Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 Next
Comments 43551 to 43600:
-
shoyemore at 20:21 PM on 20 July 2013The Economist Screws Up on the Draft IPCC AR5 Report and Climate Sensitivity
IPCC Statement:
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/statement_wg3_table.pdf
GENEVA, 19 July -
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that an article has been published in The Economist citing a table that appears in the second order draft of the IPCC Working Group III contribution to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report.
This draft, like any IPCC draft, is the result of the IPCC's iterative process of writing and review process and thus a work in progress. The text is likely to change in response to comments from government and expert reviewers. It is therefore premature and can be misleading to attempt to draw conclusions.
-
Micawber at 20:15 PM on 20 July 2013Global warming games - playing the man not the ball
CSLDF is a significant source of help to beleaguered scientists who in my experience have a strong belief if data-based truth and expect legal or justice systems to work on this basis. The Anglo-American adversarial legal system works by arguing polarised views with the winner being the best arguer. That is not necessarily or even usually the truth. Indeed a Harvard law prof stated that in his experience the verdict in legal cases rarely reflected the evidence. He said it was fortunate that accused were usually guilty of something so a guilty verdict could be justified.
It is a total shock to hardworking scientists to be exposed to such an unjust system. Clever wordsmiths can twist a narrative into a very persuasive argument that can easily sway non-scientist judge and jury. So CSLDF is welcome, though it will only make the lawyers even richer.
I note CSLDF is US-based. Science is international. One only has to think of Climategate and Phil Jones of UEA to realised that an international branch of CSLDF is sorely needed. Indeed Monckton is UK based for his international fund-raising attacks against climate science. He is thoroughly imbued with Catholic belief system so the parallels to Galileo were appropriately drawn in your article. Thus the deniers have an international fund raising association (hence the request for the Knights of Malta). Is there an international arm to CSLDF? -
MA Rodger at 19:16 PM on 20 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
A previous thread was opened up to this discussion with jmorpuss by Moderator Decree although moderators were kept busy. The final act was a proposed jump to a more appropriate thread where a rebuttal remains unaddressed by any counter-argument 18 months on.
Simply put, the tiny tiny fraction of the total energy-use of mankind that is present in radio waves sent into the atmosphere is incapable of impacting climate to any significant amount. Mankind's enhancement of the greenhouse effect is fifty-times greater than mankinds total energy-use. How then can a tiny tiny fraction of that already small fraction have a significant impact on climate?
If jmorpuss wishes to answer that question, perhaps he should do so on the thread with the unaddressed rebuttal.
Moderator Response:[TD] Thank you for the detective work! I had entirely forgotten that history, so I was baffled by jmorpuss's comments. Further comments by jmorpuss or anybody on that topic must be on the thread MA Rodger pointed to. Comments here, by anybody not just jmorpuss, will be deleted.
-
gpwayne at 15:54 PM on 20 July 2013The Economist Screws Up on the Draft IPCC AR5 Report and Climate Sensitivity
chriskoz: the 'PD' stands for 'peak and decline'.
The other scenarios are named after the w/m2 forcings - whereas RPC 3-PD posits a maximum of 3 w/m2, dropping to 2.6 w/m2 by 2100. I think it's confusing however, and elsewhere I've seen rather critical reactions to it as a pathway due to the rather unlikely nature of the scenario.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:20 AM on 20 July 2013CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
CBlargh @8, I haven't really looked into it. Certainly it is plausible, and the Taconic orogeny occurs at about the right time to explain it. I do not, however, know the precise timing, nor what other events might be simultaneious with the Hirnantian cC13 excursion. Therefore it is a possible explanation only.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:06 AM on 20 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
jmorpuss @263, no he is not. Just because he mentions the ionosphere does not mean he was pursuing your particular brand of pseudo-science. Further, the Earth's dynamo effect has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, and nor is it maintained by the energy of the sun.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:01 AM on 20 July 2013The Economist Screws Up on the Draft IPCC AR5 Report and Climate Sensitivity
Chriskoz @3, having had a closer look, it appears that you are correct and I am wrong.
Having said that, the radiative forcing of RCP 3-PD peaks at just over 3 W/m^2 in 2045, and drops to 2.6 W/m^2 by 2100. Were the radiative forcing held constant at 3 W/m^2, it would take approximately 200 years to reach the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Alternatively, had the radiative forcing been held constant from the time it reached 2.6 W/m^2 (2021), it would likewise take two hundred years to reach equilibrium climate sensitivity. It is unlikely, therefore, that in the RCP 3-PD scenario that equilibrium climate sensitivity will be reached in 2100.
