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:
-
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!).
-
Tom Curtis at 00:07 AM on 19 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29A
chriskoz @2, Kevin Rudd's promise is to seek to ammend the current legislation so that the date of the first "flexible charge year" under the legislation will by the year commencing July 1st, 1914 rather than that commencing July 1st 2015. That will turn the carbon price in Australia from a carbon tax to an emissions trading scheme.
Given that bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum is auctioned of in Australia, and that is not considered a tax because purchasing bandwidth in the auction is a voluntary act, and a property right is recieved for the payment, then an ETS is also not a tax. Tony Abbot (the leader of the opposition) insists that an ETS is a tax, but to do so he must redefine "tax" to mean any revenue source for a government which is absurd.
-
old sage at 00:01 AM on 19 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
MA Rodger mea culpa, calculation was and is nearer 450 - it seemed reasonable at the time so I didn't check. Your reference to thermal conductivity was covered way back somewhere. It is multiplied at least tenfold by convection and forced convection. Every engine I know, whether it is air cooled or water cooled uses the same heat dissipation by physical movement of energy; to deny it occurs in the atmosphere is simply perverse when we see it in our daily lives and displayed on our TV screens all the time.
I have no problem whatsoever with the absorption bands of any of the GG's which are bang up there in the i/r spectrum. Nor the extra absorption for that matter of carbon particulates which absorb all light. They add to atmospheric warming. I merely question the route out for all this energy. The same one in - absorption - is not available going out. e.g carbon black will not radiate visible light neither will CO2 gas radiate i/r from molecular agitation. You could argue that heat transported to earthly sinks warms them and increases the outgoing radiation by quasi BB methods (sufficiently, without man's intervention). I merely propose that there is an unexplored radiation belt where a supplementary exit is provided and there are good reasons for believing it to be of account.
Now I suggest we leave it at that, I can't be doing with unconstructive invective.
-
Composer99 at 23:28 PM on 18 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29A
The Quinteros & Wiens 2013 paper mentioned in "Climate change outpaces evolution" is not exactly inspiring news.
-
chriskoz at 23:22 PM on 18 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29A
How is the title of the first article "Australian leader scraps tax on carbon emissions" possible when in fact Kevin Rudd anounced that carbon tax will be "scrapped" (mor precisely replaced with ETS) in the middle of 2014.
Isn't the title doubly misleading (by distorting the timeline and by omission of ETS)? BTW, I have an impression that the anouncement is mainly a form of pork-barreling the denialist voters (who are more likely to support the opposing party) and may still change before 2014. Certainly it will change if the opposition wins the elections later this year.
Or perhaps I'm wrong on my assessment aboce: perhaps this is an official gov decision & confirmed & bound to happen in said date, no matter which party wins the elections behorehand? Whoever understands AUS politics better than I do, please explain.
Moderator Response:[JH] Generally speaking, headlines are meant to grab the reader's attention and do not necessarily convey completely accurate information.
-
Composer99 at 22:35 PM on 18 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Well, I'm done directly responding to old sage; it's a waste of time.
But I should like to draw attention to old sage's blatant misrepresentation of michael sweet.
In comment #244, old sage suggests
Anyway, I take it you folks all believe there is absolutely no radiation from earth other than i/r.
When pressed for a direct, explicit quote, the best old sage can do is suggest that michael sweet, in comment #245, "pretty well claims just that". So, no direct quote explicitly stating what old sage asserts, just an insinuation. Further, old sage apparently can't be bothered looking upthread, before his comment #244, to support his claims.
However, the closest michael sweet comes to anything like old sage's claim is:
You keep making comments about the ionosphere. Everyone else knows that the ionosphere has no relationship to the surface temperature. This is a comment that is usually called "not even wrong" because it is so far off base. That is why no-one has responded to your points. The surface heat budget is all radiated from the top of the stratosphere in the IR spectrum. This is basic black body physics. If you do not understand why the ionosphere does not affect the surface either read your textbook or ask a question to clear up your misconception. [Emphasis original.]
