Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 Next
Comments 35351 to 35400:
-
Ken in Oz at 11:03 AM on 20 July 2014Climate data from air, land, sea and ice in 2013 reflect trends of a warming planet
I'd like to see Antarctic ice reported a bit more comprehensively; sea ice by itself isn't very informative and can actually be misleading if it's ups are dwarfed by downs from loss of land ice.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 20 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Just for future reference, in case Postma ever returns:
1) JPostma @51 begins with an odd little screed that ends with the claim that:
"Thus, there are indeed material and factual objections which clearly relegate the back-radiation/trapping hypothesis as defunct, as there are actual factors which already lend to a higher bottom-of-atmosphere temperature."
Reduced to its essence, this is a claim that there are more than one factor which raise Global Mean Surface Temperatures above what we would expect from insolation alone, and that consequently the atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot also do so. That, of course, is a complete non-sequitur. It is equivalent to arguing that because at least five men are carrying a coffin, there cannot be a sixth man carrying it as well.
It turns out that these other explanations mostly come down to thermal inertia. Make no mistake, thermal inertia does warm the Earth. The do so because energy radiated by a black body goes up with the fourth power. Thus, if you have a globe with a surface temperature of 388 K on on half, and 188 K on the other half, it will radiate 1,285 W/m^2 to space on the warm side, and only 71 W/m^2 on the cold side, for an average of 678 W/m^2. It will also have an average temperature of 288 K (~15 C). In constrast, a globe with a surface temperature of 288 K would only radiate 390 W/m^2, or 58% less. Thus the globe with uneven temperatures radiates far more energy to space than does the one with even temperatures. It would be warmer for the same energy recieved than the globe with even temperatures.
The problem for Postma is that the zero energy model calculation of the expected Earth surface temperature assumes an equal temperature over the entire Earth's surface. That it, it already allows for a greater contribution to the Earth's warming from equal temperatures than actually exists. Therefore, latent heat cannot explain the 33 C discrepancy it finds between the energy recieved by the Earth, and the global mean surface temperature.
2) Postma repeatedly ridicules the "one D" model as being completely unrealistic. He however, develops a model of the diurnal temperature cycle, which he describes in the previously linked paper, by saying:
"However, the mass of a one-square meter column of air is about 10,000kg, and if it has an average temperature of 255K, has a total energy content of about 10000 kg * 255 K * 1006 J/kg/K = 2.56 x 109 J. With a TOA output around 240 W/m2, the column will lose 10.4 MJ of heat overnight, which would correspond to an aggregate temperature reduction of 0.4% or 10 C. As can be seen from real-world data, the ground surface and near-surface-air drop in temperature by about ten-times that amount overnight, which means that most of the cooling of the column actually occurs at the surface, and thus cooling there is actually enhanced relative to the rest of the column, rather than impeded."
The implicit model for this calculation assumes that the radiation from all levels is 240 W/m^2, that the average temperature of the atmospheric column is 255 K, that the diurnal temperature range is equal across the entire column, and that the heat dump due to the diurnal temperature range is all to space. He purports this model represents the prediction of the greenhouse effect; and his conclusion from it makes it into his summary points (point 6), and has been mentioned here (although I could not be bothered chasing down in which post). The key point about this model is that every one of its features is false. So when Postma rails about the error of using a simple model (albeit solely for teaching), it shoud be born in mind that he also uses simple models. There are key differences, however. It can be shown mathematically that the use of a spherical model equivalent to the simple model used to teach by climate scientists generates the same results, and it is only used for teaching. Further, it can be shown that once corrected for accuracy as in a GCM, the simple models results can be largely reproduced. Postma's even more eroneous model, however, shares none of these features. I will show only one of these points, the difference in diurnal temperature range with altitude:
3) Finally, it turns out that "ontological mathematics" is the brain child not of Postma, but of "Mike Hockney", whose book, "Why Math Must Replace Science" is described by Postma as "The Best Science in the Universe", going on to say:
"The God Series of books by Mike Hockney are, truly, the best set of books on philosophy, science, politics, religion, psychology, death, and life, that have ever been produced in the history of man. The latest book by Hockney is the best of them all"
In its Amazon blurb, we read:
"It’s time to replace the scientific method with the mathematical method. It’s time to recognize that true reality is intelligible, not sensible; noumenal, not phenomenal; unobservable, not observable; metaphysical, not physical; hidden, not manifest; rationalist, not empiricist; necessary, not contingent. Physics is literally incapable of detecting true reality since true reality is an eternal, indestructible, dimensionless mathematical Singularity, outside space and time. The Singularity is a precisely defined Fourier frequency domain. There’s nothing “woo woo” about it. It's pure math.
Physicists suffer from a disorder of the mind that causes them to believe that sensible, temporal objects have more reality than eternal, immutable Platonic mathematical objects, and to place more trust in their senses than in their reason, more trust in the scientific method of “evidence” than the mathematical method of eternal proof.
Never forget that sensory objects are just ideas in the mind. According to quantum physics, objects are just the observable entities produced by the collapse of unreal wavefunctions, and don’t formally exist when they are not being observed. Niels Bohr, in response to Einstein, literally denied that the moon existed when it wasn’t being observed."
I would say that you could not make this stuff up, but somebody obviously did.
In lieu of a biography, in Mike Hockney's Amazon biography reads (in part):
"Pythagorean Illuminism - the religion of the Illuminati - is the world's only Logos, rational religion. Illuminism rejects faith, rejects prophets, rejects holy books, rejects "revelation", and rejects any Creator. Instead, Illuminism is about the necessary, analytic, immutable, a priori, eternal Platonic truths of mathematics. Mathematics alone furnishes the unarguable, definitive answer to existence. That answer, incredibly, revolves around the immortal, indestructible human soul (the "singularity"). The "Big Bang" - a singularity event - was all about soul (all the souls of the universe, in fact)! The soul is none other than the most basic unit of mathematics: the dimensionless, unobservable point. The soul is "nothing", yet it is also infinity - because it comprises positive and negative infinity, which cancel to nothing. The soul is neither being nor non-being. The soul is BECOMING. If you want to know what it's becoming, read The God Series."
So Hockney consciously positions his "theory" as the religion of the Illuminati, something Postma is aware of and accepts (though when he blogs about it, he calls it "illuminism").