So, not only does the Economist compare different scenarios, but they do not compare strictly equivalent values. Their fudge that "...the practical distinction would not be great so long as concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse-gas emissions were stable or falling by 2100" is unsound.
-
jmorpuss at 10:47 AM on 20 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
I think Old sage has been trying to explain the importance of the Earths Dynamo Effect and it's production of electomagnetic field lines.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
scaddenp at 10:23 AM on 20 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
"Alas, your failure, again, is to validate your thoughts against reality"
Old Sage much prefers misconception to reality and by refusing to look at any evidence to the contrary is effectively got fingers in ears yelling "la, la, la". More what I would expect from a 8 year old.
-
CBlargh at 07:01 AM on 20 July 2013CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
@Tom: Thanks for your reply.
It looks from the chart that this occurred later. Is increased weathering the accepted cause of the dC13 spike during the Hirnantian?
Never underestimate the power of a liverwort!
-
chriskoz at 20:32 PM on 19 July 2013The Economist Screws Up on the Draft IPCC AR5 Report and Climate Sensitivity
Tom@1,
Actually, on the Figure 5 in Dana's link to AR5 scenarios, in the RCP 3-PD scenario, the deltaT stays in at 1.7C and does not rise beyond 2100 suggesting it to be this scenario's equilibrium, rather than theoretical equilibrium of 1.7*1.5 = 2.55C.
I haven't read AR5 yet (no point doing it if I'm not a reviewer), but the key fallacy and misrepresentation by Economist here, appears to be that they tried to equate the RCP 3-PD scenario with Category 1 of TAR. Those are quire different scenarios. Category 1 TAR assumed emissions dropping after 2050 but staying positive throughout; while RCP 3-PD assumes emissions dropping below zero in 2070. Not realistic IMO, but the ingenuity of our children may do miracles. That would suposedly result in CO2 decline in second part of XXI and T not go to the 3Wm-2 equilibrium but stabilise around 2070 levels. The radiative forcings of AR5 scenarios are shown precisely here. BTW, anyone knows what "PD" stands for in RCP 3-PD acronym?
So, have the Economist reviewed carefuly the differences between TAR and AR5, they would not make such stupid comment. But from their narrative, it looks like they did not even bother distinguishing between equilibrium T and 2100y T, so it's hardly surprising they cannot understand the language of IPCC reports.
-
Lanfear at 20:11 PM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Sorry Bob@259, this piece is irresistable :-/
"I'd just like to wrap up this exchange by saying there is evidence of energy exchange between the outer plasma and earth and it would be a very brave man who would deny its possibility."
Bluntly put, so what?
Your claim is at most a red herring or straw man, since nobody has denied the existence of the said phenomen.
What you have totally failed in is showing any evidence that the said phenomen is:
- Quantitatively relevant
- Any way fitting with the rest of the observed changes (see Tom's excellent point which I quoted in my previous writing)
Simply put, you jump over the necessary step of actually validating your thoughts by checking whether there are any actual evidence that supports your belief. Another good example of this kind of shortcoming can be seen in the cosmic ray explanation.
"If the earth only had O2 and N2, there would still be a 'greenhouse' effect"
This is funny. And just as you redefine the 'greenhouse' effect to mean something else, I redefine funny meaning 'not even wrong'.
"their failure to absorb and emit means their take up by conduction and convection could only be lost through transport"
Alas, your failure, again, is to validate your thoughts against reality.
Your setup is a planet with a pure N2+O2 atmosphere. This means that the atmosphere is transparent both in visible as well as IR spectrum. Since we know that the vast majority of the incoming energy comes in in these forms, the visible will either be absorbed by the ground/sea, or b) reflected (visible light), according to the albedo coefficient.
What about the absorbed energy, now transformed to heat? How does it get re-emitted from ground/sea? Some of it undoubtedly can be transferred by conduction, but a notable amount is also transmitted by IR. If you don't accept this, then you need to explain how exactly the IR cameras works.
Now since your atmosphere does not contain any element that can absorb IR radiation, it will dissipate to outer space. Compare this situation to our real atmosphere where the atmosphere contains GHGs which absorb and re-emit IR, and you should understand that logically this difference makes your example a cooler world when all other items are kept the same. In reality we do have both negative and positive feedbacks which alter the outcome, but these do not change the basic physical properties of N2, O2 nor CO2.