Nothing michael sweet writes in this paragraph can remotely be construed as claiming "there is absolutely no radiation from earth other than i/r", at least not by any observer reading what he actually wrote.
-
Ubiquitous Che at 21:15 PM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
@villabolo
In fairness, the sourness of carbonated water is H2CO3 in aqueous solution, not gaseous CO2.
Otherwise though I'm right there with you. :P -
michael sweet at 21:03 PM on 18 July 2013Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
Tom,
I am not much of a betting man. I see your point that the IPCC projections are that you should measure a temperature increase at the 95% level after 25 years. If you like to bet, it would be a good bet to make.
On the other hand, Michaels publicly claims that the temperature rise has stopped. In this bet he is claiming the temperature has not risen when there is a 90% or greater (as long as it is less than 95%) probability that the temperature has risen. If you just look at the data the slope is always positive. In the peer reviewed data scientists prefer a 95% confidence to make a claim. In common speach when there is a 90% chance of something not being chance you would say it is happening. Michaels is making the opposite claim, ie that if it is not 95% significant there is no rise. That is a false claim.
To me, if Michaels is only willing to bet on a cherry picked date and he wins at 93% confidence, that means he is convinced the temperature is rising and will continue to rise.
-
MA Rodger at 20:47 PM on 18 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
old sage.
You have yet to explain how you obtained the 56 w/m^2 @223. It is a trivial calculation using Stephan's Law, which is the furmula you say @ 231
you used. You show yourself here as somebody who cannot even honestly perform simple arithmetical calculations but would rather talk nonsense about holding a hand out on a high mountain. Is a hand an appropriate measurement device? Especially given all the radiation whizzing about in all directions? But them you deny the existence of that radiation!
And, old sage, while you are about re-calculating the radiation from a body at 300K, perhaps you could also do another trivial back-of-the-fag-packet calculation. You are so wedded to conductivity as a means of energy distribution. So if the globe with a temperature 300K were surrounded by a solid with the same thermal conductivity as air (at STP), how large will the energy flux of conduction be? Consider this 'solid' atmosphere has constant properties with altitude. Call it 8km deep. Call it 1km deep if you like. Can you provide an honest answer here?
-
John Brookes at 20:41 PM on 18 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
But Neil has repeated the "skeptic" mantra of climate science being "discredited". The people who want to believe this will accept it uncritically. Some members of the the public will be influenced as well.
But the "skeptics" continued bleating will in the end discredit them.
-
sylas at 20:17 PM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
Tom, thanks very much. I've learned something. Muzz, sorry for introducing confusion to the thread.
Given your lead I've looked further and indeed (for example) the Australian carbon pricing system does include emissions of Nitrous Oxide (NO2); this is also an important secondary greenhouse gas emission from conventional fuels, and has no carbon involved.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 18:54 PM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
funglestrumpet - my post wasn't a detailed explanation, just an appeal for the discussion not to be distracted by quibbles over terminology that obstruct the discussion. The mere fact that molecules such as CO2 can absorb outbound IR radiation is only one element of the explanation of the greenhouse effect, it is the way this affects the radiation of IR into space from the upper atmosphere that is the key to understanding the mechanism.
-
old sage at 18:46 PM on 18 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
C99 - look next but one comment above yours, it pretty well claims just that.
Also, for the benefit of others, whether something is true or not very often depends on other factors. The emission spectrum of CO2 for example - and my authorities are impeccable - will differ when it is in solution in a raindrop, as in a cloud.
Some of you I expect have invested a lot of time and energy in mapping radiation but meanwhile all the heat generated by man is getting dumped in the ice and waters courtesy of kinetic transfer. When I see formula one engineers changing their cooling arrangements depending on cloud cover I might believe it were otherwise but in the meantime, imv heat transfer by radiation is pretty feeble under atmospheric conditions compared with kinetic.
Fresher level physics(?), you're right there someone above - moving charged particles in a magnetic field generate e/m radiation.
