Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 Next
Comments 35151 to 35200:
-
Tom Curtis at 16:34 PM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma @46:
1)
"But with less than unit emissivity, of course you can get a higher temperature than the insolation."
If you mean emissivity across all bands of the spectrum, then no you cannot. For more interesting, however, is the case were you mean near perfect emissivity in visible light, but very low emissivity for IR radiation. In that case, yes you can get higher temperatures than insolation - but the principle by which you do so is that of the greenhouse effect. It turns out that you believe the greenhouse effect after all. At least, you believe it when the context is sufficiently obscure that people will probably not notice the inconsistency of your view with your main thesis.
2)
"Still, on a good day, insolation can be much higher than 1000 W/m^2."
Show me the evidence!
Remember that to account for the phenomenon, you have to show insolation 20% higher than 1000 W/m^2. To see how difficult that is, here are the cloud free hourly insolations at Albequque on the summer solistice (ie, when the Sun is closest to overhead at noon):
Note that the best values are found with 2-axis tracking, ie, with a mechanism that keeps the collector pointed directly at the Sun through the entire day. Further, note that the Albaquque is at 35 degrees North, which compares to the 34 degrees south of Cape Town where John Herschel made his observations.
3)
"These results are much too anecdotal and the factors which result in a final temperature equilibrium too unknown..."
First, written reporst by de Saussure and John Hershel (both eminent experimental scientists of their day) do not count as "anecdotal evidence".
Second, as to unknown factors, you are happy to quote botantical greenhouses as evidence despite a far greater number of unknown factors, including a known factor that they maximize glass surface area, and hence cooling by conduction through the glass surface, without any qualms. Your sudden concern for precission is very one sided.
Third, the facts about de Saussure's hot boxs were quoted in direct refutation of your claim that such hot boxes could not increase warmth above that of incident sunlight. In fact, they can, and demonstrably can. Regardless of the specific mechanism, your claim is shown to be false. The true claim is that such mechanisms (and no mechanism) can raise temperatures above the temperature of the energy source, ie, the Sun. But as nobody claims the greenhouse effect can, or does heat the Earth's surface to a temperature equivalent to that of the Sun's surface, that is irrelevant to the discussion.
4)
"As it is, aside from the red-herring of solar concentrators (i.e. magnifying glasses, focusing mirrors, etc), there are no numbers which have been presented which show higher-than-insolation temperatures being acheived by passive means."
First, solar concentrators are not a red herring. If you think so, you have misunderstood the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Second, observations by two of the preeminent experimental scientists of their time have shown temperatures in solar hot boxes sufficient to emit greater energy at source than is recieve by incident radiation on the device. That is only possible because that temperature is less than the temperature of the incident photons, and because the energy leaving the device equals the energy entering the device. But it is possible, and has been observed, regardless of how much you want to ignore the data.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:58 PM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma @47:
1) You have not shown that the simple model fails, ie, that it incorrectly predicts the situation it describes. You have only pointed out that it is too simplistic (flat surface, globally averages insolation, only on layer). Therefore you cannot infer that the more complex model which does not have those oversimplifications fails. To do so is to, yet again, pull your dishonest strawman argument of "refuting" the greenhouse effect by pointing out that an oversimplified model is oversimplified while studiously ignoring the more complex models that also show the greenhouse effect.
2) N2 and O2 are not trappers of radiant heat. More importantly, and more directly, with a detailed model of all energy transfers and relevant latent heats (as in a GCM), removing just the well mixed greenhouse gases increases the upward longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere and reduces surface temperature. That is, if you include all the relevant physics within computational capacity, greenhouse gases modulate surface temperature by modulating upward TOA IR radiation. This is the third time you have ignored this simple fact. It may be that the model is wrong, but it is not shown to be wrong by only criticizing the single layer model. In fact, by retaining your straw man focus you make clearer and clearer the dishonest nature of your argument.
3) We do in fact know what the global mean surface temperature is to a very good approximation (+/- 0.1 C). More importantly, we know the surface temperature was at various points of observations when comparisons were made between model and observed TOA upward IR radiation (see first panel):
4)
"In the argument above with the red and green areas in the plot, the red curve assumes a perfect blackbody of emission at 286K."
Actually, comparing the upward radiation for 299.7 K at 0 km altitude on modtran (as used in generating the red and green figure) shows the model to have an assumed surface emissivity of 0.9123. If we compare that to the known emissivities of varios surfaces we see that that is a significant underestimate of normal surface emissivities - ie, the model understates the size of the greenhouse effect (graph, and others, from Science of Doom):
5)
"Thus, the arguments presented there, while quite good and the attempt at proper science is good, is ultimately based on supposition and "if we assumes", etc."
I think it is plane to any reader that I am the one actually presenting evidence here. You are the one falling all over yourself to thoughtlessly dismiss that evidence without giving any consideration to what it in fact means.
-
foolonthehill at 14:36 PM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Wili
'I just want to get it down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub!'
The recommended way to lose a lot of weight is little by little, over a long period of time. Genuine lifestyle changes are far more successful than stomach stapling at keeping that weight loss in the long term.
Take your time drawing that bath ;-)
-
foolonthehill at 14:18 PM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
One Planet
There will always be bad people like Murdoch. Someone, somewhere will follow in his footsteps. Fantastic wealth and power are attractive. I don't think his failure will set an example that will deter such people.
History is populated by failed despots and yet still they continue to pop up. They all think they are infallible. If Murdoch were to fail they would say that he wasn't ruthless enough.
I do think that there is something that should be done about recording their contribution to our problems.
The climate change deniers are in the process of realising their stupidity and failure. Now they will switch their tactics to trying to control our response to the threat of climate change. This response will favour their subsequent quest for more power.
This is where we need to be vociferous in naming and shaming them. The politicians who denied climate change and installed policies that contributed to it, must be held up to scrutiny. The Internet is a poor place to achieve this - look at how US politicians have changed their Wikipedia entries when it is convenient.
The internet may not be with us in 100 years time. Climate change will be.
Something immutable needs to hold the record. The prior antics of those such as Murdoch, Palin, and the Kochs should be recorded. Those in the media that took the King's Shilling should also be noted - they have assisted in misleading the public.
Their memory will be subject to the opprobrium of the people who are suffering in centuries to come. This is how they should be remembered.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:15 PM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Sam,
DSL has provided a lot of information regarding your question. Maybe this will also help you better understand what you see in the HadCRUT and GISSTEMP data between 1910 ad 1940.
The Wikipedia information on "Carbon Doioxide in the Earth's Atmosphere" includes a chart of CO2 levels since 1000 AD. The concentration of CO2 was about 280 ppm from 1000 AD through to 1750 AD. Then a noticeable increase of CO2 levels starts to occur. By 1900 the CO2 concentration was passing 300 ppm.