My point? Somebody who would accept and promote this complete tripe is so far beyond crazy they can't see the line anymore. Forget moonlanding conspiracy theorists. They are sane compared to this stuff. And yet the "dragon slaying" branch of AGW skepticism show such profound ability to sort the mental wheat from the chaffe that Postma is one of their leading lights.
Clearly no rational dialogue (socratic or otherwise) is possible with Postma.
-
Ashton at 03:50 AM on 20 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Fair Comment moderator I'll do as advised.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:18 AM on 20 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
WRyan,
Also, natural wind patterns circulate air above the equatorial Pacific to other regions of the planet. So the changes of the surface of the equatorial Pacific can significantly change surface temperatures beyond the equatorial Pacific.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 23:43 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Mr Hurst,
For sea ice info, the 2 best sites I know are NSIDC and Cryophere Today. The comparator function on Cryosphere today is especially handy. I also like their representation of the ice cover with color coding of the coverage density better than the simple "extent" used by NSIDC. For ice volume, PIOMAS is one of the best sources. The Alfre Weggener Institute has also very good information on sea ice.
Arctic summer sea ice has beaten record lows in 2005, 2007 and 2012. Every time, the record was beaten by a very large margin. Every time, the pseudo-skeptics have nothing but nonsense to say about it. The disappearance of Arctic sea ice is a feature of global warming that had been seriously understimated. It is a "in your face" kind of indicator that can be helpful to convince policymakers to do something about the problem. Hence the tone of some remarks you may read on blogs. Not to mention the fact that pseudo-skeptics claim a recovery is under way every year that the prevoous record low is not broken.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/
-
Ashton at 23:27 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
My apologies in line one I wrote "Arctic sea ice area" That should read Arctic sea ice volume.
-
wili at 23:26 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Edward, you're of course free to go where you want for your info, but you are dismissing neven's blog too prematurely, it seems to me. It's a blog, of course, so there are a variety of voices, and they are real people, so they have a variety of emotional responses to what they are seeing (I see little evidence of your claim that people there 'want' the ice to melt, but they do get excited about dramatic events--a very human response). But mostly they are very concerned about getting an accurate picture of what is going on and they usually keep each other in check if someone is making claims not supported by the data.
If you want general info on climate change, RealClimate is also quite good. The main posts are generally written by scientists. But again, the blog section is full of comments by people with a variety of view points and levels of knowledge.
Skeptical Science is another go-to for me.
-
Ashton at 23:22 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
I looked at Neven's sea ice blog (linked by Glenn Tamblyn @5 above) and was fascinated by this comment referring to the slow decline in sea ice area. The comment is made in context that arctic sea ice may not show a record low level in 2014 and may in fact be greater than all of the other post 2010 years. The comment to which I refer is;
"And so it might be possible for this melting season to end up in the top 3, despite its bad start and lack of melt ponds.
But for that to happen, a lot of weather that's conducive to melt, transport and compaction is needed.
It seems very strange in view of the apparent concern that is shown about the lack of decline in Arctic sea ice volume that the writer should consider it a "bad start" that ice volume might well not be declining. Surely this is good unless there are reasons why increases in Arctic sea ice volume are a bad thing. From this comment one could conjecture that the author considers a lack of decrease in Arctic sea ice volume is not good for the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Of course that is merely conjecture and I'm sure there must be some other explanation for this extraordinary remark. However it this comment from John Christianson in the comments section of the blog also tends to make one suspect that surprisingly the slow drop in Arctic ice volume may not seen as a blessing by everyone. Christiansen writes:
The colder June temperatures are the main culprit in the slow volume drop.
"Culprit" seems an unusual choice in the context of a possible halt in the decline of Arctic sea ice volume. Can anyone explain why a slowdown in the decline of Arctic sea ice volume warrants the concern indicated by the wording of these comments?
Moderator Response:[JH] You should pose your question to the commenter on Neven's sea ice blog, not here.
-
chriskoz at 22:41 PM on 19 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Tom@260,
Indeed i ran the GEOCARB model just like your did, except I increased the Degas rate just twice (15E12 mol/y) as my own experiment (Burton et al value maybe an overestimate). I also increased land area twice so that degassing and ingassing (shown as "WeatS") be in balanace which was my implicit assumption that I forgot to state in my previous comment (sorry). Then I compared the pCO2 output with the default run.
Hint for those who play with this model online: in between two runs, you can hit "save model run in background" button and all your graphs will be duplicated (the other run values will be displayed as "pCO2 alt", "WeatS alt" etc.), and you can compare the two runs superimposed.
So comparing the pCO2 of my two runs, in say 500y timeframe, the difference is 413 (default) vs. 401 (mine), i.e. 12ppm only. In 1000y the difference is 372 vs. 356, therefore more. In 10ky, it is 319 vs. 307 which is still more in terms of climate forcing. As expected, the stronger degassing/ingassing exchange has signifficant influence on atmospheric carbon carbon slug decline in long term (>1000y) only.
-
edward hurst at 21:08 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Thankyou Glenn for your kind information. I have looked at the blog you suggest however find it "wanting" the ice to melt. It is important that I have a source of accurate information regarding Ice, sea level rise, global temperatures, precipitation rates etc.
I seek the truth without bias in any direction so as to be able to compare with a response I am expecting from Paul Wheelhouse the Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate change.
This is an important exercise as some very critical decisions that can effect the people and economy of a nation are reliant on the information available. On this matter if you can also point me in the right direction for the other climate parameters mentioned above it would be much appreciated.
Regards,
Edward
-
MA Rodger at 20:44 PM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom Curtis @140.
Just to correct you because 'mathematical ontology' is something with ligitimate philosophical basis.
It is "ontological mathematics" that JPostma is rabbiting on about in that paper. Until just now, I assumed he didn't understand what ontology means because to suggest that reality actually consists of mathematics (or "absolute logic" in JPostma's preferred description), to sign up to the "In the beginning there was zero" stuff, that belongs in the lunatic asylum. I say 'until just now' because a quick web search confirms JPostma truly doesn't understand what ontlogy means but it also showed he is actually fully signed up to the "In the beginning there was zero" stuff. Scary.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:52 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Edward
Try Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog . It has lots of links to many sources including Cryosphere Today. And some of the regulars there are pretty cluey about the Arctic and sea ice.
-
edward hurst at 18:22 PM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
Is the site 'The Cryosphere Today' the correct place to go to look at what is actually happening at the earth's poles? They have some graphs that seem very clear and helpful. If it is providing a realistic portrayal of what is going on can I use that site for reference when reading your posts?