-
funglestrumpet at 18:39 PM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
Dikan Marsupial@5
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I notice no mention of something called dipoles, which I thought had something to do with how CO2 traps, sorry, 'absorbs' (or whatever) the longwave (re)radiation. I suppose it is around that dipole - whatever it is - where my ignorance about how global warming happens actually resides. (Perhaps it is the engineer in me that feeds my desire to know the nuts and bolts of the issue. I doubt I am alone.)
-
Aristarchus at 16:52 PM on 18 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29A
The link to the article "Models point to rapid sea-level rise from climate change" contains errors.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention.
-
robert_13 at 15:37 PM on 18 July 2013It's not us
@Julian Flood
Suppose we have a sink into which the faucet is pouring water.We have control of the faucet and can increase or decrease its rate of flow. We may not have the political will to do that, but that's a side issue. The point here is that we can. Now let's say that some natural forces are pouring vinegar, pee, alcohol, orange juice, and milk into the sink at the same time our water is pouring in from the faucet.
If the water level in the sink is rising at only 45% percent of the rate we would expect from the rate of our input from the faucet, why do you think our lack of knowledge of exactly how much of each of the other inputs and our resulting inability to calculate the sum of their effects is important for understanding whether our faucet is causing the water level to rise?
If the rate of increase in the level of water is 45% of the rate we would expect from our input from the faucet, we know with absolute certainty that that 55% of our water is going down the drain and all the other inputs with it as well. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that? Why do you think there is any need for detailed knowledge about the rest of what's going down the drain?
Now, there is a very significant implication in this. If we know how much CO(2) we're putting out and how much is showing up in the atmosphere (~45% of our input), where is the rest of that CO(2) going? The only reasonable explanation is that the ocean is sequestering the vast majority of it. We do know that the CO(2) level in solution in the ocean has been increasing and ocean water is becoming more acidic. We are also seeing the effects of this on coral reefs and other marine life. As the globe becomes warmer, CO(2) becomes less solube in water, so the 45% figure is bound to go up and accelerate an already undesirabe situation.
So I don't see where your doubts are coming from unless you just don't want to see and are willing to pick at any single little corner you can find, one at a time and out of context with the bigger picture, simply to avoid seeing.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:03 PM on 18 July 2013Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
michael sweet @47,
First, I have just noticed that I accidentally dropped a decimal place from the standard errors of the 25 year trends in my preceding post, which should have been 0.069 C and 0.07 C.
Second, here are the AR4 short term predictions:
You will notice that the "commitment" prediction matches the 1998 observations, but that all other predictions are for temperatures 0.3 C above 1998 values, or higher. If the IPCC is anywhere near accurate, 1998 values should be routinely exceeded by 2020, and I suspect will be routinely eceeded from 2015 forward. By 2023, the termination of the bet, even very strong La Ninas will be hotter than the 1998 El Nino.
Put another, way, if the IPCC is correct, then the trend to 2023 has only a 2.5% chance of being less than 0.13 C per decade. Using the 1997 El Nino as a start point increases that chance, but not enough to bring the lower 95% confidence interval below 0.07 C per decade. Michaels bet accurately represents the claim of 25 years without warming (if we ignore the cherry picked start point). Not taking it if you are prone to bet would reflect a lack of confidence in the IPCC predictions.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:44 PM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
Muzz @10, you missed my main point. Of course, I framed that point as a rhetorical question so I must accept blame for that.
The fact is that "carbon tax" as a short hand for "a tax on carbon dioxide equivalents" is perfectly reasonable nomenclature. That does not mean there are not other reasonable names for the same thing. Nor does it mean people cannot, for rhetorical purposes, deliberately misunderstand the name. Australia's Fringe Benifits Tax, for example, is not a tax on the length of peoples hair hanging over their forehead, but could be so misconstrued if somebody wanted to make a political point from it.
These defects will aflict almost any name chosen.
Given that, arguing about mere naming is rather silly.
(As an aside, why would I want to take a cane to a TLA, and what is a TLA in the first place?)
