Climate party risks losing its guests
When you're deciding whether to get dolled up and head off to the party, do you stop to ask who else might be going?
Few want to risk being seen somewhere where the action is not; most will do what they can to avoid arriving so early as to give the impression that they need the party more than the party needs them.
When cutting carbon emissions is the name of the game, a casual scan around the world might indicate that since Copenhagen, even the most ardent party animals are having a bad dose of cold feet.
The latest country to equivocate over whether to go to the ball is Australia. Faced with implacable opposition in the Senate, Kevin Rudd's government has decided to put on hold the introduction of its emissions-trading scheme.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) was supposed to be the principal tool for reducing Australian emissions by 5-25% from 2000 levels by 2020.
As the comprehensive global deal that Mr Rudd claimed to be chasing did not emerge in Copenhagen, it's probably safe to assume the government has latterly been aiming for 5% rather than 25%. However, meeting even this modest target would require some policies - and now the main one is sheathed.
In the US, too, prospective climate legislation has taken another blow.
The tripartite group of senators scheduled to unveil a new bill on Monday had to postpone their plans when one of the three, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, threatened to pull out if Senate majority leader Harry Reid followed through on talk of quickly introducing a bill to reform immigration policy.
This once again raises the question of whether the US will pass climate legislation at all this year. Mr Graham was a key figure, a Republican climate legislation supporter in an arena where the vast majority of his party is opposed.
There's an oft-cited view among close observers of the US situation that if legislation is to go through, Mr Obama is going to have to throw a lot of personal weight behind it, just as he did behind the equally controversial healthcare reforms.
Will he? The analysis from this group of observers continues with the contention that the two key groups of people advising the president on this issue are pulling in opposite directions.
Those from the "smart climate" camp are saying "yes, do it, do it now". Those in the "smart politics" camp - chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel is widely named here - are advising the opposite, not because of any opposition to the climate bill per se but because they believe Mr Obama stands to lose more personally than he gains.
Well, that's the theory. If it's correct, Mr Obama clearly has an important choice to make - not only for his reputation, not only for national climate legislation, but for the prospects of a global climate deal that can actually restrain emissions.
The BASIC group of countries - Brazil, China, India and South Africa - has just completed a short ministerial meeting in Cape Town.
One of the least diplomatically-worded segments of their statement reads:
"Ministers noted news reports that domestic legislation in the USA had been postponed and indicated that the world could not wait indefinitely."
Some will scent a whiff of hypocrisy here, as intransigence by the BASIC group - especially China - has been cited as one of the prime causes for Copenhagen's failings.
It's worth recalling, though, that the principles of rich nations acting first, acting fastest and helping everyone else are enshrined in the UN climate convention itself.
It's been around for 18 years, so you might think Australian and US politicians would understand by now the wider context of their domestic choices.
Copenhagen left many of its attendees with the same feeling as a party where the host has dispensed nothing but flat, vinegary beer and made you drink it in a hurry: a throbbing ache of indeterminate origin, a pained bewilderment - and an aversion to going back for a very, very long time.
In the sober light of day, guest by guest, the collective reluctance to return appears to be growing.
As my colleague Nick Bryant notes in his analysis of the latest Australian move:
"An oft-heard argument levelled against the ETS was why should Australia press ahead with such a major structural reform of its resources-based economy when the rest of the world hasn't yet signed up to binding cuts in emissions?
"The government has failed to provide a convincing rebuttal."
And so, you might conclude, has every other government.
Europe is stuck on a 2020 target that - as we showed last week - amounts to less than business-as-usual, Japan's intentions are mired in the government's political troubles, Canada is explicitly tying its emissions targets to those of its southern neighbour, and - most important of all - that southern neighbour is currently showing all the enthusiasm of a mouse invited to a cat party.
The allure of the economic arguments is fading. In some countries, the recession is cutting energy demand, blunting investment in renewables; at 15 euros per tonne, the carbon price continues to bump its belly like a teenage break-dancer doing the "worm".
Pretty much everyone is still saying they want to go to the ball.