As a latecomer to the climate issues I would very much appreciate your help so I can come to a balanced opinion.
Thank you so much for your help.
Edward
-
Tom Curtis at 16:25 PM on 19 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
chriskoz @259, I am not sure what you did with the online model. I increased the volcanic degassing to 27.5 terra moles per annum (the value arrived at in Burton et al), and increased land area by the same factor (3.67) to set the default ingassing level to the same value. Doing so I arrived at the same result that you did. I noticed, however, that after 1000 years, the CO2 level was still 338 ppmv (24% increase; 1.15 W/m^2 forcing), and that it was 412 ppmv (51% increas; 2.2 W/m^2 forcing) afer 400 years. At a time scale where long term feedbacks are starting to be significant, these are still significant forcings. Further, the 1000 Gtc slug used here is the trillion tonnes of carbon target that is commonly accepted to maintain temperature increases below 2 C. That is, it is the policy target we are very far from achieving. Increasing the slug to 2000 Gtc increases the CO2 concentration to 554 ppmv (100% increase; 3.7 W/m^2 forcing) in 400 years, to 417 ppmv in 1000 years (53% increase; 2.3 W/m^2 forcing), and 322 ppmv in 10,000 years (18% increase; 0.9 W/m^2 forcing). Clearly if we overshoot the 1000 Gtc mark, this salvation comes to late and to slowly to be of much use.
Further, this estimate of geophysical outgassing is significantly greater than current estimates of ingassing. It may be that those estimates will also be revised upwards in future; but it is as likely that future estimates of geophysical outgassing will be revised down towards the current ingassing estimates of 403 to 515 Mt CO2 per annum (the two figures cited by Burton et al). That would still represent a substantial increase over over previous estimates of geophysical outgassing, but just half of the Burton et al estimate.
It may, of course, be that both the ingassing and outgassing estimates are accurate, and that there is an imbalance between the two. That, however, would be bad news in the long term as it would indicate the current high outgassing levels to be an aberration, not likely to last long, and likely to permanently raise CO2 levels if they do. It is the presumed increase in ingassing that is the good news, not the increased rate of degassing. And even that is only good news in the very long term, humanly speaking. (I am certain you are aware of these nuances, but think they are worth clariffying for others.)
-
chriskoz at 14:21 PM on 19 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
CO2 degassing rate by volcanoes does have implications on our understanding of long-tail of antropogenic CO2 slug (i.e. the rate of CO2 sequestration by silicate thermostat or rock weathering).
For example GEOCAB model from UChicago has default parameters of co2 degassing (both Spinup & Simulation) as 7.5E12 mol/y, which is 0.1GtC/y - 1/100 of human emmisions. With such assumption, the GEOCARB simulation of the 1000GtC initial slug ver 10ky, yields the final pCO2 as 319ppm, which is 1.17 times the initial value of 272ppm before Spinup. In other words, 17% of the original C slug remains in the atmosphere after 10ky according to GEOCARB.
Now, if you keep everything the same but increase the CO2 degassing (both Spinup & Simulation), say twice to 15E12 mol/y closer to the latest figures discussed herein, then the final pCO2 value reported by GEOCARB will be 1.07 times the initial value, i.e. only 7% of the original C slug would remain in the atmosphere after 10ky.
So, we can see that increased natural degessing rate would signifficantly shorten the 'long tail' of CO2, now commonly tought to be 'at least 100ky', to something less, say 50ky. Which is good news for the possibility of earth's recovery, maybe the sixth mass exctinction will be avoided. But within human timescale, such correction is irrelevant because 50ky as 100ky, is still "essencially forever".
-
Arnold Ziffel at 13:40 PM on 19 July 2014Climate data from air, land, sea and ice in 2013 reflect trends of a warming planet
"highest wind speed ever assigned to a tropical cyclone, with one-minute sustained winds estimated to be 196 miles per hour"
wow
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:06 PM on 19 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
WRyan, One more piece of information that mayhelp understand the temporary but significant influence of the swings between El Nino and La Nina is the amount of change of average ocean surface temperature in the equatorial Pacific.
The ENSO values are presented by NOAA as the ONI (Ocean Nino Index), along with explanations of how they are evaluated. The variation in the average surface temperature of the equatorial Pacific Ocean is as much as 4 degrees C. That is why a stong El Nno or La Nina can temporarily result in a significant shift of the global average temperature from the ONI Neutral condition.
-
scaddenp at 11:16 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Postma was the original "we can explain planetary temperature without GHE" maths wasnt he, using lapse rate as an independent variable?
-
Tom Curtis at 11:07 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
One thing I wanted to draw attention to earlier in the discussion, but never got around to, is that Postma appears to believe in the greenhouse effect. In his post @33, he writes in response to Composer99:
""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."
(Postma's quote of Composer99 italicized. Emphasis added.)
This may not be sufficiently clear, but in his 2nd summary statement in the paper I have been previously quoting, he writes:
"Even as the climate models show, an increase in cloud height causes an increase in temperature at the surface. This is not due to a backradiation GHE but due to the lapse rate of the atmosphere combined with the average surface of equilibrium being risen further off of the surface."
In fact, that is the exact mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases absorbe IR radiation from the ground, and re-emit it at a higher altitude, thus raising into the atmosphere the level which effectively radiates to space the same energy as is absorbed from the Sun. That in turn sets the surface temperature, for tropospheric and surface temperatures are coupled by the lapse rate. I have explained this in more detail (and hopefully greater clarity elsewhere).
Postma may not accept the greenhouse on this effect, claiming he only admits the effects of clouds as raising the "surface of equilibrium". If so, his theory is incoherent in that clouds are not sufficient to the task. Specifically, the equilibrium calculation excludes all energy reflected from the Earth, and so the altitude at which it is reflected has no bearing.
If he accepts that the IR radiation from greenhouse gases also contributes to setting the "surface of equilibrium", he is in the position of actually accepting the greenhouse effect, but rejecting its consequences (and it by name) because of his misunderstandings of a simplified model used only for teaching.
-
barry1487 at 10:53 AM on 19 July 2014Climate data from air, land, sea and ice in 2013 reflect trends of a warming planet
Not sure how to read this.
"Near the end of the year, the South Pole had its highest annual temperature since records began in 1957."
I'll get stuck into the report later in the day.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:34 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Rodger @138, I think the key thing about Cotton's views is the claim that the energy from the cooler object is not turned into thermal energy. Thermal energy consists of the vibrations, oscillations and non-coordinated motion within the body or gas. If the radiant energy is not converted into thermal energy, it must be immediately reradiated from the molecule that absorbed it. Nor can this be a kind of defuse reflection in that such reflection would be in addition to the thermal radiation of the cooler body.