-
Tom Curtis at 13:37 PM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
Sylas @10, from the law for Australia's Carbon Tax:
"The following is a simplified outline of this Act:
• This Act sets up a mechanism to deal with climate change by encouraging the use of clean energy.
• The mechanism begins on 1 July 2012, and operates on a financial year basis.
• The mechanism is administered by the Clean Energy Regulator.
• If a person is responsible for covered emissions of greenhouse gas from the operation of a facility, the facility’s annual emissions are above a threshold, and the person does not surrender one eligible emissions unit for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalence of the gas, the person is liable to pay unit shortfall charge.
• If a natural gas supplier supplies natural gas, and does not surrender one eligible emissions unit for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalence of the potential greenhouse gas emissions embodied in the natural gas, the supplier is liable to pay unit shortfall charge.
• If a person opts in to the mechanism, the person acquires, manufactures or imports taxable fuel in specified circumstances, and does not surrender one eligible emissions unit for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalence of the potential greenhouse gas emissions embodied in the fuel, the person is liable to pay unit shortfall charge.""14 Carbon pollution cap
Carbon pollution cap
(1) The regulations may declare that:
(a) a quantity of greenhouse gas that has a carbon dioxide equivalence of a specified number of tonnes is the carbon pollution cap for a specified flexible charge year; and
(b) that number is the carbon pollution cap number for that flexible charge year."(My emphasis)
Such laws must be in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (or some similar unit) or else they will not effect emissions of any controlled substance under the Kyoto protocols other than CO2.
Carbon dioxide equivalents is the standard unit for measuring global warming potential, defined by the IPCC as follows:
"Global Warming Potential (GWP) An index, based upon radiative properties of well-mixed greenhouse gases, measuring the radiative forcing of a unit mass of a given well-mixed greenhouse gas in the present-day atmosphere integrated over a chosen time horizon, relative to that of carbon dioxide. The GWP represents the combined effect of the differing times these gases remain in the atmosphere and their relative effectiveness in absorbing outgoing thermal infrared radiation. The Kyoto Protocol is based on GWPs from pulse emissions over a 100-year time frame."
The idea is that a substance with a strong greenhouse effect measured in forcing, but a very short life time before decomposing is not as dangerous as a substance with a weaker forcing but which endures (effectively) forever. Necessarilly the approach is crude, but duration in the atmosphere is a factor in how dangerous the emissions are, so some such measure is required. I am all for anybody who can proposing and defending a better unit than CO2 eq, but absent such a proposal we must use the units we have or, for example, not tax fugitive emissions of methane from garbage dumps, or the production of halo-carbons etc.
-
sylas at 12:59 PM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
Muzz, you still have this wrong.
"Carbon" is NOT a short hand for "carbon dioxide equivalent". Carbon is simply the substance which, when burned, produces carbon dioxide. Carbon based fuels come in many forms. But it is the carbon content of what is burned that counts, because this is the major factor that determines how much carbon dioxide is produced.
The carbon tax, or price, applies for carbon based fuels. It is a tax on carbon. Not on equivalents; on carbon specifically.
Carbon dioxide equivalence is actually a (fairly crude) unit of measure for the impact of other greenhouse gases. I am not entirely sure why Tom mentions this; it is not, as far as I am aware, used as a basis for taxes on other gases. (Is it?) This might be a reasonable basis for fixing appropriate prices on other substances as a proprotion of the carbon price; though I not heard of such a thing.
In the meantime, we put a price on carbon because it is the burning of carbon based fuels which are by far the largest driver of the enhanced greenhouse effect though the emissions of carbon dioxide, and the consequence global warming.
-
michael sweet at 12:07 PM on 18 July 2013Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
Supak,
So if there is a 93% chance of a temperature rise Michaels wins and can claim there is no temperature rise? Perhaps if p<.05 you win .20>p>.05 no winner and p>.2 Michaels wins.
