ice there? Is the increased rate of deposition greater than the increased rate of ice loss... therefore, is there a net gain or loss of sea level from Antarctica? Finally, what are the seismic implications? It seems they would be major. The planet has to retain its spheroid shape, it there is substantial disruption in one place there have to be adjustments, and probably internal heat contributions from the load differences. Consider that one millimeter of ice over 14m km is 14 cubic cilometers, or 14 billion tons.

34984. John Hartz at 02:20 AM on 15 August 2014
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has today posted a press release titled, Antarctica could raise sea level faster than previously thought.

       The lead paragraph of the release:

       8/14/2014 - Ice discharge from Antarctica could contribute up to 37 centimeters to the global sea level rise within this century, a new study shows. For the first time, an international team of scientists provide a comprehensive estimate on the full range of Antarctica’s potential contribution to global sea level rise based on physical computer simulations. Led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the study combines a whole set of state-of-the-art climate models and observational data with various ice models. The results reproduce Antarctica’s recent contribution to sea level rise as observed by satellites in the last two decades and show that the ice continent could become the largest contributor to sea level rise much sooner than previously thought.

       The OP should be updated to reflect these new findings. 

34985. WheelsOC at 01:20 AM on 15 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33A
       

       The link to the "Not A Mystery" editorial is broken in the green box. Works in the body text.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Glitch fixed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

34986. CBDunkerson at 21:54 PM on 14 August 2014
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       Donny, go to the top of this page. Look at the first graph. Notice that it shows warming in the oceans during the 80s and 90s.

       See the problem with your question?

34987. Dikran Marsupial at 20:46 PM on 14 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       MattJ wrote "since you are still requiring radiating CO2 molecules in a -20C stratosphere to heat up an ocean layer that is on average above +20C"

       This is incorrect, this is not what is required for the enhanced greenhouse effect to cause the surface to be warmer than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  Nor does a blanket that is slightly cooler "heat up" a warmer body that is under the blanket.  You need to understand the problem first, before seeing how the second law applies.

       
       Consider two black body objects A and B, in a vacuum, where object A is marginally warmer than object B.  Do you agree that object B will emit IR photons that will be absorbed by A?  "Yes" or "No".  If "No" please explain why.

34988. topal at 19:23 PM on 14 August 2014
       New study finds fringe global warming contrarians get disproportionate media attention
       

       Truly balanced government spending would mean equal funds to climate scientists based on their scientific work, not on their personal believe.

34989. MattJ at 17:44 PM on 14 August 2014
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       Dikran-

       No, I am not missing that point. I am addressing the point you implicitly get wrong when you say (in #1428) that "the second law of thermodynamics holds whether there is 'some other change' or not".

       The clause "whether there is 'some other change' or not" is invalid. The Second Law holds, period. But the Second Law does not say that heat, whether 'net' or not (it does not make the distinction) can never flow from colder to hotter.

       It does no good to quote the Second Law incorrectly, and then say, "it does not contravene the second law of thermodynamics". As long as you allow the "imaginary second law" to maintain a hold on the reader's mind, especially on the 'skeptical' reader, he will still keep coming back to the imaginary form and say, "but, but, heat cannot flow from cooler to hotter", even after you explain to him that you are really talking about "net transfer of heat from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere", since you are still requiring radiating CO2 molecules in a -20C stratosphere to heat up an ocean layer that is on average above +20C (these numbers are off the top of my head and approximate, but you get the idea: the source of the radiation is much colder than the warmed sea surface: it is still a violation of the "imaginary second law", but not of the law as Clausius really stated it).

       But if you understand that the second law forbids heat transfer from colder to hotter only as the sole result of a thermodynamic process, then the "imaginary second law" loses its hold, since now the skeptic has to show there is no other result before he can claim "it violates the second law". He can't do that, since the laws of heat radiation invoked to explain backradiation warming of the ocean are derived in accordance with Clausius's statement of the 2nd law.

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - allcaps edited. If you must place emphasis on a word or text use the bold format.