Hence it is evident that you either have a very poor understanding of the reality, or you choose to dismiss a notable amount of inconvenient information even from our daily life.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:19 PM on 19 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
funglestrumpet, try this description.
- Atoms have a property called Electronegativity. This essentially describes how strongly an atopm holds its electrons to itself. Oxygen is strongly electronegative, Hydrogen much less so for example
- When aroms are combined to form molecules, differences in the electronegativity of the component atoms can mean that the electrons from all the atoms in the molecule may tend to cluster bit closer to the more electronegative atoms. As a result some molecules can have what is known as a charge separation across the molecule. One side of the molecule is somewhat negative and the other side is somewhat positive. This can't happen for symetrical molecules such as O2 or N2 - this is why they aren't GH molecules.
- The bonds that link the atoms in a molecule together aren't rigid, they are flexible. So the atoms can jiggle around on the ends of their bonds like balls on springs.
- So with a charge separation and 'jiggling', we end up with electric charges that are in motion. In particular, charges that are accelerating. Maxwells Equations that describe all electrical activity tell us that acelerating electric charges can generate Electro-Magnetic Radiation. A transmitter for example works because electrons are sent charging backwards and forwards along a wire, 'launching' EM radiation into space. The movement of the charges on the end of the molecular bonds are doing the same thing. When a GH molecule radiates some EM Radiation, it is acting just like a transmitter.
- Conversely, when EM radiation passes over an electric charge it can set that charge into motion. This is how a receiving antenna works - the EM radiation passing by sets the electrons racing in the antenna. So to for those charges on the molecular bonds; some EM RAdiation can set them jiggling faster. So when a GH molecule absorbs some EM radiation, it is acting just like a receiver.
- So when a GH molecule absorbs some energy from a photon of EM Radiation, the energy of that photon gets converted into Kinetic energy of motion for the atoms in the molecule.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:41 PM on 19 July 2013A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
And add that he used UAH satellite data rather than the results from RSS that show nerly twice as much warming.
Sometimes ya just gotta luv how creative some skeptics can be with data. Cherry farmers every single one of them.
-
scaddenp at 18:10 PM on 19 July 2013A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
"Some of your graphics are innacurate". That would be one of the funnier comments we have seen.
-
old sage at 18:07 PM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
I'd just like to wrap up this exchange by saying there is evidence of energy exchange between the outer plasma and earth and it would be a very brave man who would deny its possibility. So more to be done, look up Van Allen for those interested.
If the earth only had O2 and N2, there would still be a 'greenhouse' effect, their failure to absorb and emit means their take up by conduction and convection could only be lost through transport to a cooler place thus minimising the extremes of an empty atmosphere. I am surprised that you cannot look up tables of concentration v penetration depth for at least a few of the characteristic absorbing frequencies to give some idea of when absorption is 100 %. We might well be there and only soot particles be now contributing to the absorption of additional frequencies. -
Tom Curtis at 16:30 PM on 19 July 2013A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
Bob Loblaw @130, you missed the outragious claim that Scenario A was what "actually occurred". Given that CO2 concentrations, as indeed all other GHG concentrations were still below the Scenario B values in 2010, and the total GHG forcing was less than that in scenario B, such a claim cannot have been honestly made. It was either made in ignorance of the data, and hence what actually happened, and is dishonest in implicitly claiming that knowledge, or it is more directly dishonest in that the person making the claim knew it to be false when they made it. As you say, very illuminating.
-
Bob Loblaw at 14:09 PM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Phillippe, a 252, a dit tout qu'il faut dire.
Tom: I expect the "Sage" is a spice, not an IQ. A condiment accompanying large quantities of turkey, which is what his posts are looking like.
Old Sage: I have spent years measuring the IR radiation you say "looked right" at 45 W/m2, and it was obviously wrong to me. I have also spent many years measuring the convective/turbulent energy fluxes you talk about, and you are obviously wrong about those, too. You appear to be the only one your vast misunderstandings aren't obvious to.
I think Old Sage has gone deep into troll territory. I suggest DNFTT.
-
Bob Loblaw at 14:00 PM on 19 July 2013A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
Wow, that's quite an iulluminating comment, applebloom.
First, you graph a prediction of surface temperature agains satellite data, which is not a surface temperature. Strike 1.
Then you use a graph that shifts the prediction up to match a high spike from 1988 in noisy data, to maximize the chance that later data will fall below the prediction. Strike 2.