If Michaels wants to win on a 90% probability of temperature rising (with a cherry picked start date), he certainly thinks the temperature will go up. The question is how much will it go up. -
Muzz at 11:43 AM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
Tom Curtis @8, all correct points I'm sure. Thankyou. "Carbon" no doubt is a convenient short hand reference for "carbon dioxide equivalents", but IMO is very misleading and I would suggest is one that scientists would or should shy away from using. A name for a tax? How about a greenhouse gas tax (GGT)? Its hard to beat a TLA
-
Tom Curtis at 11:04 AM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
Muzz @7, well actually its carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, and Methane (CH4), and flourocarbons. Are we noticing a common theme here? Of course, there is also ozone and nitrous oxide, but in general the most potent well mixed greenhouse gases are carbon based, and most are produced by the use of carbon based fuels. Further, the greenhouse potential of all well mixed greenhouse gases is measured in terms of "carbon dioxide equivalents". I wonder what a convenient short hand reference for a tax on "carbon dioxide equivalents" of emissions would be?
-
Muzz at 10:32 AM on 18 July 2013Carbon Dioxide's invisibility is what causes global warming
Finally some scientific clarity. It's CO2 not carbon that causes global warming. Please inform the politicians and mainstream media.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 18 July 2013Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
Supak @45, notice how he offers a cowards bet by choosing the largest (or second largest depending on index) El Nino of the twentieth century as a start year. He also reinforces that by using the thermometer based index which is most effected by ENSO fluctuations due to lack of coverage in the Arctic and North Africa. Nevertheless the bet is safe for you, IMO, provided you have a clause calling the bet of if there is a major volcanic eruption (equivalent to Pinatubo or larger) in the last five years of the bet period. You may also want a clause calling the bet of if carbon sequestration schemes reduce CO2 concentration below 400 ppmv by the 25th year, but that is sufficiently unlikely to not be a necessary clause.
More technically, the current 25 year HadCRUT4 trend is 0.147 +/- 0.69 C. The current trend since 1997 is 0.045 +/- 0.12 C. The error for twenty five year trends tends to be just below 0.7 C, so you are betting that the trend will increase by more than 0.35 C to about half the current 25 year trend and to about two thirds of the IPCC predicted trend over that period. Failing a major volcano, if you do not win the bet the IPCC have got it wrong in a big way.
Finally, you may want a clause switching the bet from HadCRUT4 to later HadCRU products which supercede it if they have more extensive coverage, of if the HadCRUT4 product is no longer produced.
-
Composer99 at 10:16 AM on 18 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
old sage:
Anyway, I take it you folks all believe there is absolutely no radiation from earth other than i/r.
Please provide direct quotes from other commenters explicitly making this claim. Otherwise it is a blatant misrepresentation of the responses directed to you.
What us "folks" have been doing is pointing out that physics theory, experiment, and empirical observation contradict your claims against the fact of longwave infrared absorption and emission properties of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a contradiction you have so far failed to effectively deal with.
Largely, it seems to me, by simply ignoring what people are actually saying in favour of resorting to unsubstantiated misrepresentations as the above.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:55 AM on 18 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
Zen @4, Hans von Storch is a german climate scientist who has an unfortunate tendency to portray differences of opinion with other scientists as to just how harmful global warming will be in terms of the other scientists "over selling" the dangers. He, along with Dennis Bray, he has published the most interesting and detailed survey of climate scientist's opinions on climate science.
Unfortunately, the survey has (at least) one major technical flaw. Many of the questions are phrased as "How convinced are you that ...", which choices listed from "not at all convinced" (1) to "very much convinced". Technically, anybody who is a little convinced that the statement is not true, or has no opinion on the matter would be "not at all convinced" under this scheme. Thus, anybody responding "2" or higher at least thinks the statement is more likely true than not. Certainly somebody responding "4", ie, that they are moderately convinced are not epistemically neutral on that issue.
Bray and von Storch, and likely most respondents have interpreted questions with that format as representing a range of opinion from complete disagreement to complete agreement with "4" representing a neutral response. They have done this based on normal conventions in survey responses which tend to over ride strict interpretation of questions. The result is that the survey response is, IMO, biased against agreement on various issues.