In interpreting Postma, it is important to note that he endorses this non-thermalization hypothesis in the lead in to the Cotton quote. He writes:
"The problem with the materialist objections is that they think of photons as busy little balls of energy which have to deposit their energy as heat into whatever they interact with, whereas a photon is actually a quantum particle that obeys wave mechanics. They are not tiny little balls of heat that have to do something that you think you would feel with sense perception…there are higher principles governing things."
He is definitely rejecting, therefore, the notion that there is a transfer of thermal energy from the cooler body to the warmer body by the photons emitted by the former and absorbed by the later. There is "... a higher principle governing these things", which higher principle turns out to be a mind/number duality so long as, "mind" is understood in terms of "mental idealism" and number is understood in terms of "mathematical ontological" (I kid you not).
(As a side note, it turns out that Postma's views on climate are a consequence of a philosophy which appears to be formed by mashing together ill defined concepts and mistaking the outcome as wisdom because of their ill defined nature. Search for "ontological" in his paper to find the details.)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:19 AM on 19 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
WRyan,
I had not misunderstood your question, but can clarify my response.
The air passing across the water is affected by the temperature of the water surface. It is like the way the air above pavement is warmed in the night if the pavement is heated by the sun during the day.
The large area of cooler surface water referred to as La Nina will lead to cooler air than the large area of warmer surface water referred to as El NIno.
-
Infopath at 05:47 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Rodger @134 said:
"If you enjoy a good laugh and have the patience, there is certainly a large quantity of patent absurdity in the writing of JPostma."
No kidding... take this, for example:
"Greenieism is extinction. Any species that was a “greenie” in the past is extinct, and is guaranteed to go extinct."
Or...
"The climate alarmists are instead trying to negate the human mind. Why don’t they realize that even a cursory understanding of their beloved “Gaia” theory would have to indicate that “mother Earth” created human beings on purpose, in order to help replenish the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere which had almost disappeared which would have caused the mass and final extinction? They don’t want to believe in anything good because their true goal is that they want to murder humans, as we will see below; that is what drives them."
And...
"They negate the mind, they negate evolution, they hate what evolution produces, they hate all living things in fact because all living things radically modify the environment, even the lowliest bacterium. They must hate their own existence. They are a pestilence unto themselves, and they hate themselves for it, along with everyone else."
This is all from Postma's blog,
IMO, this view informs the derisiveness and condescending tone he's used in his comments here at SkS (after all, he's talking to pestilent murders of the mind!)
And it also makes sense that he evades lines of thought that may eventually lead him to different conclusions than his views permit.
Interestingly, his complaints about others' sophism end up being projections, because he himself has to resort to manipulating a scientific conversation to keep his pre-conceived notions safe.
What a shame...
-
MA Rodger at 04:58 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom Curtis @135.
The Cotton-quotes presented by JPostma that you emphasis - I saw in them a more innocent interpretation. Seeing them juxtaposed without the intervening lines which talk about 'quota of radiation' perhaps raises a few doubts in my mind. (It's the description of scattering gets me wondering if this is in some way a mashed-up description of the type of defuse reflection I mentioned @130.) But the writing (Cotton & JPostam both) is so bad and the actual words used so much munbo-jumbo, who knows. (The worst bits of Cotton that I see are not actually in your extracts.)
The first of your emphasised passages I took to be an attempt to explain that the energy flux C to H equals part of the energy flux H to C. So there is no net energy transfer associated with that "cool portion" of the radiation, and I interpreted the 'resonating' and 'scattering' as simply being what heat does within an object.
The second empasised passage also talking of 'resonating' but does seem to be saying that while no energy is transferred by the photon into the receiving object as heat, the re-emitted photon does contribute to the radation a black body is supposed to radiate. The "detection" and "immediate re-radiation" I took to be 'in a manner of speaking' rather than literally.And JPostma's apparent conclusion from this (which he stitches on to an interpretation of Cotton - the join is not well defined) is that the actual existence-or-not of this "cool portion" of the radiation transfer doesn't matter as it doesn't represent a net energy transfer. JPostma seems entirely oblivious to what happens when the "cool portion" increases in size (a is happening with back-radiation). The net energy transfer, the 'hot portion' would then shrink in size. Thus the hot body is saddled with more energy, which in my understanding would make it what is scientifically called 'hotter'. Simples.
JPostma thinks otherwise and considers this 'hotter' state to be sophistic logic. So, I see the guy is a prize numpty however you read him. -
wili at 03:35 AM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
For people interested in this discussion, the same study is being discussed over at RealClimate:
Reports from NZ suggest that they are in a 'stuck' system now. Presumably Frances's theory wouldn't account for southern hemisphere phenomena. So is that just natural variation, or are there different dynamics leading to the same patterns in the south?
Moderator Response:[RH] Hot linked to RC discussion.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 02:49 AM on 19 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
I admire you guys' patience for digging so deep in the bizarro physics world of Postma, Johnson and Cotton. I think Tom summarized it best. They are a little like soneone from the 18th century who couldnt' understand relativity and would absolutely want to reconcile the orbit of Mercury with Newtonian Physics. It is rather annoying that, in the process of attempting that, they feel a need to lecture on how they're the ones getting it right and everybody else is getting it wrong.
-
dr_who1379 at 02:49 AM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
90's in northern Canada---yikes! What does that do for the permafrost?
Obviously, we are in for a much warmer Arctic this year. Methane released from that permafrost will accentuate this years warming of the region for this year and maybe part of next.
Ice? What ice?
-
kmalpede at 01:04 AM on 19 July 2014Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves?
The play "Extreme Whether" uses Jennifer Francis's research on the Jet Stream and Arctic Ice melt. see: www.theaterthreecollaborative.org
-
DSL at 23:45 PM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
The Prescient Photon Theory, much in evidence on the 2nd Law thread.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:14 PM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Rodger @134, I find in the document that Postma approvingly quotes Doug Cotton's gloss on Claes Johnson's theory to the effect that:
"The only (one way) heat transfer between, say, two parallel plates at different temperatures, corresponds to the energy in the radiation represented by the area between the two Planck curves. The Planck curve for the warmer body always envelopes that for the cooler body – i.e., the area under the cooler body's Planck curve is a subset of that for the warmer body. So each body radiates all the frequencies represented by the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body. However, the radiation represented by the area under the cooler body's curve, for both bodies, radiated in each direction, merely resonates in each body and is thus scattered. There is no associated heat transfer. This is how and why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics works for radiation."