Then you provide a graph that looks like it has taken a 100-year IPCC scenario result and treated the value is if it is linear over the period, and claim it's too high. Strike 3.
Did you apply any skepticism to that source at all? Or did you just accept it hook, line, and sinker?
-
applebloom at 13:47 PM on 19 July 2013A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
Some of your graphics are innacurate. Here is Hansen's model compared to actual temperatures:
IPCC prediction and reality:
Taken from here: https://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case
-
vrooomie at 11:25 AM on 19 July 2013The Economist Screws Up on the Draft IPCC AR5 Report and Climate Sensitivity
Well-done, Dana: cue the denialati in 3.... 2... 1.....
I am sure that, as their fallacious assertions get more and more debunked, they are going to get more and more shrill, and more and more nasty. Hang onto your hats, kids.....
-
Tom Curtis at 11:25 AM on 19 July 2013The Economist Screws Up on the Draft IPCC AR5 Report and Climate Sensitivity
The consistency of the comparisons is established quite easilly. The ratio between the transient climate response (reported in AR5 draft) and the equilibrium climate sensitivy (reported in AR4) is about two thirds. Thus the values reported in AR4 equate to transient responses of 1.3 to 1.6 C, compared to the 1.3 to 1.7 C reported in the AR5 draft. The slight difference is to small to matter.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:12 AM on 19 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
Ian Forrester @12, thank you. I had in fact found that interview already, but do not consider it sufficient context. In particular, von Storch bases his views on a series of model runs he performed at the University of Hamburg. He does not indicate of the research has been published so that there is, on public record, sufficient information to critically examine his claims.
He does not indicate whether his results were based on a HadCRUT4 mask, so that it did not include data from rapidly warming Arctic regions that are excluded from HadCRUT4.
He does not indicate wether or not the model he used generates ENSO like fluctuations in the Pacific, and so whether or not it incorporates the major source of natural short term variability. I took the data for the Southern Oscillation Index, inverted it and normalized it to the HadCURT4 temperature record, thus giving a reasonable prediction of what global temperatures would be doing absent any forcing. The resulting trend was -0.05 C equivalent per decade. Adjusting the HadCRUT4 data to eliminate that negative trend results in a warming trend of 0.139 C per decade which is statistically significant. The point here is without accounting for the effects of the ENSO oscilation it is impossible to understand the current "pause" in temperature increases, and no model that does not emulate those oscilations can hope to correctly assess the probability of 15 year "pauses".
Nor does he indicate which set of forcings he uses. For example, the lates GISS forcing data shows a near zero trend in forcings over the early twentieth century, in large part due to a transition from a solar maximum to a solar minimum:
Does the Hamburg model really only show 15 year "pauses" in warming only 2% of the time during periods in which there is a 15 year "pause" in the increase in forcings? Or have they merely used forcing data that does not accurately reflect actual forcings over the last decade?
Finally, he does not even indicate whether they defined "stagnation" as zero trend, or a trend statistically indistinguishable from zero. The current "pause" in temperature increase exhibits the later, but not the former. If it is defined as the former, he has misrepresented the applicability of his research to the current temperature data. If the later, again I find it incredible that they would only find a trend of 0.12 C per decade or less just 2% of the time.
There may be more substance to von Storch's claims than I would credit given the background knowledge I have. It looks, however, unlikely. The research may be quite fine and above board, and totally inapplicable because it does not model appropriate conditions. Or the research may simply be very shoddy, coming up with incredible results. Or I may have something to learn here. But until the research is released I do not have enough context to say.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:41 AM on 19 July 2013It's not us
Also responding to acjames @76, expanding on KR's point, arctic and antarctic regions are known to be more sensitive to changes in temperature than tropical regions due to ice and snow albedo feedbacks. Dr Hansen estimates that the Vostock (and Dome C) ice cores in Antarctica show local temperature changes twice that of the global mean, and Greenland icecores are even more sensitive. Nevertheless, taking an average the Greenland and Antarctic icecores is not a bad way to determine the general pattern of global temperature changes, if not the magnitude. It should be noted in doing so that the fact that you are using only two records and both from polar regions (which have greater temperature variability than tropical regions) will mean that you radically over estimate decadal variability in such an average. A one hundred year smooth of the data would give a better idea.