So there were CO2 increases most likely due to human activity that partially explains why global temperatures were increasing between 1910 and 1940. However, as DSL mentioned there are many other transient influences. The combined effect of all those influences created the 1910 to 1940 trend you see.
A way to see the trend is to look at the 5 year rolling average of the GISSTEMP data. The rate of increase during the period you are focusing on may look similar to the increase since 1980. However, if you look at all the data you will see that 1910 was a significant temporary low point in the records and 1940 was a significant temporary high point in the record. So focusing on the trend of that period could be referred to as cherry-picking.
Just looking at the 5 year average line you can appreciate that lines of longer averages would have a higher value in 1910 and a lower value in 1940, reducing the trend in this period. You will also see that the data since 1980 has only been up with some level bits along the way including the well explained reduced rate of increase in the data since the 1997/98 super El Nino spike. And the line of longer averages would continue to sloping up through those level bits, including sloping up through the period since 1998.
I hope that helps you better understand what you are seeing between 1910 and 1940.
-
DSL at 14:05 PM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Joe, you have a serious penchant for strawmen. We know there's downwelling longwave radiation because it has been directly measured from surface and has been found to fit pretty well with theory/model-based expectations.
-
wili at 13:52 PM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
To be clear, I don't want to destroy the global economy immediately, I just want to get it down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub! ;-P
-
JPostma at 13:39 PM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
As a matter of logic, if you have a more complex model created based upon the suppositions induced from a simpler erroneous model, it doesn't save the more complex model. Creating more complex models looking for a radiative back-heating/trapping effect does not prove a radiative back-heating/trapping effect. Besides, when doing more proper physics and science and accounting for the other real phenomena at work, since the supposed back-radiation/trapping is not the only thing occuring, N2 and O2 are already heat trappers due to their low emissivity, and latent heat from liquid and vaporous water already store and release heat at the surface as well. Thus, any argument which posits radiation trapping/back-radiation as the cause of surface temperature must be discarded outright, for pretending to do everything which it manifestly doesn't.
In the argument above with the red and green areas in the plot, the red curve assumes a perfect blackbody of emission at 286K. The surface probably doesn't emit like a perfect blackbody, but more importantly, the surface temperature is not actually 286K - the surface temperature is not actually known at all. The 286K only corresponds to the air-temperature at 1.5m from a haphazardly distributed set of measurement stations on land. We don't actually know what the actual surface temperature is. Thus, the arguments presented there, while quite good and the attempt at proper science is good, is ultimately based on supposition and "if we assumes", etc.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:24 PM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
foolonthehill,
My focus is on striving to develop a sustainable better future for everyone. So Mr. Murdoch is just one of many trouble-makers to be recognised for the unacceptability of the actions they pursue. The "success" of each of those unacceptable people provides an unsavory but appealing example others may be tempted to try to follow.
Developing a sustainable future for all life on this amazing planet is the only viable future for humanity. And it requires the likes of Murdoch to fail to succeed. Even if they do not seem to have many more damaging years left, their example will outlive them. The example of their demise because of their unacceptable attitude and actions is what needs to be seen.
-
JPostma at 13:20 PM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"Later, William Herschell designed a de Saussure hotbox that achieved a temperature of 240 Farenheit in South Africa, a temperature generating black body radiation of 1294 W/m^2 of thermal radiation. That is significantly greater than the 1000 W/m^2 solar insolation at ground level (ie, after absorption and scattering as it passes through the atmosphere). (De Saussure's 110 centigrade represents a black body radiation of 1222 W/m^2.)"
But with less than unit emissivity, of course you can get a higher temperature than the insolation. Still, on a good day, insolation can be much higher than 1000 W/m^2. These results are much too anecdotal and the factors which result in a final temperature equilibrium too unknown, such as emissivity, the albedo of the collecting box, what the actual insolation was, etc. The results as they are are extremely close to simple direct heating with hot-air trapping.
"Because the individual photons from sunlight come from the Sun's surface, in principle it would be possible to heat a surface to the temperature of the Sun's surface with no violation of the 2nd law. In practise, we can never achieve perfect efficiency and so that is not possible. Never the less, solar concentrators can achieve temperatures in excess of 3,200 centigrade despite being subject to the same thermodynamic limits."
That is done by concentrating the incoming solar input from a large collecting area and focussing it into a much smaller absorption area. Nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or backradiation/radiation trapping.
" the temperature rises to the point at which the incident heat is exactly balanced by the dissipated heat"
The incident heat is of course given only by the sun. This is why in those experiments you reference, a higher temperature than the solar input was not actually really observed.
Indeed, an empirical test should be done on these matters, accounting for all variables. As it is, aside from the red-herring of solar concentrators (i.e. magnifying glasses, focusing mirrors, etc), there are no numbers which have been presented which show higher-than-insolation temperatures being acheived by passive means.
"Never-the-less, the known facts for de Saussure's hotboxes show with very high probability that the radiant insulation is the most important factor were multiple panels prevent carrying heat of by conduction through a single glass panel."
Indeed, the glass lids prevent the convection of hot air and replacement of cool air from elsewhere.
-
JPostma at 13:04 PM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"I have this dreadful feeling - you understand relativity less well than even your purile inderstanding of thermodynamics."
Simply apply the Lorentz transformations with v = c, and see what the results say.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:51 PM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma @26, as a matter of logic, if you have two models both producing the same effect, then one feature which is present in one model but absent in another cannot be the cause of the effect. Thus, if you have a model with a single layer, and a flat surface, and a second model with 40 layers, and with 10,368 cells, cells per layer, each arranged so that together they are a close approximation of a sphere; and if in the second model the insolation at the top of the atmosphere matches that from the Sun, and both show the greenhouse effect, then the flat surface or the reduced insolation, or the single layer in the first model are not necessary to produce the greenhouse effect. On the contrary, the greenhouse effect can be produced with a spherical Earth, with full insolation and geometry, and with multiple layers. In this situation, focussing exclusively on the simple model in order to "disprove" the existence of the greenhouse effect, and claiming it to be disproved because the simple model has unphysical features that are not present in the complex model shows either rank ignorance or complete dishonesty.
I have already linked to Lacis et al (2010), who show the effect of removing the well mixed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere:
As can be easilly seen, the first effect is to increase the upward Top of Atmosphere (TOA) radiation by 60%. Planetary albedo only increases by 40% (from 0.3 to 0.42), so there is a 20% increase in the upward TOA long wave radiation. That is the increase which is predicted by the theory of the greenhouse effect, and it occurs as predicted. Concurrent with that change, temperatures drop by 35 degrees C. That is of the same order of the consequence of the greenhouse effect as predicted by zero dimensional models. It differs slightly because, first, the zero dimensional models do not include any change in albedo, and second, because some greenhouse warming from water vapour is retained.