And:
"When a body receives incident radiation it "detects" those frequencies (and corresponding intensities) which it can itself radiate. This portion of the incident radiation (which will be all the radiation from a cooler body, or just some from a warmer body) resonates. The resonating process is the process whereby it can "detect" the temperature of the source. The resonating process amounts to immediate re-radiation of equivalent frequencies and intensities. There is no conversion of energy to thermal energy. We know this because if there were, some of that new thermal energy would temporarily warm the already warmer target (impossible by 2nd LoT) and that thermal energy could then escape by means other than radiation."
(My emphasis)
If this is what he believes (and it certainly appears to be), I was being far to generous in my interpretation of his responses to Dikran Marsupial. This would mean that while he does believe "...any photons emitted by the colder object will carry less energy to the warmer object than the photons emitted by the warm object will carry to the cold object", he also believe the emissions from the warmer body are at least in part coordinated by the arrival of photons from the cooler body, such that the arrival of such a photon results in the immediate emission of a photon having the same energy (and hence frequency). That is, the absorption and emission are simultaneious.
Clearly that is a bizarre view, for arrival of photons of the same energy from a warmer body do not generate corresponding simulatenious emissions. Therefore, this theory means that inanimate matter must know the temperature at time of emission of all bodies from which it receives radiation, including across billions of light years of space. It also requires that normal thermal emissions be coordinate presciently to take into account the arrival of photons from cooler bodies (but not warmer) to avoid radiating more than the appropriate thermal radiation. Finally, the full (and only) justification for this bizarre view amounts to the flat denial of statistical thermodynamics. In the end, the theory is justified only by the willful ignorance of over 100 years of the physics of thermodynamics.
-
MA Rodger at 22:21 PM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
In trying to identify the position of JPostma, I don't consider we have lost anything with the recent disappearance of his input from this thread.
I didn't pick up on it initially, but JPostma was so evidently evasive down this thread that, even assuming he never made inadvertent statements, he never in any way made clear his position. Even in his 'published' work, he mostly presents narrative that requires quite some analysis to derive any true meaning, but such an analysis then engenders too much scope for misinterpretation to be entirely sure.In the main he thus presents an excellent obfuscation, but at the expense of appearing a total idiot.
As an example, he linked to one of his 'publications' @17 above that states
"Whether the radiation is short-wave solar insolation or long-wave atmospheric emission, both are absorbed directly at the solid surface of the ground, aside from that portion lost to albedo. That is, heat is generated by the action of absorbed radiation directly at the surface, within the first few millimeters or so of soil, as radiation obviously does not penetrate any further than this."
Yet in this quote he is actually presenting an argument for there being no long-wave atmospheric emissions. To add to the confusion, even his conclusion only appears unambiguously in the caption of a figure he presents. His style is to frequently adopt the 'voice' of the position contrary to his own. So in this quote, even the statement that long wave radiation heats the soil could be construed as being what the greenhouse theory is saying, not what JPostma is saying.
In this 'publication' he only comes unstuck (by demonstrating obvious error) when he runs out of hidy-holes presenting his conclusions. And on every point made, his conclusions are pretty much obviously wrong.
For instance, in his conclusions he supprts the assertion "Backradiation neither causes active heating, nor slowed cooling, at the surface." with the following (Note that the Johnson reference he describes elsewhere as "The only attempt at a mathematical physics explanation for radiation obeying the laws of thermodynamics that this author is aware of," Johnson being one of the Sky-Dragon Slayers.):-"Given Claes Johnson’s description of radiative heat transfer, radiation from a colder ambient radiative environment should slow down the rate of cooling, and we agree with that. What we didn’t agree with was that “slowed cooling” equated to “higher temperature” because that is obviously sophistic logic."
What or who JPostma is agreeing with (and why he becomes "we" or why he changes tense) is not evident. Johnson says the heat transfer is only a one-way process, not a two-way process which is why Johnson disagrees with back-radiation. JPostma sees it otherwise - the maths of Johnson indicates a slowing in the rate of cooling but the effect is the same. According to his JPostma's conclusion, it is logic that somehow denies the existence of back-radiation. In the text he explains a little further - "there is nothing which is more patently absurd" than back-radiation having "twice the heating power of the sun" (which it does have) when the atmosphere is so so cold and the sun so terribly hot.
If you enjoy a good laugh and have the patience, there is certainly a large quantity of patent absurdity in the writing of JPostma.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 17:10 PM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom@132 The fact heat has a tendency to be used somewhat colloquially and that CB Dunkerson and youself had differing interpretations of what JPostma had written is precisely why he would have shown very good sense in answering my question by saying "yes". That would have been completely unambiguous and understood by all and would have cut through the confusion caused by the colloquial used of terms such as "heat".
My use of "socratic method" (as you put it) was intended to do one of two things, either to (i) get to the scientific truth in an efficient manner (as I was designing questions in a manner that reduced the search space of hypotheses rapidly and which were easy for JPostma to answer unambiguously), which would be to JPostma's advantage if he was right or (ii) show that JPostma was not interested in explaining his position and having his theories scrutinised and put to the test. I am saddened that it turned out to be (ii). I am confident that I could have explained JPostma's error to him had he been more willing to discuss the science in a less obstructive manner.
We have learned something about JPostma, which is that his scientific position isn't quite as odd as some of those that make the second law of thermodynamics objection to the greenhouse effect, who seem to think that photons somehow know not to be emitted from a cooler body towards a warmer one. So he has made some progress here, but he could have made so much more by just typing those three letters "y", "e" and "s".
-
Tom Curtis at 09:57 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
CB Dunkerson @128:
Postma says @ 72:
"Please familiarize yourself with the heat flow equation Q = sigma*(Tf^4 - Ti^4). Is the answer still not clear? It also answers your latest question. Please let me know if you still require my help with this, and I will try to make it clear. An object radiates power P = A*sigma*T^4 where A is the surface area and T is the temperature. If you have two objects in a simplified geometry then you get the heat flow as the difference between their emissions, with heat flowing only from the warmer to the cooler. I hope this helps."
(My emphasis)
I think that is pretty clear. If the heat flow is the difference between their emissions, and the heat flow depends on the difference in their temperatures {Q = sigma*(Tf^4 - Ti^4)}, than (at least some) emissions from the cooler object must by absorbed by the warmer object.