If ignoring the impact of the limited number of sites is bad, when using the data to estimate variability, ignoring polar amplification when comparing with the modern temperature record is absurd. That, however, is exactly what Richard Moore does. Here is the chart he produces by appending the global mean twentieth century temperatures to the polar means as determined from icecores:
The key point here is that to account for polar amplification, we would need to divide the icecore data by two, or equivalently multiply the global data by two for a plausible comparison. Even that would probably underestimate the ratio of polar to global temperature changes. Doing so, however, wold increase twentieth century global temperature equivalence to 1.4 C, well above the highest values from the average ice core data. Further, the highest points in the icecore data are from short term variability and likely reflect regional variation rather than global variation. Applying a smooth to the data would make the modern temperatures stand out still further.
Clearly Moore's argument that modern temperatures are not unusual is fatally flawed.
His argument that it is not CO2 consists, as near as I can make out, solely in citing Spencer and then pointing out that sourcewatch does not link to any rebutals. Sourcewatch is, of course, a website solely devoted to listing institutional and financial connections of various sources of information. It is not part of the ambition of source watch to survey scientific research and rebut particular arguments. Moore has only looked for rebutals to Spencer's claims were we can be confident he would not find them. Had he looked at Skeptical Science, however, he would have been more than satisfied. In particular he would have found a direct rebutal of Spencer's claims about climate sensitivity. By limiting his search, however, Moore gets to falsely pretend that there is no such rebutal available, avoids the need to rebut the rebutals, and gets the falsely play the ad hominen card as well. Not a bad return for being, at best, a slovenly researcher.
Finally, Moore finishes with a conspiracy theory which is not worth commenting on, but certainly makes an interesting point about his intellectual credibility.
-
KR at 10:13 AM on 19 July 2013Models are unreliable
acjames76 - I have replied on the more appropriate It's not us thread.
Moderator Response:[TD] Thank you for thread-herding!
-
newairly at 10:08 AM on 19 July 2013Science does inform policy making … sometimes
I believe that there are hydrocarbon based refrigerants which are very suitable for use in automotive and domestic refrigeration. It is claimed that systems using these are up to 36% more efficient than conventional refrigerants. 8 million refrigerators per year are now produced in Europe using hydrocarbon refrigerant so it is clearly well proven.
There are other alternatives to HFCs such as CO2. This article from Department of Environment and Water Resources in Australia has interesting comparisons and case studies http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone/publications/pubs/refrigerants-guide.pdf
In the past there has been a lot of rather hysterical reaction to the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants, especially in cars with some Australian states banning the use on supposed "safety" grounds. They loved to show a Hollywood style car explosion where a car is filled with LPG and exploded.
-
KR at 10:07 AM on 19 July 2013It's not us
acjames76 - Moore has quite a list of denial myths, errors, and cherry-picks in that document.
First and foremost, he insists on using regional records (Greenland and Vostok) and treating them as global. This includes the rather silly statement "...that global averages are a very poor indicator of actual conditions in either hemisphere." Which is just silly. Regional data will always have higher variations and noise than hemispheric or global signals - any time you see someone preferring a small regional signal to one for a larger area and arguing about global trends, you are seeing cherry-picking fallacies in action.
He also compares against lower tropospheric satellite temperatures shown over a period of less than five years - when about 23-24 years are required to identify statistical trends.
Cycles, cycles, cycles - all ignoring the (measured) forcing contributions from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with armwaving such as "Perhaps the forces have to do with cycles in solar radiation and solar magnetism, or cosmic radiation, or something we haven’t yet identified".
He also throws in the "CO2 is a trace gas", the "clouds", and "CO2 is plant food" myths - all contradicted by the evidence.
There's plenty more, but in short he's presented a Gish Gallop of nonsense. Not worth the electrons used reading it...
-
acjames76 at 09:44 AM on 19 July 2013Models are unreliable
I have had some conversations with Richard Moore, who says,
"The warming we have experienced is real, but it is not unusual, it is not alarming, and it bas nothing to do with CO2. What I'm looking for is an intelligent response to my analysis:"
rkmdocs.blogspot.ie/2010/01/climate-science-observations-vs-models.html
I find it a bit too detailed to get the gist of what he is saying. Does anyone have the time to comment on it?Thanks,
...Alan James
alan_james@handshake.ca
-
Phil at 09:04 AM on 19 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
funglestrumpet @22
Just to be clear:
The change in dipole-moment during a molecular vibration is a requirement for IR radiation to be absorbed. It has nothing to do with the random direction of the subsequently emitted radiation.