But if action is the yardstick, you might conclude that the stars of the show are all veering towards choosing a quiet evening at home with the kids.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~43~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The ETS is viewed as another government scheme that pretends to be something it is not. The governments sell the air, that they do not own, and collect taxes, the banks handle the trading and make a lot of money and the problem is continued because this addresses only the effects and not the cause, the fossil fuel companies pass the costs on to the consumer. Once the government develops a tax stream it will defend it and that means that they will defend the continuation of fossil fuel use at the disadvantage of alternatives.
Governments are simply dishonest, about almost everything. The relationships established between governments and fossil fuel industries will be difficult to undo but that is what will need to happen if any real change is to occur. This is about shoring up and protecting the status quo it has little or nothing to do with emissions or a healther environment.
The politicans understand that a new tax will not be accepted when the obvious outcome will be little or no change.
Maybe with the diminishing water resources and recent dust storms in Australia, by doing nothing the government will at some point be required to address the real issue..the cause.
The only commitment of a politican is re-election.
Complain about this comment
A combination of factors has created the perfect storm of current luke-warm sentiment toward the urgency of climate change. Climategate, the failure of Copenhagen, the world economy, and even the relatively mild and wet summer in Australia and cold winter in parts of the northern hemisphere all played a part. The long term effects of the politcal cooling-off toward climate change will however be anything but luke-warm, for if human caused global warming is not truly that big of any issue, then backing away from the heavy economic costs of fighting this illusion will be fantastic for the world economy, however, if global warming is truly the looming catastophe that some would paint it as, then the lost opportunity of Copenhagen and lost time now, as carbon dioxide continues to build, will be an added tragedy on top of the a catastrophe.
Complain about this comment
How do yo legislate the 'climate' anyway.. pass a law and give it a stern telling off.?
The wheels started coming off the catastrophic man made global warming bandwagon, months before the climate gate scandal news broke, months before copenhagen, now it is merely suspended by consensus of politician and the media, with so much hot Co2 as they preach about it..
A near 30 year popular poltical and social delusion is nearly over...
Wonder what the next bandwagon will be?
Complain about this comment
Germany's Chancellor Merkel is quietly dumping this nonsense as well.
Merkel Abandons Aim of Binding Climate Agreement
"Frustrated by the climate change conference in December, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quietly moving away from her goal of a binding agreement on limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius. She has also sent out signals at the EU level that she no longer supports the idea of Europe going it alone."
"Germany now has to acknowledge the limits of its influence. The country's climate policy was an attempt to play a leadership role on the grand stage."
It's good news. The climate is fine. The planet is fine. Politicians are coming to their senses.
I don't expect too many public conversions or apologies from the other side of the aisle - but maybe it's time to quietly slip out of the door at the back of the church.
Complain about this comment
Australia and the United States – cmilmate change legislation not going anywhere fast.
The Australian Prime Minister was fully committed going into this past weekend. Then, after the weekend, he decided to wait. What happened over the weekend? Well, all I can say is that (for reasons unknown) Mr. Rudd backflipped.
This backflip is not his first; in fact, Mr. Rudd is quite well-practised. Think economic reform, border protection, and population growth.
Post-Copenhagen much of the world no longer seemed to be listening to the global-warming words of Al Gore. There started a slow down in the taking up of the global warming cause. In France, the Sarkozy Government shelved plans to introduce a carbon tax. In Germany, polls showed less than half of Germans were worried about global warming.
In Canada, climate law stalled in legislative limbo.
And then there’s Obama’s United States of America. Accounting for 20% of all greenhouse gases, only yesterday 3 Senators were scheduled to introduce a comprehensive climate & energy legislation. But this legislation got shelved, pushed back due to (urgent) immigration reform and other matters. The chances for any US climate and energy law in an election year were piddling to begin with.
The foregoing is ominous for the next round of global climate talks in Mexico City; world leaders had hoped to generate a successor to the Kyoto protocol ending in 2012. Judging by Kevin Rudd's and Barack Obama's rapidly changing positions, I’d call the chances for the replacement of the Kyoto Protocals next to nil.