He states it almost as clearly @84:
"We simply apply the heat flow equation using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The result is that heat flow is from hotter to cooler, of course. Thus, the cooler object heats up. The cooler one does not heat the warmer one, of course, and the equation for heat flow obviously does not imply this. Equilibrium is given when the respective emissions cancel eachother out, as in Q = sigma*(Tf^4 - Ti^4). Photons are of course emitted and the equation does not say that no photons are emitted from the cooler object, as you have attempted to conjecture. It is the balance of emission which determines equilibrium, not lack of emission."
Frankly, part of the problem is that we (regular commentors at SkS) have a tendency to use the term "heat" colloquially, such that when a cooler body causes a warmer body to be warmer than it woud have been in the cooler bodies absence, it has "heated" the warmer body. In that colluquial usage, it is quite appropriate to say that a person was warmed by their blanket.
However, in the strict scientific usage, the term "heat" as defined as a term in thermodynamics is the net transfer of energy; and the net energy transfer can only go from hotter to colder.
In fact, that definition of heat is itself just a holdover from the calorific theory of heat, which is retained in science only because of the great usefulness of the equations that use it. Standard statements of the laws of thermodynamics are, therefore, like Newton's laws of motion. They belong to a strictly obsolete theory, that is never-the-less more convenient for calculation than the more rigouress theory that has replaced it. The difference, however, is that they theory (classical thermodynamics) is obsolete not because of experimental refutation (that I know of), but because its ontology is stricty inconsistent with the ontology of quantum mechanics. That it, there is no such substance as heat; and the nearest ontological equivalent (energy) does not behave as heat is supposed to behave. Statements about heat therefore become mere abbreviations for more complex statements about energy.
-
mancan18 at 09:39 AM on 18 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
While Murdoch wields a huge influence on the CC debate through his wide media interests, the CC community does not help itself in the argument, because of its scatter gun approach to the whole debate. The CC community seems to have the desire to overwhelm opponents with arguments. It is based on an idea that somehow this will make people accept the CC point of view. Unfortunately, overwhelming evidence without context tends to confuse people rather than convince people with little knowledge. This inconsistent approach makes it easier for opponents of CC to sow seeds of uncertainty. The CC side of the debate needs to approach the certainties of CC in a more methodical manner. This means separating the argument into its various components using a proper scientific approach. Firstly, there is the basic theory. Secondly, the evidence that proves the theory. Thirdly, the likely impacts from the theory. And fourthly, what do we do about alleviating adverse impacts. Also, within this basic structure, the certainties, the uncertainties and what we still need to find out, all need to be clearly delineated along with clearly differentiating between what is natural CC change and what is unnatural CC related to AGW. Unfortunately, most of the debate in the popular media revolves around the evidence that proves the theory like is it warming or isn't it, or should we do something or shouldn't we; are we observing any early impacts; and what is the most effective approach to overcome the impacts and how we to do it. Also, much debate in the wdier media revolves around analyses and predictions from climate models and whether they are accurate or not, which again is a discussion about evidence rather than basic theory.
The basics in this debate are:
1. CO2, Methane etc. are greenhouse gases. This hypothesis is easily proven from basic physics and chemistry without resorting to any climate models.2. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Again easily proven without referring climate models.
3. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activity. Again easily proven, although the isotopic evidence and decrease in the oxygen component of the atmosphere is not so easily understood.
4. Increasing greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere will warm the planet. Again this hypothesis is easily proven although there is some uncertainty as to what extent. However, there is at least certainty that a doubling of CO2 will directly cause a 1.2 degree increase in temperature without referring to any feedback effects. Although this can be verified by experimentation in the lab, this is where most of the seeds of uncertainty are sown.
Most of the actual scientific discussion between opponents centres around this issue, whether it is warmer than it was or whether weather events are more extreme. Also, whether the recent observed warming is due to increasing greenhouse gases or whether the recent warming is natural and has released the greenhouse gases, although theories 2 and 3 proves it isn't. Despite the debate around all this, it still doesn't change the basic premise of greenhouse gases warming the atmosphere, because if the planet doesn't warm then our understanding of basic science is seriously flawed.
5. A warming planet will cause a change in the weather. Again easily proven from the basic science of warming gases and liquids.
Very rarely in the debate are these certainties ever referred to. To convince the unconvinced, the certainties need to be made, as often as possible, by proper scientific journalists using appropriate metaphors that can be easily understood by people who are just trying to understand, and to debunk the deniers political obfrustation. This should be done as often as possible, because it then makes the anti-CC stance look a little less convincing. While you won't convince the conspiracy theorists, you should convince the people who don't believe the "Roswell" and "Man didn't Land on the Moon" bunk. Only then can discussion about evidence, impacts and what we do about them, be put into their proper context.
SkS is valuable in providing proper information but it is still a little daunting for the beginner, to navigate.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:26 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Rodger @130, diffuse reflection can come about either due the very irregular surfaces at the scale of the wavelength of the incident light, or through partial reflection of light of crystal (or other discrete) subsurfaces in a translucent object. Wikipedia illustrates the later process for a quartz like substance:
"Figure 1 – General mechanism of diffuse reflection by a solid surface (refraction phenomena not represented)"
The mechanism for diffuse reflection in snow and ice obviously follows the mechanism above. Water droplets (as in cloud or fog) also follow the mechanism, but only for light rays that strike at a high angle of incidence. Most photons with a low angle of incidence enter the droplets and are either absorbed in the droplet or reflected coherently by wavelength in the phenomenon which generates rainbows. The dependence on angle of incidence for the amount of diffuse reflection in droplets is why clouds with smaller droplet size also have higher albedo.
-
Non-Scientist at 07:53 AM on 18 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
@foolonthehill, Lloyd, Jenna
Tx for the perspective.
I'm speaking not of all older people, hopefully not of most, but some I've known. I'm also speaking from personal experience, as I'm approaching that age and have a neurological disease, and am seeing bits of those qualities impinging on me. I try to adapt around them, but as it is with climate, one can't entirely outrun Nature.
-
MA Rodger at 05:10 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom Curtis @126.