The fact that a gas will emit radiation in all directions is, I think, intuitively obvious; in that the molecules of a gas are freely and randomly oriented with respect to each other.
-
funglestrumpet at 07:21 AM on 19 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
@20 & 21 Tom Dayton
Thanks, the two animations plus the accompanying UCAR page are very clear. I guess it was worth hanging in there for a clear explanation, thanks again.
-
Lanfear at 05:16 AM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
"The point of all this is that science is interconnected. When you start denying one part of it, you are led inevitably to increasingly inconsistent positions in which you must deny more and more fundamental aspects of science. Pseudo-science is a fools errand, which has not (of course) stopped Old Fool."
And this is precisely where the pseudoskeptics fail, every, single, time.
To a rational mind, and a skeptic at that, it is simply mystifying that this simple and basic step of considering the whole, is time after time missed by those who so eagerly appoint themselves as skeptics as they attempt to surplant a part the known science with their own version of reality.
Take for example the claim that 'warming has stopped'. This requires that both the claim of melting glaciers as well as warming seas are essentially false. And similary the sea rise must also be false, since both the warming and glacial melting are key components to it. A simple denial cascades into fullblown denial of reality as measured.
The pseudoskeptics should in earnest develop an understanding what it really means when science says that there are 'Multiple sets of independent observations' of both warming, as well as the attribution, as it has been repeatedly also shown in this discussion thread.
FWIW in each instance above, I only linked to single relevant page. To those readers who still are not impressed by the information of the specific topic: please take a moment, search through the site for related information, then come back. You might otherwise run the risk of argumenting out of ignorance. After all, a skeptic would take the time to actually understand what is proposed before possibly rejecting it.
And returning to the topic, I also would be very interested in Old Sages alternative explanations to all the disrepancies brought up by various parties as arguments against his claims about the physical properties of CO2. I by no mean claim any expert knowledge of the matter, so it would be very educating to hear what all that 'Physics text books' actually says in relation (and to what extent) to the atmosphere and its components, as (s)he insofar has only brought them up in a non sequitur manner. In the appropriate topic, naturally.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:04 AM on 19 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
There is also an ear-wiggling animation in the Greenhouse Gases section of a UCAR page.
-
Tom Dayton at 04:51 AM on 19 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
funglestrumpet, pages 4 and 5 of the doc I linked for you have diagrams and short text explanations of those diagrams. Skimming those might give you what you want; skip all the other parts of the doc. And here is a great animation; note the wiggling of the oxygen atom "ears" around the carbon atom "head."
-
Ian Forrester at 04:43 AM on 19 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
Tom and Zen, the quote is from an interview in Der Spiegel.
-
funglestrumpet at 03:50 AM on 19 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
@14,@17 and @18
Thanks! I did ask for an 'intermediate' level version in my original comment! Your links are way over my head, I am afraid, but thanks all the same. I was just trying to grasp how the infra-red radiation is absorbed by the CO2 molecule and re-radiated in random directions. I did read somewhere that it had something to do with a dipole feature of the CO2 molecule. I now wish I hadn't read it because I have been trying to find a better description of what actually happens without all the math ever since. I have now stopped the search.
-
MA Rodger at 03:43 AM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
old sage @254.
So we can agree, it would be silly not to, that conduction does zip to cool planet.
I am not sure what you mean by "convection - forced and natural." I am only aware of the natural sort acting in the atmosphere. Could you explain what you mean by the term?
And "bulk transfer"? I assume you mean 'insensible heat', the latent heat transferred by water vapour from the surface and left up in the atmosphere when it rains out. We know the average global annual rainfall is not far from 1,000mm. So we know the average insensible heat transfer will be something like 2.26 Gj/m^2 pa = 72 W/m^2, not at alldissimilar to the 80 W/m^2 proposed by Figure 1 in the post above. It is thus significant but not "vastly important" even if it does feature so prominantly on our TVs.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:17 AM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
I see that (-snip-)* continues his (-snip-).
Let's ignore the fact that his central thesis, ie, that CO2 and other components of the atmosphere do not radiate at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures has been demonstrated to be false by evidence which he has simply ignored. Let us further ignore the fact that much of the US space program is based on gleaning signals from thermal radiation from the gases that compose the atmosphere, including of course the AMSU units which are used to detect the temperatures at various layers by detecting thermal radiation in the form of microwaves from oxygen or water vapour, further falsifying his claims. Let us rather look at his theory that convection carries heat from the Earth's surface to the ionosphere.