That’s okay, as far as I'm concerned. Why?
Because I'm more concerned about the lack of attention being paid to HAARP. I believe that Obama can afford to give up his nuclear weapons and dilly-dally with climate change because the United States HAS BECOME CLIMATE CHANGE. The United States has the fully functional, completely tested, weapon of mass destruction that other countries blame (not on the United States of America but) on God. The weapon is called HAARP. HAARP makes weather catastrophes including floods and droughts, eaethquakes and hurricaines, harsh cold and barren heat – HAARP is ‘THE’ weather factor.
By the time we get this weapon of mass destruction under investigation, most countries will have been HAARPed. It's not just Venezuela and Iran and Russia and China that believe in HAARP; it's also the United Nations, which long ago outlawed this type of weather weapon of mass destruction.
Complain about this comment
well, perhaps now we can get the proper reviews of the data that we're all crying out for.
If the AGW stance is 'vindicated' we can start anew with a sound scientific basis and push the message home properly, through open discussion and debate.
If it's shown to be ahuge exaggeration, then we can count our blessings and move onto more pressing matters.
Complain about this comment
Because politicians run from this issue has nothing to do with the science, it has to do with politics. The world economy was dealth a severe blow by the criminal bankers and the politicans are spending most of their time pretending they didn't know anything about the issue when it was laid at their door years before. They run because they are cowards and know that coal and oil will fund campaigns. Trying to sell ETS, which I oppose, when neither China nor India will support, is a wasted effort with little benefits. Climate Change will not go away simply because the governments decide not to deal with it. Because political leaders remove something from their agenda has nothing to do with the importance of the issue but rather the weakness of politicans. Politicans voted against an early warning system in the Pacific until the tsunami killed 250,000 people....because they didn't support the system didn't prevent the tsunami.
Complain about this comment
It is because of the science, or the lack thereof, compounded by the non-stop fear-mongering by media you are very familiar with.
The problems with it are so basic and obvious that the only people who take it seriously now are those with a vested interest in the AGW story.
The Emperor has no clothes, and the public is no longer fooled. Thus the politicians are reacting.
And in the US this is going to court - not an Oxborough charade - and this 'science' won't last ten minutes.
The good news is that Richard can now start doing more stories on real issues.
Complain about this comment
If this were done more sensibly, less problems would emerge.
1. Clean coal plants make a lot more sense than wind turbine technology currently. It's just that coal is the big bad wolf at the party. So little Red Riding Hood won't play ball......
2. If folks realised that carbon dioxide wasn't the problem, but carbon particulates, sulphates and a few other things were, then their policies would be more sensible.
3. If people realised that natural eruptions squirt large amounts of gases into the atmosphere and it cools us down for a while, they'd be more sanguine about atmospheric oscillations.
4. If people realised that minor warming is a good thing, we'd be more pragmatic.
All in all, I think I'm saying: you cried wolf like the Tories did in this election campaign, and now you're reaping the fruit of that.
Start telling the truth, using rigorous science and pragmatic economics and you'll get a bit further.
Complain about this comment
People take care of what we own, so dogs and cats are not endangered, but elephants are, because it's easier to own a live dog than a live elephants. Countries which have arranged private property in live elephants have seen their elephant populations grow. I understand in Britain one can own trout streams; not so easy here in the U.S. The U.S. has government "national parks" such as Yellowstone, and also private parks such as Disney. (Only a government would build tax-paid roads to harvest the scrawny lumber in Rocky Mountain National Park; a lumber company owning that land would rent it to environmentalist hikers.) So if we want clean air, the "think tanks" had better start thinkng about ways for people to own bits of air. Carbon trading by individuals as well as by corporations?
Complain about this comment
In the not particularly warm climate (weather) we have experienced this spring peoples feet are a little cold
But what evidence there is for CO2 as the sole cause warming seems impressive indeed compared to the evidence that reducing emissions would really cool the planet. Remember anthropogenic Co2 is only part of atmospheric Co2 and consider methane other gases and other effects. Ask yourself what would be the cost and what would be the benefit.