To be more exact about reflection of light, the light from the mountain top or wherever is the result of 'defuse' reflection rather than the mirror-like 'specular' reflection. My understanding of defuse reflection is that it is a lot more complex than simply photons bouncing off the various features of a rough surface/subsurface and can involve a photon being absorbed followed very closely by a newly created photon of the same wavelength being emitted. How important/common the various mechanisms of defuse reflection I know not. -
kampmannpeine at 03:18 AM on 18 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
It is always the same:
if you are claiming something, you have the burden of proof.
I just came about an atheist homepage (myself not being one :) ) - the same arguments from the believers ...http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm
it seems to be a similar kind of epistemological discussion ...
-
KR at 02:27 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Rodger - You're quite correct, reflection is something else entirely.
As an emissivity/warming test, how about the following. Open your freezer, stand back a meter or two (outside any convection), and hold your hand up towards it. Your hand will feel cool. Turn your hand towards the rest of the room, it will feel somewhat warmer.
Nothing has changed with convection/conduction, but the radiated IR from the kitchen, despite the kitchen being cooler than your hand/body, is higher than that from the freezer. An object cooler than your hand has warmed it.
Again, the starting point for radiative energy input to an object is zero - any outside object warmer than absolute zero will radiate some energy towards it, increasing the input energy flow, and warming it until outgoing energy matches incoming. Cool objects warm nearby warmer ones relative to there being no object there are all.
-
CBDunkerson at 02:12 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom wrote: "Rather, he has said that any photons emitted by the colder object will carry less energy to the warmer object than the photons emitted by the warm object will carry to the cold object."
I don't think that interpretation of Postma's position is possible/accurate unless you change "less energy" to "no energy". It seems very clear that he doesn't believe a colder object can 'heat' a warmer object at all. Transferring "less energy" per photon would still result in the colder object giving the warmer object a higher temperature than it would have if the colder object were not there at all... which is contrary to Postma's position. As he put it;
"It can be misinterpreted by inferring that a cold source can heat a warmer source."
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:47 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom wrote "Rather, he has said that any photons emitted by the colder object will carry less energy to the warmer object than the photons emitted by the warm object will carry to the cold object."
I think that is a rather charitable interpretation (which is in general what I would recommend) of what he has actually written (but not what I would recommend if the exercise was to clarify exactly what he was saying). However in that case he would be consistent with modern statistical intepretations of thermodynamics, in which case there is no problem with backradiation warming the surface (relative to the temperature it would assume in the absence of backradiation). It is a pity that he refused to give direct answers to direct questions (without being obstructive). If he had, we would already have resolved this by now. His loss entirely.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:36 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Rodger @124, when light is reflected of an object, it is not absorbed and then rapidly re-emitted. Rather it is not absorbed at all, merely reflected, and hence contains practically zero information about the temperature of the reflecting object. Nor has Postma said that no photons will travel from the colder to the warmer object. Rather, he has said that any photons emitted by the colder object will carry less energy to the warmer object than the photons emitted by the warm object will carry to the cold object.
He might have said it clearer, but that is what he has said.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:22 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
MA Roger, I agree, however wrapping a satellite in multiple layer insulation might be though.
-
MA Rodger at 00:11 AM on 18 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
I have been assuming that when, for instance, the early morning sun illuminates a distant icy peak, the radiation by which I see it is reflected from its frosted summit - that is absorbed but then re-emitted before it has a chance to boost the thermal content of the ice. Thus in allowing my eye to detect the mountain, it is not in any way resultant from the temperature of the cold mountain top (relative to the temperature inside my eyeball). Contrary to comment @ 110 & @109/123, I therefore do not consider seeing cold objects as adding to the evidence that JPostma (?or devon) is wrong.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:55 PM on 17 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
John @34,
When you consider the following:
- there are many other damaging impacts, and risks of significant damage, from all the activities related to the burning of fossil fuels, not just the creation of excess CO2
- fossil fuels will only be less and less available for everyone to benefit from because they are a finite resource. The easiest to get has already been used up.
- There has been violent conflict as powerful people have others people fight for their opportunity to win more of the opportunity to benefit. There will be even more violent conflict as the resource dwindles and more people want more of the benefit.
It would seem irrational for anyone to disagree with curtailing the opportunity for anyone, especially an already wealthy person, to benefit from such a damaging unsustainable activity.
And yet there is fierce opposition to such a rational development toward a sustainable better future for all.
That can be best explained by the developed nations developing in a way that created a strong motivation for people to care more about getting the best present they can for themselves any way they can get away with, rather than striving to develop a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet. People with that attitude only support something they personally expect to benefit from. Some will try to claim it is basic human nature, but altruism and desiring to help others are also basic human nature. And those people will be very biased in the information gathering and learning. They will only accept what is in their interest.
The persistent arguments against protecting the future from disrupted climate change due to callous unacceptable human activity proves how damaging and dangerous and ultimately unsustainable the developed system has become. It is clear that the system developed in the developed nations promotes callousness and discourages altruism. It is that system, promoted by the likes of Murdoch (who fight for more people to demand the freedom to do whatever damaging unhelpful thing they please), that must change. Then, and only then, will there be real action to stop the unacceptable pursuits of those among us who only care about themselves.
Some people will never change their mind. And the popularity of unacceptable things can be prolonged, but cannot be indefinitely sustained. The future of humanity requires development of societies that do not allow selfish people to feel justified and emboldened. It requires societies where such people constantly fail quickly and are endlessly disappointed, even if it makes them angry, even if it means they are being "kept from having the freedom to do as they please". The only freedom for such people needs to be the freedom to change their mind.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:58 PM on 17 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
devon wrote: "I beleive that J Postma HAS made a valid point here and more than adequately addressed the question."
Yep. That's why the Earth is shrouded in perpetual darkness. After all, photons can't possibly travel from space, which is cold, to the Earth's atmosphere, which is warmer. There is no sunlight. It does not warm the Earth. Can't happen.
Either that or what you believe to be "a valid point" is instead, obviously wrong.
-
chriskoz at 22:39 PM on 17 July 2014Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes
The most important detail in that atlas worth special attention (not mentioned in this article) is the statistcs of the number of events reported broken up to 4 decades of the timespan considered, then further broken up into continents.
Although related casualty $ damage statistics vary wildly (e.g. in Africa, interestingly, the $ dropped to near *zero* in last two decades), the event number statistics are unmistakeable: steadily rising each decade both globaly and in each continent. In most continents the rise seams linear but in Afrika it's exponentisially doubling every decade!
How much of this remarkable rise can be explained by better reporting and increased population density since 1970? Certainly not all, although it's not easy to say exactly. However such ubiquitous rise, including in areas where population didn't change significantly (Europe), indicates strongly that AGW factor (increased energy in weather systems) is at play here.