This structure of the vertical structure of the atmosphere:
The important point is that the change in temperature with altitude (the lapse rate) in the troposphere is largely determined by convection. Crucially, convection will not occur if the atmosphere above a parcel of air is warmer than that below it. Therefore, convection does not occur in the stratosphere. In fact, it is because of the lack of convection that the stratosphere consists of distince strata of air at different temperatures, and which gives the stratosphere its name. The important point, however, is that convection simply cannot carry energy any higher in the atmosphere than the tropopause, one tenth of the altitude to which (-snip-)'s theory requires it to be carried.
(As a side note, the altitude of the tropopause can be, and has been calculated from first principles on the assumption that at least some atmospheric gases radiate thermal energy. (See Held 1981) The principle by which this is done can be easilly summarized. In essence, energy transfer by radiation and energy transfer by convection each generate their own characteristic lapse rates. The lapse rate generated by convection is essentially constant with altitude. In contrast, that generated by radiation depends on the average distance travelled by photons before being reabsorbed. Consequently it becomes smaller (less temperature fall per km of altitude) with greater altitude. When the radiation induced lapse rate becomes smaller than the convection induced lapse rate, convection ceases to be the most efficient means of transporting energy, and ceases. Thus the existence of the tropopause proves the existence of thermal radiation emitted by atmospheric gases.)
Even more troubling for (-snip-) is the existence of convection at all. Once the temperature profile associated with convection is established, further convection ceases. It is only if the air above is further cooled that warm air will continue to rise. The problem for (-snip-) in this is that he has no basis for that cooling. Certainly it is not by convection at the tropopause, which cannot happen. Therefore it must be by radiation of thermal energy by atmospheric gases. (-snip-), however, denies that that exists. This places him in the position of claiming that a heat engine (the general circulation of the atmosphere) exists without a heat sink, a thermodynamic impossibility.
The point of all this is that science is interconnected. When you start denying one part of it, you are led inevitably to increasingly inconsistent positions in which you must deny more and more fundamental aspects of science. Pseudo-science is a fools errand, which has not (of course) stopped (-snip-).
* I have, of course, no objection to the person who calls himself "Old Sage" being old. After all, so am I. I have very serious objection to people giving themselves laudatory titles as internet names. It is not for any many to call themselves a Sage - that being properly the judgement of others. That the person calling himself "Old Sage" feels it necessary to call himself a sage shows, first, that he is arrogant, second, that he is foolish, and third, that it is unlikely that people would call him a sage (or sagacious) if he did not adopt it as title. Given that, I will not call him sage, but will adapt his name to be, at least, honest.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
michael sweet at 03:16 AM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Old Sage,
I have not claimed that IR is the only emissions from Earth. You have pointed out that the thermosphere also emits hgher energy radiation and that is certainly true. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect though so why discuss it here? Are you suggesting that convection from the stratosphere (-60C) transfers energy to the thermosphere (2000C)? Please explain this apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Your continued harping on this line simply demonstrates that you have no understanding of energy transfer in the atmosphere.
CO2 emits IR due to the black body effect. This is well known, basic physics. It can easily be measured with an IR thermometer at home. Your claim that there might exist a band of energy emissions emitting all the energy abosrbed from the sun into space that has not been discovered yet is simply absurd. This is a scientific site. People are expected to support their claims with references to the peer reviewed literature or with well supported calculations. Speculations on undiscovered paths of enormous amounts of energy make you look stupid.
Ask questions about what you do not understand and people will help you out. Assertions of large, undiscovered energy flows will be greeted with derision.
-
old sage at 02:37 AM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
MA Rodger - yes, an error but not germaine to my proposition. Also I have not said the transfer agent is conduction; convection - forced and natural - is vastly more important and bulk transfer via weather systems - driven by such energy -we can witness on our TV's.
I have no problem with the broad range of i/r absorption by CO2, H2O etc, nor carbon particulates which can absorb visible light. But CO2 gas has no more capacity to emit i/r at atmospheric temperatures than have carbon particulates to emit visible light. In other words, the route in cannot be the same as that out.
That means heat transported around the globe can only get out via surface radiation from the cool spots where wind water deposit it. I merely posit the existence of an additional route in which the energy is dissipated in a directly emitting electrically active shell which is known to exist as a belt of intensive radiation in the upper atmosphere. I am totally unconviced that ground radiation can do it on its own.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:15 AM on 19 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
funglestrumpet, here is an explanation of CO2, dipole moment, and infrared absorption from Illinois State U; see pages 4 and 5.