Better still the local effects might not correlate with an individual countries outlay
The science supporting AGW was never that simple but our aspirations to cut emissions and save the planet were a natural response to the frightening predictions and simplistic representations of the science by politicians and the media.
But was it realistic to suggest the developed countries of the world could or should decarbonise energy supply?
The reality is that no one knows how to rapidly decarbonize a major economy or what effect if any that would have on the climate.
Read Bjorn Lombergs analysis on cost v benefit, (one of many), this one explains how it might cost the EU 60-150 billion annually for a 20percent reduction by 2020, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg28/English
Complain about this comment
I've always been against the views espoused by so called "Climate Science".
1) There is no recognition of the inherant "Balance" within nature. Nature turns Carbon Dioxide back to Oxygen anyway and has done for hundreds of millions of years. Carbon is needed for life and shouldnt be "Dumped" like rubbish miles under the earth.
2) The simplest steps towards using power efficiently in our economy aren't being taken. For example, every powerstation up and down the country uses cooling towers - yet the power generated is used to heat up our homes. This is nonsense and purely done for monetary reasons.
3) Carbon trading has been "Created" like some vast monster with no reason to exist other than to make money for the few - much like stock markets do today. Stock markets creates misery as can be seen in the low prices of raw materials and the exploitation of the masses by the few. There is not ONE market today that does nothing other than hide misery - chocolate production is a clear example where child slavery is used and the goods traded by vastly over paid fat cats pressing buttons, without a care in the world.
Carbon trading fixes NOTHING, action on the ground does.
So I'm sorry, I don't trust governments, politicians or scientists because even "O" level education shows the statements being made are not the whole picture.
I doubt, like the £800 billion of foriegn debt sold in the UK, that the people creating the unholy mess will ever be at the knife end of the repurcussions. I can only conclude that greed and self interest continues to rule almost all the voices being raised.
But I do feel people are becoming sick of their so called betters - and one day I remain hopeful that the dog will turn and bite the masters hand - hopefully clean off.
Complain about this comment
I agree entirely with Ghostofsichuan, politicians running from this issue has nothing to do with the science, and everything to do with their lack of spine and their allegiance to their sources of wealth, the business as usual group - the 'plutonomy' spoken of openly by Wall Street.
Richard Black, I think you would be wise to pay more attention to people.
James Hansen spoke at the National Mall in Washington DC on Earth Day. He is not some faceless and emotionless committee from the IPCC, or the International Whaling Commission. He is the world's leading climatologist.
You worry about Australia and other governments. Worry not, we will replace them.
Trading schemes are just that. We need a carbon tax - NOW.
James Hansen has some concrete proposals, which he calls:
People’s Climate Stewardship / Carbon Fee and Dividend Act of 2010:
It's available at his Columbia website, and is a pdf.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Too many facts - not enough empathy. That's changing now, thanks to the artistic community.
There's a list, and it's growing, and it is sounding the death knell of the global powers that be who have worked 'a desolation' upon the Earth and its denizens:
1) An Inconvenient Truth
2) The Corporation
3) Avatar
4) The Age of Stupid
5) Capitalism - A Love Story
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Malthus was right, and the Ehrlichs were and are right.
The Club of Rome was right, Rachel Carson was right.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was right, as was Ghandi.
=================
We, the people, have been WRONG - worshipping the golden calf.
Anyone out there remember The Bible?
Not religious, are we?
We'll see.
\\\ Thought ///
The Cro-Magnon cave paintings were done by human beings apparently identical to us - IDENTICAL.
Maybe they were documenting a disappearing way of life, like the Montana artist Charlie Russell, who painted the West and its buffalo and aboriginals before they too were subjected to the tender mercies of our western way of life - or is it death?
Remember the recent posts on the International Whaling Association, etc etc...?
We are after the last fish, and soon the last jellyfish.