-
John Michael Carter at 19:33 PM on 17 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
I don't think that most people know the basics of climate change.
I saw a few comments that implied it was inexcusable, but I think the readership here (Ive already linked over a few times now because I know the quality is always solid) is far more knowledgeable. I also think making it mainly about specific future temperature changes, which is semi speculation, makes it easy for people to think that it "wont come to pass," and also doesnt really convey any sense of what is REALLY really going on, and when people know what is really going on, then they are far more connected to the issue (and understand it far better,something drastically lacking today,and desperately needed for desperately needed improved assessment. I mean most politicians in America don't even really understand the issue well.)
I really don't see the basics of the issue expressed much at all. I tried to give what I think is "really the problem," and the basics, regardless of modeling. I do know that when I've actually conversed with people, almost no one knows this basic stuff, and unless they are super extreme politically, they are usually surprised, more concerned,and usually shift their view on CC a little bit. (In person anyway, online its wildly polarized and polarizing, and all the condescension, and even unnecessary if mild misreprsentation or, more often, dismssal on some of the "have the issue correct" sites, of the "have the issue incorrect" sites and people who are misled on them, etc, doesn't help make the basic near incontrovertible case, and immediatley loses the one audiecne that is needed to actually increase knowledge rather than just self reinforce. It makes people very defensive and then even more blindly adherent to proving theyre right no matter what. (extreme examples of such adherence being wuttsupwthat, where the intense level of hifalutin prose, mangled context and equations along with clearly genuine belief in their special "smarter than everybody else" insider knowledge that climate scientists are quacks, is inversely proportional to their actual knowledge on the basics of the issue)
I also strongly think that calling this issue climate change - regardless of possibly setting up fuel for more far right gimmickery that "the AGW crowd" is "changing the name because the facts aren't working" - has really added to major confusion on and misunderstanding of the issue. (Remember, most of America for example, and Australia does not have the knowledge of a lot of readers of this site.) It causes people to conflate what is observable right now as climate with the actual problem, when it's not remotely. ) I try to explain here why the CC moniker does that. I think it's a pretty coherent case.
Re Murdoch's tragedy of the commons argument, it's a decent one and genuinely made all over the place, yet flawed, but rarely affectively addressed. Here, anyway. For the majority of mankind's modern cc gg emissions period, the U.S. dominated the world in total emissions, at one point responsble for an entire quarter of global emissions? (Or something.) The U.S. is still the global power/world leader. Between that fact and that the U.S. has been the huge world leader on causing the problem in the first place, sensible U.S. action and leadership on the issue by both example and simultaneous and ongoing advocation to other countries will make it very easy for other countries to follow. Not as strong an argument for Australia, but given the level of misino their I can't see why Australia couldnt workin concert with the U.S on this, and make the above case even stronger. (If Australia gets us in, suddenly that argument that doing something in Australia is not worth it, flies out the window.)
I have a concise remediation plan (for the actual climate problem, not the misinformation problem keeping us for even effectively assessing the climate problem), that maximizes results, minimizes costs, maximizes efficiency, minimizes government, meets or beats many ideologically driven impediments to open mindedness on the issue. And, it also mentions the key leadership role of the U.S., so that it's not immediately assumed doing something in the U.S at least won't have much of an affect worldwide. I'd link to it as well but have enough links in this post; its on my blog, posted today.
Moderator Response:[JH] Words written in "all caps" constitute shouting and are therefore prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:23 PM on 17 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Devon, I supplied the example you requested; I am willing to go through the physics with you, provided you are willing to adopt the "Socratic method" (i.e. being willing to promptly give direct answers to direct questons).
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:19 PM on 17 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Tom, The misunderstanding that you suggest Postma was labering under is not reasonable as the initial question clearly stated that the iron had equilibriated wuth the furnace prior to the furnace being switched off.
Time passes and the iron is soaked in the furnace and the furnace is then switched off, now quickly becoming cooler than the hot iron. [emphasis mine]
I also addressed this possible misunderstanding as soon as there was clear evidence that it might be the problem, i.e. in the very first reply to the post you mention
you say "somehow" as if to suggest this is an unlikely scenario. It clearly isn't. The iron in the furnace (as we are discussing radiative transfer) is likely to be insulated (if only by a vacuum) from the body of the furnace, so if the body of the furnace is cooled after the iron has equilibriated with it, then of course the iron will cool more slowly.
Tom writes:
There is a bit more argy bargy, but by his post @88, I think Postma has clearly answered your question. Specifically, he writes:
"'A' emits photons in all directions...."
The problem with this answer is that it does not mention object B and hence is open to equivocation later in a way that the answer "yes" is not. "YES" is only three characters, so why would Postma go to the extra effort writing 34, if not to be deliberately obstructive? BTW, if you notice post 88 was quite a long way into the discussion of that very basic question, and I had already lost patience with his continual obfuscation, as demonstrated by my reply. Giving what you think is an unambiguous answer, after so much obfuscation, in no way excuses JPostma's behaviour, or warrants me continuing the discussion.
Giving "yes" and "no" answers is also hardly "parroting terms"!
As to the effectiveness of Socratic methods. Firstly when your interloqutor is being deliberately obfuscatory (as is the case here e.g. "the lump of iron radiates what is required of it"), it is not at all unreasonable to require that questions be given a "yes" or "no" answer if they are deliberately framed to elicit an answer of that form, and the good reasons for doing so clearly explained.
Secondly, Socratic method is an excellent method for seeking scientific truth, provided that is what both parties are actually seeking. Its use here has provided a definite indication that Postma is not seeking scientific truth, which suggests any form of scientific dialogue is likely to prove unfruitful.
It is a shame that Postma was not willing to engage in a Socratic dialogue, as it would have provided him with the most direct route to proving that I am wrong (should such a route exist, being a scientists myself, I do not deny the existence of such a route a-priori, and actively want to be shown it should it exist).
JPostma has gone some way in showing that his views are not quite as bizarre as those of some who cite the second law of thermodynamics as an objection to the EGHE, in that he suggested that cooler objects do emit photons that strike warmer ones. However getting to that point was like getting blood out of a stone, and it left me without the enthusiasm required to get him to clearly state the answer to the next question. Life is too short, someone either is interested in communicating their scientific ideas and having them scrutinised, or they are not. JPostma is in the latter category.
Prev 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 Next