So, the more complex model clearly shows the greenhouse effect, and clearly shows it to have a large impact on surface temperatures.
In response to that you say:
"It doesn't matter if you add more layers or have higher dimeniosnality models. The postulate of the radiative greenhouse effect still has no basis. And we have been looking through the IPCC models, and there is no actual greenhouse effect in them, anywhere. Neither Spencer nor anyone else can identify it and say where in the models it is, or how it originates. What they will do however, is always refer back to the 1-D models! It's kinda crazy."
However, that is transparently, and entirely mistaken. Adding extra dimensions (geometry) does matter because it makes the models more realistic, while retaining a greenhouse effect. So also with adding more layers. More importantly, the IPCC models clearly have an identifiable greenhouse effect as shown by Lacis et al. I cannot speak for Spencer, but the notion that Lacis and co-authors cannot identify the greenhouse effect in their models is laughable.
What is worse, I have, in my previous post clearly identified the greenhouse effect in actual observations. I also linked to a post of mine which clearly explains the greenhouse effect, which you have clearly ignored. For your convenience, I will quote from it:
"Using Modtran, I determined the energy output looking downwards from an altitutude of 70 kilometers using the US Standard Atmosphere (1). The result can be seen on the following graph as the green shaded area. I repeated the model run, but this time with the altitude set at 0 km. The result is shown by the outer curve defining the red area in the graph below. That means that the red area itself, which is the upwards radiation from the surface minus the upward radiation to space, is the reduction in energy radiated to space because of the presence of Infra-Red absorbing molecules in the atmosphere. That is, it is the greenhouse effect."
If that is not clear enough, the greenhouse effect is the difference between the upward IR radiation at ground level and the upward IR radiation at the top of the atmosphere. That difference can be identified easilly in any GCM. Further, no model encoding actual physics confirmed in laboratories (such as the Stefan-Boltzmann law) can show the difference without having a ground temperature warmer than the effective temperature (ie, the temperature predicted from insolation). The reduced upward radiation causes the increased surface temperature.
At this point, there has been no lack of clarity on my part. If you come back and say "yes, but one d model", you will clearly show that you are dishonestly using a strawman argument. If you cannot show your argument true using the 42 layer, 10,368 cell, spherical geometry GISS Model E2 used by Lacis et al (2010), you are merely showing your argument depends entirely on using simplistic models only used for teaching as we have said all along.
-
foolonthehill at 12:27 PM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Rupert is very rich. Rupert is very powerful. Rupert is very old.
Concentrate on the latter.
How many more years at the helm? 5? Maybe 10? Look to who will succeed him at News Corp. Will they have the same power and influence? I doubt it.
Love him or hate him, Rupert is a force of nature but his place in the sun is due to be vacated. His heirs are unlikely to have the same opinions or killer instinct as he did. Their sibling rivalry is already stuff of legend. The kingdom will be divided.
A local farmer told me that he had a nasty feud with a neighbour for many years. After a fruitless struggle to resolve many issues he came to the following conclusion -
There are some awful people who will never see reason. The way to triumph is simply to outlive them. They will be replaced by someone else and you won't have wasted your life fighting.
The end is nigh. In the words of Rupert's good pal Lady Thatcher -
"Rejoice"
-
Tom Curtis at 12:04 PM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma @40, the botanist's greenhouse is not the "original greenhouse" to which analogy was made with regard to the greenhouse effect. Rather, in the very first postulation of a greenhouse effect, by Jean-Baptiste Fourier in 1827, an analogy was drawn with Horace Bénédicte de Saussure's hotboxes:
"It is difficult to know just to what extent the atmosphere affects the mean temperature of the globe, and here the guidance of rigorous mathematical theory ceases. One is indebted to the celebrated explorer M. de Saussure for an experiment which appears to be well suited to clarifying this question. The experiment consists of exposing a vessel covered by one or more sheets of highly
transparent glass (placed at some distance from each other) to the rays of the Sun. The interior of the vessel is covered with an thick layer of blackened cork, suited to absorb and retain the heat. The heated air is contained in all parts of the apparatus, either in the interior of the box or in each gap between two plates of glass. Thermometers placed in this vessel and in the spaces between
the plates register the degree of heat acquired in these cavities. This instrument was exposed to the Sun at or near noontime, and it has been observed, in various experiments, that the thermometer in the vessel raises to 70o, 80o, 100o, 110o or even higher (octogesimal division). Thermometers placed within the gaps between the sheets of glass indicate a much lower degree of heat acquired, decreasing steadily from the bottom of the box up to the top gap."(My emphasis)
The fact that the temperature increase became greater with additional panels of glass refutes the simplistic notion that the effect is entirely the consequence of preventing heated air being carried of by the wind. Nor is it likely due to the insulating properties of the glass, as glass is a good thermal conductor.
Later, William Herschell designed a de Saussure hotbox that achieved a temperature of 240 Farenheit in South Africa, a temperature generating black body radiation of 1294 W/m^2 of thermal radiation. That is significantly greater than the 1000 W/m^2 solar insolation at ground level (ie, after absorption and scattering as it passes through the atmosphere). (De Saussure's 110 centigrade represents a black body radiation of 1222 W/m^2.)
There are in fact thermodynamic limits to how warm the greenhouse effect (or other methods of retarding energy loss) can make warm an object. That limit is set, however, by the balance of energy in to energy out (first law of thermodynamics); and by the entropy of individual photons (second law of thermodynamics). Because the individual photons from sunlight come from the Sun's surface, in principle it would be possible to heat a surface to the temperature of the Sun's surface with no violation of the 2nd law. In practise, we can never achieve perfect efficiency and so that is not possible. Never the less, solar concentrators can achieve temperatures in excess of 3,200 centigrade despite being subject to the same thermodynamic limits.
Returning to de Saussure's hotboxes, Fourier noted:
"The theory of this instrument is easy to formulate. It suffices to remark that: (1) the heat acquired is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by exchange of air with the surroundings; (2) the heat emanated by the Sun has properties different from those of dark heat. The rays of this star are for the most part transmitted through the glass without attenuation and reach the
bottom of the box. They heat the air and the surfaces which contain it: the heat communicated in this way ceases to be luminous, and takes on the properties of dark radiant heat. In this state, the heat cannot freely traverse the layers of glass which cover the vessel; it accumulates more and more in the cavity enclosed by materials which conduct heat poorly, and the temperature rises to the point
at which the incident heat is exactly balanced by the dissipated heat."So, from the first analogy, the two methods by which the hotboxes (and greenhouses) work are clearly noted; and no claim is made as to which is the stronger. That Fourier's care in explanation was lost by later popularizers has no bearing on the physics involved.