34990. MattJ at 17:18 PM on 14 August 2014
       New study finds fringe global warming contrarians get disproportionate media attention
       

       The SkS article says, " A truly balanced media would give equally proportional attention and coverage to climate scientists in the mainstream and on the fringes."

       I have to disagree: that would not be 'balance', that would be simply another kind of the "false equivalency" the Press is already too much in love with. The right amount of attention to pay to the fringe is zero.

       We don't talk about Lorentz's attempts at a theory of relativity anymore in the mass media when scientific topics reach relativity, we discuss Einstein's, as the sole plausible contender.

       Likewise for climate science: the alternatives to the AGW hypothesis are all no longer contenders, only real science should be covered.

34991. Donny at 15:31 PM on 14 August 2014
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       Why didn't it end up in the ocean during the 80s and 90s? 

34992. scaddenp at 13:11 PM on 14 August 2014
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       "but why is the increased atmospheric moisture level going to result in increased perception in the desert of Antarctica?"

       Try this paper.

34993. scaddenp at 13:05 PM on 14 August 2014
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       Sigh, let's have some data here. FIrstly, evidence that Antarctica is melting from erosion of base by warm water is found here. Recent estimates of geothermal flux and its role (tiny) is found here. A commentator did the maths on upper bound of geothermal flux here

       And for the role of reduced salinity in sea ice, see papers and discussion
        Why is Antarctica sea ice growing.

       Jetfuel, show me where there is any seaice in places with rapid ocean currents.

       Also Shepherd et al. (2012), which you quoted, show you exactly what the contribution of Antarctica ice melt is to sealevel. Didnt you read it? Why would assume that rates of melt will stay the same as the world warms?

34994. Donny at 11:23 AM on 14 August 2014
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       But wait. ... if most of the melting comes in the summer (which I would assume but don't know for sure) then yes the water would have time to disperse before the ice started to form again. 

34995. jetfuel at 11:22 AM on 14 August 2014
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       DSL: "The thing is, Antarctic land ice loss will continue and accelerate as glacial terminators erode more and more quickly. Antarctic land ice won't reach equilibrium with global climate for hundreds if not thousands of years."

       The quick increase of a miniscule rate is not of any consequence. Eventually people will be educated that 81 GT to 24.5M GT is like a couple droplets to an avg size swimming pool.

        

34996. Bob Loblaw at 11:08 AM on 14 August 2014
       New study finds fringe global warming contrarians get disproportionate media attention
       

       r.pauli:

       For an interesting take on just how much deception some people can put up with and still trust an authority figure, you might want to try reading The Authoritarians.

34997. Donny at 11:06 AM on 14 August 2014
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       Jetfuel. ... it probably freezes before it can disperse. 

34998. Bob Loblaw at 11:05 AM on 14 August 2014
       New study finds fringe global warming contrarians get disproportionate media attention
       

       Johncl:

       An interesting alternative hypothesis.  I don't watch much of the US right-wing news networks - usually just the clips I see on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. There, the number of times I see the same faces pop up on the contrarian side (e.g. Anthony Watts - an "expert" by nobody's definition), my impression was that certain people are way over-represented.

       I think this falls in the "for future research" category!

34999. Donny at 11:04 AM on 14 August 2014
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       And not to pile on .... but why is the increased atmospheric moisture level going to result in increased perception in the desert of Antarctica?  

35000. jetfuel at 10:59 AM on 14 August 2014
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       "What evidence is there that that tiny fractional change alters the temp at which the ocean salt water freezes or makes any discernable change to the behavior of the oceans?"

       DSL:"Are you assuming that Antarctic runoff is instantly dispersed throught the world's ocean volume?"

       Remember when the Malaysian airline went down in the Indian Ocean west of Australia? Remember how the surface wreckage was expected to have moved by 150 miles per day? It's called currents. .00006 over 20 years isn't much of a fraction of fresh water addition to water moving many miles per day. Most AGW arguments are based on substantial dispersion of one substance into another. When the dispersion doesn't support your ideas, sorry, you can't make it stop. Unusually high Antarctic sea ice is surrounding most of the continent across thousands of miles of sea ice perimeter. My question remains.

Prev  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704  705  706  707  Next