Speaking of fish, here is something for you all, from Boris Worm, at Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Canada. I'll paraphrase from Alanna Mitchell's book "Sea Sick":
- "50,000 years to deplete the planet's large animals
- 5,000 years to exhaust most of the coastal environments
- 500 years to fish out the continental shelf
- 50 years to impoverish the open ocean
- 5 years to run through the creatures of the deep ocean."
================
Welcome to 2010 Anno Domini.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Summary from: http://vocalminority.typepad.com/blog/2010/03/failed-scientist-paul-ehrlich-among-agw-alarmists-lashing-at-skeptics.html
"Since he came onto the national scene in 1968 with the book The Population Bomb, [Ehrlich] has been wrong on virtually everything has predicted about the future state of the world...
In this book and/or its second edition in 1971, Ehlrich purported:
“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
“[A] minimum of ten million people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving before the end of the century.”
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
[By 1984], “the United States will quite literally be dying of thirst.”
“India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980,” and “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971.”
*****[I forecast] “a new Ice Age … with rapid and drastic effects on the agricultural productivity of the temperate regions.”
In 1969, Ehrlich stated:
“Smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles.
“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
And in 1970, Ehrlich co-founded Earth Day on April 22 (coincidentally—wink wink—Vladimir Lenin’s birthday). At that inaugural event, he stated:
Four billion people—including 65 million Americans—would perish from famine in the 1980s.
“In ten years [i.e., 1980] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”
In 1976 he claimed:
“Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity … in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.”
In May of 1989, Ehrlich claimed, global warming was going to melt the polar ice caps, causing a flood in which “we could expect to lose all of Florida, Washington D.C., and the Los Angeles basin...we’ll be in rising waters with no ark in sight.”
Ehrlich was back on NBC in January 1990 to sell his “inconvenient truth” line again. This time, he gave a more concrete timeline. Antarctica’s ice sheets were slipping, and then “we’ll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable.”
Funny, eh?
Complain about this comment
Yes, it is about the "business as usual group - the 'plutonomy' spoken of openly by Wall Street."
Excerpt from: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/will-obamas-goldman-sachs-attack-expose-al-gore-or-other-dems/?singlepage=true
"About a decade ago, Goldman executives recognized that personal fortunes could be made with the invention of a carbon trading system through the passage of a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. This area was well suited to Goldman Sachs, the architects behind the complex world of futures trading and exotic derivatives.
Goldman joined Al Gore in 2004 and capitalized his investment company, Generation Investment Management. Strangely for a man who was a heartbeat away from the presidency, Gore decided to register his company in London — not the United States.
In November 2004, Gore unveiled GIM. Standing at his side was David Blood, the CEO of Goldman Asset Management. Blood was to become his co-founder (the new company was quickly nicknamed “Blood & Gore”). It was established with the initial capital of $206 million, much of it from Blood clients at Goldman Sachs.
Gore also turned to Goldman Sachs guru (and later Bush Treasury Secretary) Henry Paulson to help him establish GIM. At the time, Paulson himself was an eco-warrior of sorts, serving as chairman of the board of the Nature Conservancy.
Today, seven of Gore’s GIM chief partners are from Goldman Sachs. The company is now valued at $2.2 billion.
It doesn’t stop there. The Goldman Sachs/Gore team then established the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a new cap-and-trade carbon trading platform, and partnered with the UK-based Climate Exchange, Plc (CLE), a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. CLE does carbon trading in Europe. In late 2004, they also created the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFX).
In September of 2006, Climate Exchange Plc acquired the remainder of CCX it didn’t own and placed £12.2 million of new shares with Goldman Sachs.
Goldman is reported to have made an investment of $23 million in the venture. Between Gore and Goldman, they are the largest investors in the Chicago Climate Exchange, owning 20% of it."
----
Wonder why they set up shop in the UK? Maybe Lord Oxborough suggested that.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
You forgot to mention one guest who was really looking forward to partying:
Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.
Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/gore-associate-said-to-be-named-in-brewing-ethics-scandal/
stinks, doesn't it?
Warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@mansummits
you get funnier every day
Warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
The whole eco-facism approach that looked to be threatening all of us is now dead in the water - the rebellion of millions of ordinary people has killed it dead.