-
MA Rodger at 02:03 AM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
old sage @251.
No. It would be remiss of us to leave it there. You say the effects of conduction "is multiplied at least tenfold by convection and forced convection." But it is also true that ten times nothing is still nothing.
So what is the conductive element of Earth's cooling. Consider the simplistic model I constructed @249. Acording to Wikipedia, the thermal conductvity of air is 0.025 W/m/ºK. If the planet surface is say 300ºK and the insulation layer is just a tiny tiny 1,000m thick at that conductivity, the cooling from conduction will be 0.0075 W/m^2, an insignificant figure, even if multiplied 10 times, or 100 times.
Just to emphasis the point, this model would suggest that if conduction entirely cooled the planet, the surface temperature would be 13,000,000ºK, and that is with just 1km depth of insulator.
This is why Figure 1 in the post above shows, not "hardly a joule from conduction" as you described it in a previous thread, but it shows zero contribution from conduction!
-
Tom Curtis at 02:03 AM on 19 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
Zen @10, I prefer to not comment on quotes from climate scientists unless I can see the full quote in context, with a link to the original source.
-
stonepig at 01:59 AM on 19 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29A
Gee, I am so impressed by the cough up of the CIA...how much can really be gotten with that measily amount anyway...and do they think their sprinkles in the air won't make a worse problem down the line...or maybe it will just make us cold enough to keep the oil coffers overflowing...I don't know...it's like the conspiracy theories are less dangerous than the truth. That's really frightening.
-
stonepig at 01:44 AM on 19 July 2013They didn't change the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
Nichol, there are some excellent points about this in "Winds of Change'' by Linden. Also Cullen, and maybe the latest Rolling Stone.
-
stonepig at 01:40 AM on 19 July 2013Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
I did peruse some Michigan names on this "petition". A couple of the 'good doctors' don't exist. I tracked down one of the veternarians. I would suggest some of you try that...maybe we could find a few more 'weasels.'
-
Zen at 01:38 AM on 19 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
Tom - Thanks for the info.
I was wondering what peolple think about the quote from Von Storch where he states that, if things continue as they are for another 5 years, then climate scientists will have to fundamentally acknowledge there is something wrong with their models?
I have complained to the BBC about the way Neil conducted the interview; here is a link for anyone who wishes to do the same.
https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:35 AM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Old Sage "it seemed reasonable at the time so I didn't check."
And therein lies the problem. Throwing around idea, or numbers, without checking and comparing with what's in the litterature, while displaying ignorance of fundamental principles of the subject a hand; suggesting that all the scientists studying the subject have it wrong and you have it right, all the while making basic mistakes that have to be pointed to your attention by others. Then resorting to possible mechanisms that have never been observed but just have to exist because it would be so satisfying to you personally that they do. And complaining about being invectived when your mistakes and lack of rigor are dissected in no uncertain terms and thrown back at you for what they are. Really, how can you expect to be taken seriously?
So far, the one with the least constructive attitude on this thread lately has been you. Complaining about other's unconstructive invective is nothing but a way to escape coming to grips with your severe lack of understanding of the subject that you claim others have figured all wrong. I'm unimpressed. Perhaps you should leave it that indeed.
-
gws at 01:20 AM on 19 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
funglestrumpet@13
If you are interested in the intricacies of the physics, it is taught in undergraduate and graduate classes on physical chemistry, atmospheric physics or radiation, or specifically spectroscopy or quantum mechanics in higher education institutions; thus you will find it described explained in the respective textbooks or online classes. It would be beyond the scope of this website to educate to this detail.
But yes, you need a permanent or inducible dipole moment to observe an infrared absorption spectrum in a molecule. The dominant atmospheric gases N2, O2, and Ar do not have that, thus their apparent IR transparancy.
-
shoyemore at 00:18 AM on 19 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
Andrew Neil was once editor of Britain's Sunday Times, with proprietor one Rupert Murdoch. Neil owed his big break to Murdoch, and it was the start of his "distringuished" media career.
Enough said?
-
Tom Dayton at 00:09 AM on 19 July 2013Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
Murray Salby recently was not continued in his position at an Australian university, for reasons having nothing to do with his bad science. DeSmogBlog now reports that several years ago Salby was banned from getting further funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, for non-science reasons. The reasons include not reporting financial conflicts of interest (I'm shocked!).
Prev 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 Next