It would in fact be interesting to properly test the actual existence of the greenhouse effect in a de Saussure hotbox more rigourously than has been done previously. That would involve constructing two hotboxes, one using glass for the panels, and one using another material, equally transparent to the visible, transparent to IR, and equally conductive of heat. That is because a major form of heat loss in hotboxes (particularly of single panels) is from conduction to the external air from the glass pane (glass being a good conductor). It is not clear whether the superior conductivity of glass relative to acrylic allows the escape of more heat than is retained by the IR opaqueness of glass, and whether it does or not may well depend on conditions. To avoid this issue, the hotboxes need to be placed in a vacuum so that radiation is the only method by which heat can escape. You also need to screen both boxes from the source of radiant heat with a panel of glass to ensure that both have the same radiant energy absorbed at the bottom of the box. I am unaware of any attempt to test the theory that is rigourous to that extent. Never-the-less, the known facts for de Saussure's hotboxes show with very high probability that the radiant insulation is the most important factor were multiple panels prevent carrying heat of by conduction through a single glass panel.
-
Lloyd Flack at 11:15 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Paul D @20
I think it is actually
3. He does not believe there is such a thing as expertise and integrity in this matter. He has little ability to recognize integrity since he does not try to fight his biases and expects that noone else will do so either.
In journalism he has been a muck raker with an anti-authoritarian pose. His main target has been traditional conservatism with its respect for authority and responsibility not the left. He is as far as I can see a very rich bogan trying to tear down anything that he feels might look down on him.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
I'll qualify the statement a bit. I'm very optimistic that we aren't going to end up on the worst path. I believe that solutions are going to come fast and furious as soon as we really get pricing on carbon emissions.
We are undoubtedly going to end up doing both mitigation and adaptation. Hopefully we'll be doing more of the former so that we have to do less of the latter.
-
foolonthehill at 09:44 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob
'I'm actually very optimistic about the future'
Not sure if I would go quite that far - maybe I'm just a pessimist who is prepared for the hard yards...
Discussions such as this are what we really need to concentrate on if we are to create positive change. The personal choices we make are important. I wonder if there is a place for a such discussions on a more regular basis on this site.
I delight in the to and fro of the arguments in various threads on SKS.Despite having a degree that is science based, the detail in the posts and comments on SKS can be necessarily quite esoteric. Long may they remain. However - many lay people come here for information and perhaps there could be a section that is dedicated to the possible changes that individuals can make in their personal lives that lead to solutions to our predicament?
Many years ago there was a TV program called Hypotheticals where solutions to problems were discussed with variables being added along the way to highlight how we have to account for them. Is there a place for something like this in relation to personal climate change action?
In regards to our present discussion of building replacement versus refurbishment, I have a personal housing dilemma that has various possible solutions. Would there be a beneficial educational opportunity to discuss such possibilities on a separate thread/section on SKS? Maybe such a forum exists online already? If so, does it have the same breadth of knowledge that the SKS contributors possess?
-
John Hartz at 09:41 AM on 16 July 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #28
@ZincKidd: For a fairly detailed and straight-forward report on what transpired at the Heartland conference in Las Vegas, check out:
In Las Vegas, Climate Change Deniers Regroup, Vow to Keep Doubt Alive by Abe Streep, BloombergBusinessweek, July 10, 2014
-
ZincKidd at 09:15 AM on 16 July 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #28
Has there been any interesting coMmentary on ICCC9? It seems rather funny, really, that there is an organization and conference devoted to something that, as far as they are concerned, doesn't even exist...
-
scaddenp at 08:11 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma, do you agree:
1/ That despite your difficulties with the layer model as a teaching tool, climate scientists do not have a such problem as evidenced by eg Smith 2008 and by the codes.
2/ In a botanical greenhouse, the primary effect is convection which massively overpowers any radiative effect. The Greenhouse Effect is inaptly named but that doesnt make it wrong.
3/ The most important test of the model is whether the numbers it produces match what you observe in empirical testing. This is after all how the model informs climate science.
4/ The actual radiative codes used (Hitran) predict the radiative power and spectra for both incoming and outgoing radiation to a remarkable degree of accuracy. -
foolonthehill at 08:02 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili
'We can have a robust modern industrial global capitalist constantly-growing economy, or we can have a viable earth.
Aye, there's the rub.
If, like me, you live in first world country and have any form of loan with a bank, you are tied to constant growth. Our system is based on it.
Can we have growth that doesn't cause further damage the planet? On worldwide scale - I doubt it.
The best I can hope for is to minimise it as much as possible. Slow it down. Keep slowing it down. Slower and slower. Allow the system to change. Work out our options for the future. Together.
Our future is fraught with problems. It comes with the biggest threat of all. War. Like many here, I am too young to remember a World War. I do have relatives that do and I have been told enough to realise that, 100 years after the first one, we have to avoid it at all cost.
A forced landing with stalled engines and raised undercarriage may be the best we can hope for. A crash will lead to direct conflict. Surely that's not what we want? (and sorry for calling you Shirley)
-
MA Rodger at 08:01 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma @39.
If a photon is travelling at the speed of light, how is that photon experienced by the universe? Apply relativity. Time is infinitely dilated, i.e. time has stopped, and all distance along the path-in(t)egrated vector of travel has been shrunk to zero. So there is no time nor any space as far as the universe sees things - they do travel at the speed of light, and relativity does apply. I have this dreadful feeling - you understand relativity less well than even your purile inderstanding of thermodynamics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:58 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
foolonthehill... But I think the leasees are going to just be paying market rate for their space. It's the owners of the building who get the benefit. I'm not sure though. It's a good question that I'll ask my friend about. (Actually, my entire family consists of architechs, so I have lots of resources on this front. My friend just happens to do very large projects like this.)
In fast moving Asian markets I think a lot of really shotty buildings were erected. It's an unfortunate reality. Even though some of those high rises are barely a couple of decades old, they probably are better off being replaced by newer, more energy efficient construction. Really, there are some truly awful buildings over there.
"I think it can free us rather than enslave us."
I'm with you there. As bleak as things sometimes seem today, I'm actually very optimistic about the future.
-
foolonthehill at 07:09 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob
'I don't think there's any greenwashing going on here because those developers have a huge incentive to make these buildings as green as possible. It saves them tremendous amounts of money.'
I'm not convinced about this. Most large building are not occupied by the developer - they are leased to corporates. It is the corporate that makes the saving in running costs. The developer gets increased rental income from a 'desirable building'.
I am not professionaly qualified to commment on the lifecycle assessment of these buildings. My sister is an architect and also thinks that the numbers add up. She has never shown me what I would consider truly independent research (ie not supplied by architects or construction companies) so I still struggle with this topic.