Look how UK politicians are scarcely mentioning it during the election - road taxes, bin taxes, plastic bag bans etc would have been high profile no more than a year ago. No one wants to be associated with eco-facism any more.
We don't need laws or taxes. All we need is practical alternatives. Give me locally produced bio-fuel for my car or tidal generated electricity for my house - not only will I buy it, I will welcome the supply/price security that comes with it.
Complain about this comment
Vote blue get green, Cast Iron Cameron must be kicking himself now for that one.
Complain about this comment
the funny thing, the really funny thing is if the politicians had simply said, look- it's better to reduce emissions (of all ghc's) as best we can as we're polluting when we don't need to be. i don't think anyone would object.
Decent, well thought out reductions- switching to viable alternatives where possible and a general 'green' approach to things is a good thing, and if applies gently would work, and much better than things are going now.
Seems the scaremongering has turned around to bite them in the ass.
Complain about this comment
I for one am happy to see the collapse of the AGW movement. Everyone concentrated so much on policy and "saving the earth" that nobody bothered to look into the issues like...
CO2's actual forcing never being established (its absorption is NOT the same thing as its ability to force the atmospheric gradient, which is how the greenhouse effect works)
Feedbacks seeming to be weak during interglacials (the glacial periods show signs of very high feedbacks but the behavior stops during the interglacial periods)
Warming being bad??? (Everything alive has lived through significantly higher temperatures during the interglacial optimum, bigger temperature swings during the transitions...and cold is still by far a bigger killer than heat.
Also...the added CO2 and higher temperatures (which are likely natural) have helped us to feed the growing population.
There was NEVER an actual reason for alarm.
====================
@ghostofsichuan #1 who wrote...
"Maybe with the diminishing water resources and recent dust storms in Australia, by doing nothing the government will at some point be required to address the real issue..the cause."
Yeah, but they've already realized that the droughts are a part of a perfectly normal cycle. The only constant in the climate system...is change.
====================
@BluesBerry #5 who wrote...
"HAARP makes weather catastrophes including floods and droughts, eaethquakes and hurricaines, harsh cold and barren heat – HAARP is ‘THE’ weather factor."
Heating the same spot over the pole cannot control the weather of the world. Get the heck over it. HAARP is just a crappy little atmospheric experiment...perhaps with some communications impacting strategic capability at most.
====================
@manysummits #13 who wrote...
"James Hansen spoke at the National Mall in Washington DC on Earth Day. He is not some faceless and emotionless committee from the IPCC, or the International Whaling Commission. He is the world's leading climatologist."
Most of Hansen's major work lacks verifiability, little more than a hypothesis. The bulk of his reputation is based on his big ego and bigger mouth. He truly is the Lysenko of our time. The only down side I can see in his eventual fall is that his annoying minions will get a consolation prize in the reality of...the earth having never been in any danger at all.
====================
@jon112uk #21 who wrote...
"Give me locally produced bio-fuel for my car or tidal generated electricity for my house"
I don't think the UK is going to be using much in the way of alternatives...or energy independence for that matter. You'll likely have to just settle for nuclear plants until something better comes along.
Complain about this comment
The Global Warming party is definitely over.
The eco-mentalists are all waking up with a nasty hangover.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo846.html
Complain about this comment
..to all you deniers out there...burning fossil fuels also produces heat and water......
Complain about this comment
@ 26.
and your point is?
Complain about this comment
Jim Hansen provided the "Trojan Horse". greenpeace and all the other eco-fascists climbed aboard and have now become part of the new "establishment". They are dependent on ever increasing levels of funding and are driven to create ever more dramatic predictions to fund the growth in their power.
The travesty is that the obsession with a gas that may actually be beneficial and is in no way a "pollutant" has stopped people tackling the root of the problems - world population growth.
The eco warriors of the 80's are today's blinkered machine.
Complain about this comment
Time to move on, climate change is dead, no need to carry on calling one another names, even school kids think it is a con (in fact they are pretty angry at having had it rammed down their thoughts all their lives). What is important is that we should still press ahead with clean energy, energy security, bio diversity protection and above all world population control/reduction.