Despite this, on the crucial questions, "20. How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", and "21. How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" (both on page 46), climate scientists overwhelmingly support the consensus responses. In the first case, the mean response is 6.4 with a standard deviation of approximately 1, and a total of 93.8% "agreeing", ie, having a response of "5" or higher. In the second case, the mean response is 5.7 (st dev = 1.4), with 83.5% "agreeing".
The discrepancy between the 83.5% figure from Bray and van Storch (2010) and Cook et al 2013 is partly due to the bias discussed above, and partly because they survey different things. Specifically, Cook et al survey the proportion of scientific papers endorsing the consensus while Bray and von Storch directly survey the opinions of scientists. From Anderegg et al, we know that scientists "convinced by the evidence" in favour of the consensus have, on average, published twice as many peer reviewed articles as those who are "unconvinced by the evidence". On that basis alone, even accepting Bray and Von Storch as accurate, we would expect 91% of papers to endorse the consensus. Further, the evidence simply does support the consensus. Consequently those who are less convinced, if accurately reporting the evidence, will less frequently be able to find results that actually endorse their beliefs. There will be a tension between their beliefs, and the evidence that will be reflected in the literature.
Given this, Bray and von Storch (2010) does not rebut, or call into question the results of Cook et al (2013). What it does do, or should do, is put a brake on the misinterpretation of Cook et al as showing that 97% of climate scientists endorse the consensus. Cook et al does not show that, and cannot show that because it is a survey of the literature, not of scientists opinions.
-
scaddenp at 09:45 AM on 18 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
9 years to retirement here - I'm flattered to be young know-all. However, I still take the time to study what is actually being claimed before criticizing it, especially when out of my field. What I find irritating is your criticism of imaginary claims of climate science, and as far as I can see, a flat out refusal to actually look at what the science really says. Virtually nothing you say makes sense because this level of misunderstanding.
-
tmac57 at 09:15 AM on 18 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
Being from the U.S. I am unfamiliar with Andrew Neil,but I have to say that I am very put off by his type of interview style,which has become so common these days,where he asks a question,and then proceeds to step on the answer given,in mid-sentence,and then refuses to let the interviewee complete their thought.Also the agressive bulldozing assertion of 'facts' without giving the other side a chance to rebut without,again,interrupting is both rude and frustrating for those whom actually want to hear what the person has to say.
The whole process is clearly being proffered more as a sort of boxing match to be won,rather than a forum to enlighten,educate,and discuss one of the most important issues that mankind has ever faced.That is truly shameful,cynical,and disgusting!
By the way,Ed Davey did remarkably well under the circumstances,and he seemed spot on with his facts,so good job to him!
-
chriskoz at 09:03 AM on 18 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
It's amazing how many times in this interview Ed points out in the simple words that climate sicence is not only about land temperatures but Andrew goes back to his imaginary "plateau" in XXI century because it's very "intriguing". Every time, he denies every point he hears.
Ed would heve done better job saying that we know the physical mechanisms behind the "plateaus" such as the XXi century's one (recal the SkS's escalator to prove there were many of those) with ElNino/LaNina episodes acting as heat exchangers between Ocean (the main heat energy reservoir - 90%) and Athmosphere (which holds only small fraction of heat enrgy - therefore the exchange resulting in wider swings of temperature). But I don't think that argument would make any impression on Andrew: like all other arguments, he would simply ignore it.
-
michael sweet at 08:58 AM on 18 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Old Sage,
You have a lot of chutzpah for someone who has been demonstrated wrong several times. You need to break out your freshman physics textbook and review it again.
You keep making comments about the ionosphere. Everyone else knows that the ionosphere has no relationship to the surface temperature. This is a comment that is usually called "not even wrong" because it is so far off base. That is why no-one has responded to your points. The surface heat budget is allradiated from the top of the stratosphere in the IR spectrum. This is basic black body physics. If you do not understand why the ionosphere does not affect the surface either read your textbook or ask a question to clear up your misconception.