The life cycle over '100+ years' is also a little bugbear with me. Any fast moving economy in Asia will tell a different story as to the life of modern buildings. I doubt that many buildings will be around for this length of time. There is a mindset of 'new is better' that is quite challenging to someone with an Old World mentality like myself. The skyline of Tokyo is constantly being altered. Even in the US the 'tallest building in the world' was demolished after only 60 years to be replaced by something that the market felt was more appropriate...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building
Discussions such as this are always enlightening. The solutions to our problems with climate change will be many and varied. The main thing is to get people engaged in them.
In NZ (and I assume in many western countries), topics of conversation amongst the middle class melieu I encounter, rarely venture into solutions to problems that are facing us. I could get a considered opinion on the market value of any property in the area and a rental appraisal for it. I could obtain a rundown of the menu at the latest 'foodie' haunt (I prefer 'foodist'). I can be regaled by the performance figures for the vehicles that sit outside.
This is what we really need to change. I believe that the battles over climate change denial are ending. The discussion will soon move to solutions. Every decision in our life should now factor in our carbon footprint. It doesnt have to dominate us. We can live with it. We can make informed decisions. I think it can free us rather than enslave us.
-
tstreet at 06:58 AM on 16 July 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
Perhaps this study is relevant to the issue as to when the heat in the oceans will have a significant impact on land temperatures. Billions of brain cells may have been wasted debating whether or not temperatures have increased the last 16 to 18 years. I say waste because if most of the heat is going in the oceans won't it eventually come back to bite us in an extreme matter. Of course, warming oceans have many of their own negative impacts on sea life. Not to mention ocean acidification.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:55 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili... I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't believe the choices are that stark. We clearly cannot do what we've done over the past century, but we can, I believe, transition our systems to carbon-free energy in a way that manages to get us past peak population.
After that, it's projected that human population would contract, thus the "constantly growing" aspect of the problem would also subside.
-
wili at 06:05 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
We can have a robust modern industrial global capitalist constantly-growing economy, or we can have a viable earth. Not both. I choose a viable earth, but I guess that's just me.
We can have a somewhat managed collapse now(or rapid contraction...whatever you want to call it) that spreads some of the pain and lessens the worst suffering, or we can have a total uncontrolled collapse later that wipes out nearly everyone and takes most of the earth with it. There are really no alternatives I can see at this point. More and more people are coming to that conclusion.
http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/CrashOnDemandSimplicityInstitute13c.pdf
-
tstreet at 06:02 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Closed mindedness is endemic througout the population, young and old. But it is tough to keep an open mind when one has spent years forming a opinion based on a pretty thorough review of the situation and the facts. In any event, there is probably a certain amount of closed mindedness on both sides of the global warming issue. I support AGW theory but it might be a sign of closed mindedness if one announces the debate is over. I get it though. We need to move on and fix the problem even if we do not have 100% certainty.
-
JPostma at 05:37 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Also, in fact, the botanist's greenhouse is the original greenhouse, and is the origin of the term "greenhouse", because they grow green food. Therefore these are not "artificial", rather, they are the proper and legitimate name given to them originally.
However, the radiative greenhouse effect as originates out of these 1-D models is indeed artificial, as we have seen people acnowledging that such models are indeed artificial and are not actually representative of the physics of the atmosphere.
A real, original greenhouse (a botanist's greenhouse), stays warm by trapping heated air, while it doesn't get hotter than the solar insolation due to thermdynamic contraints.
The atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect has adopted the name "greenhouse effect", but it in fact does not follow the physics of the original greenhouse, and therefore the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect has some degree of artificiality to it.
The postulates of this new atmospheric radiative greenhouse should likewise be able to be applied to a real original greenhouse, since they would do what is postulated that the atmosphere does in terms of trapping radiation, etc. However, as an experimental apparatus which can test the new conception of a radiative greenhouse, measurements show that the expected resulting temperature from this new interpretation is not observed inside them. A real greenhouse is still only warmed due to trapping warm air, while the expected results of the artificial radiative greenhouse effect, using any argument or model for it, do not manifest, thus confirming their artificiality.
-
JPostma at 05:14 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"So does the photon perform a special dance to avoid breaking the Sky-Dragon-Slayer-version of laws of physics? Or, when the photon was emitted by that ancient star so long ago, was the state of the universe 13 billion years hence alreay 'known'? Was it emitted only because it would truly be destined for a colder place? Will that poor little photon be really destined not for the sun but for a passing Vogon spaceship that is about to happen-by just in the nick of time?"
Well it is rather simple: a cold source does not heat up a hotter source. Radiation from a cold object does not warm up a warmer object. This really is basic heat flow mechanics and thermodynamics. It works the same for radiation as it does for conduction. If you have a hot object touching a cold object, the hot object is heating the cold one only; if you separate them with a gap, the radiation from the cold object does not sunnedly start to warm the warmer object.It is good to think about life as a photon. How is the universe experienced as a photon? Apply relativity. Time is infinitely dilated, i.e. time has stopped, and all distance along the path-inegrated vector of travel has been shrunk to zero. So there is no time nor any space as far as the photon sees things - they do travel at the speed of light, and relativity does apply.
-
JPostma at 05:07 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Yes, N2 and O2 are also heated from other gases, and again, they can not emit this heat as radiation to lose it. Radiatively active gasses can radiate though and thus, they can lose heat. So, N2 and O2 trap heat, because they can't shed heat through radiative emission. Radiatively active gasses though can lose heat by emission. No one said that IR active gases do not absorb and emit. Rather, zero-emissivity gasses do not absorb and emit and ths they trap heat. I am sorry if you thought it seemed like I was saying that radiatively active gases do not absorb and emit. The point is that zero-emissivity gases do not radiatively absorb and emit, but they do get heated from physical interaction with the surface and other radiatively active gases, and thus, they hold on to that heat, and the IR active gases are the ones that help cool it. So yes, as you say, if there are gases which are radiatively inert, such as O2 and N2, then the atmosphere will warm up above insolation temperature. Thus N2 and O2 are the heat trapping gases while the radiatively active gases are the ones that can emit and thus cool.
"You have been told several times that atmospheric scientists do not rely on the behaviour of artificial greenhouses to establish the properties of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. That you persist in claiming the reverse, alongside your unwillingness or inability to admit that experiments and observations confirm the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and your unwillingness or inability to think through the implications if you were correct, speaks volumes as regards your comprehension, scientific integrity, and credibility."
As has been pointed out: An "artificial" greenhouse, by which you mean a botanist's greenhouse, should work exactly like the maths of the 1-D model, and by the rest of the radiative greenhouse effect argumentation aside from the 1-D model, with the glass ceiling taking the place of layers of atmosphere and absorption/scattering etc.
An artificial greenhouse demonstrates that such arguments do not manifest - the internal temperature does not get higher than the maximum solar insolation, even though any version of argument for the radiative greenhouse effect says that it should.