Complain about this comment
Jack #4, thanks for the link - very interesting article.
Complain about this comment
Smiffie at #29
"even school kids think it is a con"
I'd be interested to learn on what this is based on?
Complain about this comment
Like many, my previous certainty regarding anthropogenic climate change has been shaken by recent revelations, but remember, just because some of the evidence has been falsified does not mean that the theory is wrong, how many dangerous criminals have been put away by dodgy evidence? There is too much at stake, not just climate change but many related issues, poverty, equality, responsible life styles etc, if the disinterested masses get conflicting messages on climate change then what hope is there for building a better society?
Complain about this comment
[EARTHDATE 4.4.2045] excerpt from "Wolf Cry"
And so it came pass in 2010 that the small flowering shrub of climate and environmental conciousness was crushed, by a combination of the usual suspects, bad politics, bad press, bad luck and big business. In the following few years the continuance of world wide financial crises, which culminated in the mega-depression of 2014 to 2028 and the final thrashings of the old financial kleptocracy, pulled up it's funding roots. The onset of the simultaneous energy-production crisis cast them aside to rot. England (Formerly part of the now defunct United Kingdom and the disbanded European Union project). Simply went back to coal mining as did many other countries that were left unable to afford more expensive advanced solutions or buy, the then hugely expensive, energy on world markets.
England's and the world's governments could not afford to return to the subject for another 25 years, by then the increased coal burning world wide...
:(
Complain about this comment
@32 wolife.
so, your take-home message would be : forget the fact things have been falsified (bolivia temperature readings- 4 threads on and not a single agw-er has given me an explanation for it), the science distorted, the message rail-roaded by politicians and people who stand to make billions of Carbon capture- it's all all right if the message is good. which it is, if only those things we just mentioned are ignored.
huh.
but, as has been said above- perhaps now we can look at the more pressing issues like population, mass starvation, genocide and gordon brown coming last but still staying pm...
Complain about this comment
#32 Wolfiewoods A few things
What have "poverty, equality, responsible life styles etc" got to do with climate change? Each of these is a seperate issue in its own right and deserves to be considered on its own merits as opposed to being overshadowed by a rather dodgy issue
"just because some of the evidence has been falsified does not mean that the theory is wrong"
Which is true, but then again if the theory was right why would anyone need to falsify evidence? The need to falsify evidence does imply that the theory is wrong
"how many dangerous criminals have been put away by dodgy evidence?" I think that this is a dangerous way to go, when the ends start to justify the means it can be the start of a very slippery slope. After all, you could use that same argument to :
Suppress any other views (Because there's too much at stake)
Falsify evidence (because there's too much at stake)
Bribe the right people to get the right decision (Because there's too much at stake)
I'm not saying or trying to imply that you would approve of any of these, but the argument is exactly the same
"If the disinterested masses get conflicting messages on climate change then what hope is there for building a better society?"
Well, one of the things it could lead to is people starting to think for themselves as opposed to blindly accepting everthing they're told. I would personally think that would be a good start to building a better society.
The other thing is the question "What does climate change have to do with building a better society?"
Another would be "If we feel the need to demand people subscribe to one view regardless of the evidence then what hope is there for building a better society?"
I know you mean well with all this, but reading what you wrote reminds me of the reasoning that gives us "We have always been at war with oceania"
Complain about this comment
The sceptics are soaking up the propaganda with ever greater propensity. Politicians are more likely to vote against costly long term measures in favour of short term gain. Most of these politicians will be dead by time the effects of global warming are so large that humanitarian disasters occur and western economies are shrinking due to adaptation costs.
The funny thing is that the science has not changed. The scientists are still singing in concert. The mean global temperature is still trending upwards and atmospheric CO2 is still rising. The physical mechanisms by which CO2 heats the atmosphere remains the same, and no real change has occurred in the experts interpretation of how increased CO2 will lead to increased temperature. The irony is that while all this bickering is going on, yet more papers supporting AGW are being published. They have nil effect on the public. It seems only the clever PR, spin and an hysteric media has an influence on the public and unfortunately, some politicians, especially those lacking the intellectual and moral integrity to qualify their views, prefer votes at the next election over doing something that is 'right'. Wake up Australia.