You will find that people are less cutting in their responses to you if you stop being so condescending to others. It is especially irritating since you are so often completely wrong and then you are demeaning to others who are in fact correct. For example, you frequently suggest others should read their textbook because you do not understand basic atmospheric physics. Tom can read his textbook all day and you will still be wrong. If you start asking questions about what you obviously do not understand you will come across much better. Your basic physics of the atmosphere is lower than a freshman physics student is expected to understand.
-
supak at 08:46 AM on 18 July 2013Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
Tom Curtis @ 17
<<
First, you should insist on using HadCRUT4 rather than HadCRUT3.
Second, find out the start year for Michael's predicted 25 years with no warming.
Third, from existing HadCRUT4 data, find the standard error on 25 year trends.
Fourth, bet that on the 25th year, the warming trend will be greater than two times the standard error for HadCRUT4 trends.
>>
Here's his offer:
<<
statistically significant (p= .05) warming trend for 25 years based on annual data beginning in 1997, using HadCRU4
>>
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:21 AM on 18 July 2013Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Matthew L
"Is anything an indicator "unique to human-caused global warming" other than the TOA energy balance and its link to greenhouse gases? "
Several things are strong indicators that narrow the possibilities for the cause of the observed warming radically.
Cooling of the Stratosphere at the same time as the Troposphere is warming is a powerful piece of evidence. If the warming was due to some other source such as increased sunlight we wouldn't see this pattern, we would see a general change increase in the atmospheric temperature at all altitudes. Stratospheric cooling is caused by the fact that more energy is being radiated to space from higher in the atmosphere than from lower down, shifting the balance of where in the atmosphere radiation to space is occurring. Only a change in the optical properties of the atmosphere could cause this.
Heat accumulation in the oceans is at least 5 times greater than the largest available heat source here on Earth. Therefore, that additional heat cannot be coming from anywhere here on Earth. That leaves as the only possible source as being a change in the Earth's radiative balance with space.
That nighttime and winter temperatures are warming as fast, in fact somewhat faster, than daytime or summer temperatures rules out heating from the sun - directly or indirectly due to changes in cloud cover for example - as heating from the sun would cause more heating when the sun shines.
With terrestial heat sources, the sun and cloud changes ruled out, that only leaves a change in the GH Effect as the remaining possible cause. And the primary change that is expected from a change in the GH Effect - Stratospheric cooling - is being observed.
Moderator Response:[TD] For more see the counterargument "It's Not Us," including the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes.
-
old sage at 07:37 AM on 18 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
Bit of a joke that - ageism - didn't go down well!
Anyway, I take it you folks all believe there is absolutely no radiation from earth other than i/r. Please allow me to beg to differ, and we will leave it at that. There are some solid physical reasons for believing alternative mechanisms not only can but must exist. There is obviously a lot of sense in studying the detailed influences of all the man made pollutants on radiative transfers in the atmosphere but I worry that it offers a distraction from a serious problem consuming the time of good men. An eye 2 cms from liquid helium at 1deg hardly increases the boil off - fail to keep a liquid oxygen cold trap several meters away down a room temperature tube topped up and the results soon get catastrophic. I would suggest more time be spent looking at kinetic transport and the cold trap. I might take another look at the nitty gritty but I doubt it.
-
John Hartz at 07:08 AM on 18 July 2013Models are unreliable
Many of the issues being dicussed on this thread are addressed in the article,
Seeking Clues to Climate Change: computer models provide insights to Earth's climate future, Science & Technology Review, June 2012, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
-
John Hartz at 06:42 AM on 18 July 2013Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Matthew L @89:
Your assertion that modelers don't know how to model clouds is totally unfounded.
See SkS post, New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
-
Phil at 06:13 AM on 18 July 2013Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
old_sage @238
Incidentally your biology is not too sharp either: there is no such thing as "physics DNA". What could you possibly have meant by that ?
Prev 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 Next