So, the radiative greenhouse effect is not observed in an experimental apparatus (a botanists greenhouse) where it should be observed - and this is of course independent of whatever argument you wish to use for the radiative greenhouse effect. The core principle, that of a higher temperature being induced inside than the insolation temperature, is refuted by empiricism (and also by theory if you can follow it properly).
Glad to have had the chat.
-
Paul D at 04:54 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
You have to ask why people like Murdoch believe they can make pronouncements on subjects like Climate Change.
There are two scenarios regarding his thoughts:
1. He believes he is an expert - which should ring alarm bells in anyones minds and implies he has delusions of grandeur (probably accurate).
2. He doesn't believe he is an expert - which implies he feels his influence is useful to override scientists, which also should ring alarm bells.
In both cases he is being manipulative.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:44 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili... There are a few facts of reality that we have to face in order to solve the problem. First, it's just a fact that we need our global economy. Without it we can't feed the 7 billion people on this planet. If we collapse the economy we would quickly devolve into mass starvation, even in the most prosperous nations. Personally, I think that is something that needs to be avoided.
Second is, if we continue to emit CO2 on a BAU path, we will also create an unimaginable and unmanageable crisis involving the starvation of billions.
It seems to me, the point solving the problem is to minimize human suffering as much as possible. Minimizing human suffering also involves the protection of the natural systems that support life on this planet. (If we don't care about human suffering, then just let nature take it's course. She will rid the planet of our species and clean things up in a matter of a miniscule million years or two. That's the George Carlin solution.)
I'm not an economist, but when I read Kevin Anderson my sense is what he's suggesting is a recipe for economic collapse that would make matters worse. (And perhaps I don't fully grasp the intricacies of his arguments yet.) I think what the IPCC and the DDPP are proposing is a much more sensible, whole-systems approach approach to solving the problem.
I would suggest that it's a mistake to assume that something is seriously wrong with anyone who doesn't exactly agree to your perceptions of the challenge. We all want to solve the problem here and these are the best kinds of discussions to have. I wish there were more discussions in the public about how we solve the problem over whether there's a problem.
-
MA Rodger at 04:39 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Of course, what I find truly remarkable about these Sky Dragon Slayers is how much slaying they do. Any science that gets in the way - slay it.
Here's a thing, mind. The very first star bursts into life in the early universe and sends forth a red-wavelengthed photon. Off it goes across inter-stelar space for 13 billion years, near-missing planets, deflected by black holes and countless other adventures before entering the Earth's atmosphere, straight in through my open bathroom window, only to be reflected off a mirror and back up into the sky. There ahead is its destination, our sun. But steady on!! This sun is a bit yellow. Oh no!! It's too hot!!!! If the poor little photon impacts the sun it will be allegedly breaking the laws of thermodynamicks, the most important laws there are in the entire universe.
So does the photon perform a special dance to avoid breaking the Sky-Dragon-Slayer-version of laws of physics?
Or, when the photon was emitted by that ancient star so long ago, was the state of the universe 13 billion years hence alreay 'known'? Was it emitted only because it would truly be destined for a colder place? Will that poor little photon be really destined not for the sun but for a passing Vogon spaceship that is about to happen-by just in the nick of time? -
Composer99 at 04:30 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
You claim, of N2 and O2:
They gain heat by conduction with the surface, and then they can't radiate it away because of their low/zero emissivity. The atmosphere heats by conduction with the surface too. The atmosphere does not only get heated by absorption of surface radiation, you can not ignore the other modes of heat flow as an attempt to make it all about radiation.
Currently, radiative heat transfer from the Earth surface to the atmosphere is 358.2 W/m2 (the amount absorbed by the atmosphere). Conduction & convection heat transfer, taken together, from Earth surface to the atmosphere is 18.4 W/m2. In fact, the total current non-IR heat transfer from the Earth surface to the atmosphere is 181.9 W/m2. If you have disproved the greenhouse effect, the atmosphere is positively frigid, from top to bottom. It follows that the surface also becomes very cold since the atmosphere is no longer insulating it.
But, N2 and O2 collide with radiatively-active (that is, greenhouse gas) molecules (water vapour, carbon dioxide, etc.) and the latter radiate heat away from the atmosphere into space. If we accept that you have disproved the atmospheric greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases do not absorb at IR bands and hence they do not emit at them either (via Kirchhoff's laws). Thus by your own contention, heat energy entering the atmosphere has no means of escape, at least not until the atmosphere warms up enough to start warming the surface instead!
There you have it. If we accept your conclusion about the atmospheric greenhouse effect, either greenhouse gas molecules (unphysically) do not absorb IR radiation, but only emit it, or greenhouse gas molecules (also unphysically) neither absorb nor emit IR radiation. The end results are contradictory and nonsensical, but they follow necessarily from accepting your position.
An "artificial" greenhouse, by which you mean a botanist's greenhouse, should work exactly like the maths of the 1-D model, and by the rest of the radiative greenhouse effect argumentation aside from the 1-D model, with the glass ceiling taking the place of layers of atmosphere and absorption/scattering etc. An artificial greenhouse demonstrates that such arguments do not manifest - the internal temperature does not get higher than the maximum solar insolation.
You have been told several times that atmospheric scientists do not rely on the behaviour of artificial greenhouses to establish the properties of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. That you persist in claiming the reverse, alongside your unwillingness or inability to admit that experiments and observations confirm the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and your unwillingness or inability to think through the implications if you were correct, speaks volumes as regards your comprehension, scientific integrity, and credibility.
I'm done.
-
wili at 03:45 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
The primary function of the global industrial economy is to rip the guts, bones, blood and skin out of the earth and turn them into toxins. If that is a system that someone thinks is benign and worth preserving...well, what more can one say?
By the way, congratulations everyone--we had the top-commented-on post for this week! And furthermore we have been honored with the observation that we have "deep and abiding perspectives about what should be done in order to prevent dangerous climate change"!! (Note to editors: There should be a period after that wonderfully descriptive phrase...perhaps it was lost in the exitement of the moment? '-))
I'll also note that I do, on occasion, become a bit...grumpy, at least, contemplating the total destruction of the living systems of the planet and the wholy inadequate responses to it that we seem to be even capable of conceiving.
Don't you?
If not, perhaps there is something seriously wrong with you??
-
JPostma at 02:50 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"All models of real-world phenomena are wrong. I'm fairly certain that instructors aren't telling students that 1D models are accurate representations of atmospheric physics. I'm fairly certain that they're saying some form of "This is a lie, but it's a useful lie.""
Well, some models actually do make reasonable statements about reality. The 1-D greenhouse model does not, and in fact it violates reality at some pretty fundamental levels. To use it as a teaching tool is only to teach the wrong thing and wrong ideas and wrong method. Some models help. Some hinder. This one hinders.
In fact they do not say that it is a useful lie. Such an idea is irrational and illogical in any case. As seen here, they say that it provides a reasonable approximation to reality, to understand some basic features. That is wrong. It wrecks all of the basic features.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:49 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
foolonthehill... That's funny that you pulled up the Pearl River Tower, because I'm pretty sure my friend worked on that building since I'm pretty sure he was at Skidmore back in 2006.
If you do a full lifecycle assessment on buildings like these, over the 100+ year useful life of the building, by far the largest amount of energy is consumed (and CO2 produced) is by the electrical and heat/cooling systems. The energy from construction and travel related to the development of the project is a very tiny fraction of the total life cycle emissions.
I don't think there's any greenwashing going on here because those developers have a huge incentive to make these buildings as green as possible. It saves them tremendous amounts of money.
I think it really does often make sense to replace some older, less efficient buildings. The amount of energy they consume can be very high, and they'll continue to consume that level of energy until they're replaced. So, you're getting a lot of bang for the buck. You're stopping that energy consuption from the old building and replacing it with a building that is far more efficient.
I was just discussing this issue with my friend over the 4th of July weekend, and I literally asked him point blank, "So, can you guys really get these buildings so they generate as much energy as they use?" He said, "It's challenging, but if we have enough mixed use, then yes."
-
DSL at 02:43 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Postma: "Yes, the point is that if the 1-D model is a teaching tool, then what is being taught is wrong."
All models of real-world phenomena are wrong. I'm fairly certain that instructors aren't telling students that 1D models are accurate representations of atmospheric physics. I'm fairly certain that they're saying some form of "This is a lie, but it's a useful lie."
-
JPostma at 02:38 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"If, as you say, O2 and N2 have low emissivity, it follows from this law that they have low absorptivity, and cannot on their own trap radiated heat in the amounts required to maintain the observed Earth surface and atmospheric temperatures. By your own words you contradict yourself."
They gain heat by conduction with the surface, and then they can't radiate it away because of their low/zero emissivity. The atmosphere heats by conduction with the surface too. The atmosphere does not only get heated by absorption of surface radiation, you can not ignore the other modes of heat flow as an attempt to make it all about radiation.
"The behaviour of artificial greenhouses are irrelevant with respect to the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. As KR notes, it is a red herring fallacy."
An "artificial" greenhouse, by which you mean a botanist's greenhouse, should work exactly like the maths of the 1-D model, and by the rest of the radiative greenhouse effect argumentation aside from the 1-D model, with the glass ceiling taking the place of layers of atmosphere and absorption/scattering etc. An artificial greenhouse demonstrates that such arguments do not manifest - the internal temperature does not get higher than the maximum solar insolation.
"Several of your other comments suggest you are ignorant of, or unwilling to consider, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, from which the average Earth temperature sans atmospheric greenhouse effect is derived."
Of course, that law is discussed at length in my papers and has even made its appearance here, in worded form. I am sorry if you missed that. Indeed, it sets the effective temperature of the Earth - but this is not to be thought of as appearing at the ground surface, but somewhere in the middle of the atmosphere.
I'm sorry that you've missed these points.
-
DSL at 02:27 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Sam: "but it looks to me like a mean would have pretty well the same appearance as giss and hadcrut."
What I'm trying to point out is that warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect is not responsible for much of the increase in global mean surface temperature in the early 20th century. Nearly half of the 1C of enhanced greenhouse effect warming (AGW) of the 20th century did not occur prior to 1940. Nearly all of the 0.7C warming since 1960 is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (eGHE). The eGHE was on the increase during the first half of the 20th century, but it wasn't the dominant forcing. Solar variation was the dominant forcing at the time. See this and this for more.
There was no single mechanism responsible for the global mean surface temperature signal. There still is no single mechanism. It is a combination of a variety of forcings, feedbacks, and oscillations.
-
Composer99 at 02:17 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
Your response to my comment shows up the blatant falseness of your claims.
Witness such gems as:
In fact, real greenhouses demonstrate that they do not get hotter than the solar input. This contradicts the radiative greenhose hypothesis while supporting the trapped-warm-air hypothesis of why greenhouse interiors are warmer than outside.
and
as real greenhouse temperatures contradict the radiative greenhouse postulate of being able to induce a higher temperatre than the solar input.
The behaviour of artificial greenhouses are irrelevant with respect to the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. As KR notes, it is a red herring fallacy.
Or how about this:
That some molecules in the atmosphere scatter/absorb radiation, does not mean that they heat the surface. In fact, low emissivity is what leads to higher temperatures than otherwise, and O2 and N2 have basically zero emissivity, meaning that they hold on to and trap heat already...they being 99% of the atmosphere.
Per Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, it is in fact the case that low emissivity equals low absorption at equilibrium (say, the atmosphere with an effectively constant incoming solar flux). If, as you say, O2 and N2 have low emissivity, it follows from this law that they have low absorptivity, and cannot on their own trap radiated heat in the amounts required to maintain the observed Earth surface and atmospheric temperatures. By your own words you contradict yourself.
Several of your other comments suggest you are ignorant of, or unwilling to consider, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, from which the average Earth temperature sans atmospheric greenhouse effect is derived.
So much for rational, logical, and physical argument on your part.
-
mbryson at 01:36 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
I've encountered 'stubborn clinging' in just about all age groups— after all, if one argument defending your view doesn't work, you can always imagine there's another... So I don't think it's about age.
But there's another big reason why Murdoch is so misinformed and ineducable: he's wealthy and powerful (and an aggressive businessman). Who, of all the people around him, would tell him he's wrong? If you depend on him for your position, it would be downright imprudent to say anything like "oh, by the way Rupert, all of recent warming is due to humans, and high-emissions scenarios project much larger temperature increases than what you've said"?
Funglestrumpet is right: the influence of his views is magnified by his glorious wealth and power— when people like that say something, it's automatically respectable no matter how false and self-serving...
-
JPostma at 01:11 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Yes, the point is that if the 1-D model is a teaching tool, then what is being taught is wrong.
It is the 1-D models which misrepresent physics. As many people have been taught by this tool, their idea of how things might work will likewise misrepresent physics. The initial conditions and the boundary conditions of the physics have all been messed up by that model. Better physics such as absorption, scattering, etc., does not equate to a source becoming warmer because its radiation is absorbed somewhere else. And indeed real greenhouses do not demonstrate the radiative greenhouse postulate.
-
JPostma at 01:03 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"The atmospheric greenhouse was demonstrated experimentally by Tyndall in the mid-19th century, and as Tom Curtis has shown, has been documented empirically on multiple occasions."
In fact, real greenhouses demonstrate that they do not get hotter than the solar input. This contradicts the radiative greenhose hypothesis while supporting the trapped-warm-air hypothesis of why greenhouse interiors are warmer than outside.
"Further, the fact of its existence follows, necessarily, from the radiative properties of greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere."
That some molecules in the atmosphere scatter/absorb radiation, does not mean that they heat the surface. In fact, low emissivity is what leads to higher temperatures than otherwise, and O2 and N2 have basically zero emissivity, meaning that they hold on to and trap heat already...they being 99% of the atmosphere.
"It is, in short, a real 'thing'."
This is only a statement of claim. I have demonstrated physical, mathematical, and logical reasons for why the radiative greenhouse effect is erroneous.
"(1) persevering in your make-believe notion that the simple 1-dimensional model is the basis of scientific acceptance of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, rather than its actual status as a high school or undergraduate teaching tool;"
I have stated that adding more layers or higher dimensionality does not actually fix the mistake of getting the solar input wrong. The 1-D model is not an approximation but an outright error, an outright mistake. It should not be used for a teaching tool at all, and any idea of a radiative greenhouse effect which comes out of it is entirely, completely wrong.
(2) from (1), persevering in arguing that your rebuttal of this teaching tool constitutes a rebuttal of the actual atmospheric greenhouse effect whose existence has been experimentally and empirically confirmed; and
But it has not actually been experimentally and emirically confirmed, as real greenhouse temperatures contradict the radiative greenhouse postulate of being able to induce a higher temperatre than the solar input. To continue to argue that the 1-D model is a teaching tool is to make the point that what is being taught is wrong.
(3) re-asserting your argument without any new counter to the rebuttals raised either by the OP or by comments, which IMO constitutes sloganeering.
The same can be said for you. However, I have actually been making rational logical physical points while the common slogans of the radiative greenhouse effect which originate out of that erroneous teaching tool keep on being presented over and over as if that teaching tool has any legitimate claims to reality, which it does not.
-
funglestrumpet at 01:01 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Murdoch is a wealthy man and he can't take it with him when he pops his clogs, so to speak. So, seeing that this side of the fence believes the evidence shows that climate change is going to challenge those who inherit his wealth, perhaps he might like to satisfy himself that we are wrong and that they will have as secure a lifestyle as he obviously thinks they will.
As he believes in his view of climate change so much, let him put his money where his mouth is. Invite him to fund a repeat of John Tyndall's 1859 experiment (With Royal Society oversight to ensure the integrity of the results) that proved the greenhouse effect and then explain scientifically, with whatever help he can muster (Lawson, Monckton, Abbot, Python (and the rest of the circus), etc.), why he thinks it is all balloney (well, most of it according to him). Dare him to publish his results (prominently) in his U.K./U.S.A national media channels/newspapers with this side's response. Both sides should be constrained to a set number of words (to be agreed). (Perhaps the Guadian might like to sponsor this side of the debate with exclusive rights to publish the correspondence and outcomes.)
Daft as the above might be (it is more intended as a thought-starter than a finished, completely thought through idea), let's face it, anything is worth a try. As thing are, Murdoch is going to continue spouting his erroneous opinions and editors, enjoying their freedoms, are going to take the view: "It's only an idea, but look whose idea it is!" and faithfully walk to heal, fetch the stick when its thrown and enjoy their "Whose a good boy, then?" bonuses, no doubt saying "No worries, sport" as they do so.
-
wili at 01:00 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
"People of privilege will always risk complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." - John Kenneth Galbraith
-
KR at 00:56 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma - I'm sorry, but your entire argument is a strawman fallacy. The 1-D model you discuss is simply an explanatory tool, not the justification for the understanding of the radiative greenhouse effect.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
The scientific understanding of the radiative greenhouse effect is based upon spectroscopy, radiative physics, atmospheric composition, and observations of (among other items) lapse rates, evaporative exchanges, convection, TOA and surface IR, etc. Not on a simplified model used in classrooms - a model that is simplified, but correct in that it relates some important factors demonstrating the effects of changing effective surface emissivity.
It doesn't help that your geometry is wrong, and thus is your estimate of insolation, that glass greenhouses are a red herring with respect to radiative phsyics, etc. You have presented exactly nothing of substance.
Your whole argument is based upon a misrepresentation of the science. As such, it's not even wrong.
-
JPostma at 00:52 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Just as an example of something interesting when you consider latent heat of liquid water rather than ignoring all such other physics in an attempt to make it all about radiation, consider the effect that latent heat has at the surface - the result below was calculated using real-time, actual solar input at the surface of the Earth:
Above you can see that latent heat from liquid water prevents the temperature from dropping below zero, which will thus give a daily-averaged temperature reading which is higher than you would expect, because the curve doesn't drop below zero when basic daily input energy considerations would make you think it should. Latent heat is like a heat battery than turns on at 0C and keeps it there. Of course, latent heat from water vapour releases out of the atmosphere at a temperature higher than 0C.
This shows that latent heat keeps the surface warmer than otherwise, as a function of the mass of water on the surface. And that's just for liquid on the surface. The atmosphere releases the latent heat of water vapor too, which will bump the temperature anomaly up higher still. Integrated over all mass quantities, the integrated temperature anomaly offset is about +60C.
So the point is, making the surface temperature all about atmospheric radiation and a radiative greenhouse effect is wrong.
The 1-D models aren't a useful approximation, they are an anti-physics error, a massive wrong way to think about the physics. They are a fiction which produce a cognitive "scientific" landscape totally divorced from reality.
Check out this data from a temperature measurement station with sensors going to .86m into the ground, and up to 1.5m altitude. This data was collected over a few months:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoJM4taoNFo
You need the 2D heat flow PDE to model something like that, and that is what needs to be modeled if you want to understand heat flow in the atmosphere and surface. (Though we'd need data going deeper into the ground, and higher into the air, and for longer time.) The 1-D models are simply 100% divorced from being able to explain what is seen in that data sequence...they contradict it in fact. The point being that the 1-D models need to be completely rejected as fictional, and hence, any of the type of thinking associated with them or commonly referred back to them, such as the radiative greenhouse effect, likewise must be rejected.
-
Composer99 at 00:39 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
The atmospheric greenhouse was demonstrated experimentally by Tyndall in the mid-19th century, and as Tom Curtis has shown, has been documented empirically on multiple occasions.
Further, the fact of its existence follows, necessarily, from the radiative properties of greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere.
It is, in short, a real 'thing'.
In your attempt to "disprove" the greenhouse effect, you are engaged in three ongoing misbehaviours on this thread:
(1) persevering in your make-believe notion that the simple 1-dimensional model is the basis of scientific acceptance of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, rather than its actual status as a high school or undergraduate teaching tool;
(2) from (1), persevering in arguing that your rebuttal of this teaching tool constitutes a rebuttal of the actual atmospheric greenhouse effect whose existence has been experimentally and empirically confirmed; and
(3) re-asserting your argument without any new counter to the rebuttals raised either by the OP or by comments, which IMO constitutes sloganeering.
Prev 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 Next