Complain about this comment
I said at #29 "even school kids think it is a con"
simon-swede said at #31 “I'd be interested to learn on what this is based on?”
Simon, please go and talk to some kids.
Complain about this comment
What kind of dream world does SR exist in?
Complain about this comment
7. ghostofsichuan wrote:
"Politicians voted against an early warning system in the Pacific until the tsunami killed 250,000 people."
The usual rubbish from this blogger.
There IS an early warning system in the Pacific Ocean.
The tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean.
And there's no need to have an early warning system anyhow. All they should have done was to inform the big radio stations who would have blasted the information worldwide in minutes. Far faster than any government agency.
And which politicians voted against a warning system?
Date and names please.
Complain about this comment
mango at #19
And you may be looking for a party at the wrong address...
Applied Materials, a U.S. company opened the world’s largest commercial solar research and development center in Xian, China, in October last year. It initially sought applicants for 260 scientist/technologist jobs, received 26,000 Chinese applications and hired 330 people — 31 percent with master’s or Ph.D. degrees. Roughly 50 percent of the solar panels in the world were made in China last year.
Complain about this comment
Smiffie at #37
Oh, I see. What a suprise - you made it up.
Complain about this comment
Dear LabMunkey,
My point is we are adding heat and water to the ecosphere and that therefore, in the abscence of any well-defined buffering system, we are contributing to global warming and increasing the net amount of water in it.
Complain about this comment
34. At 12:23pm on 28 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
"bolivia temperature readings- 4 threads on and not a single agw-er has given me an explanation for it"
I've seen you mention it a number of times, but you don't give any more details. I googled bolivia + temperature but found nothing.
Complain about this comment
The "manmade global warming has ended" cry is wishful thinking. Global temperatures show no sign of reversing and co2 continues rising. The physics that underlies the link between rising co2 and future temperature rise has not changed since 2 years ago (pre climategate, pre cold winters, etc)
I predict that within the next few years we'll see global temperatures step upwards to a new level, much as they did from the 90s to 00s.
Complain about this comment
..I do have sympathy with some of the rabid conspiracy theorists promulgating their art on this site....perhaps we should move from 'Green' to 'Clean'......?
Complain about this comment
@32 Wolfiewoods
You wrote "if the disinterested masses get conflicting messages on climate change then what hope is there for building a better society"
Just who do you define as 'the disinterested masses' and how do you think you are entitled to make decisions for them based on what you believe to be a potentially better society?
In these comments you display arrogance of the first water. You seem to believe that you know better than anyone else what is right for them. The claims of the warmist camp surrounding AGW are open for debate at the very least, yet you think forcing your views down the throats of less educated people and dictating what is correct is the only way to improve society.
How about instead we concentrate on better public information programmes and comprehensive political reform in order that we produce an electorate which is able to make its own decisions on topics of such importance and a political elite who have no choice other than to listen to its constituency and is capable of acting on their educated opinions.
The first thing to do would be to allow rigorous testing of the data used to support the theory of AGW by individuals with no vested interest in the promotion of the theory or connections with the establishment, followed by clear and concise communication of the results to the global public. Nothing less than this will convince your 'disinterested masses' that there is a need for change.
Complain about this comment
i dunno, all the governments and oil companies seem to have forgotten lately how much tax cash they could be making out of the great scientific conspiracy they funded. apparently.
either that or the above conspiracy was made up by scummy denialists and politicians are mostly incompetent vote whores.
hmm cant decide lol
Complain about this comment
DrBrian #39: "The usual rubbish from this blogger. There IS an early warning system in the Pacific Ocean. The tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean."
Pacific Tsunami Warning Center
"The PTWC was established in 1949, following the 1946 Aleutian Island earthquake and a tsunami that resulted in 165 casualties in Hawaii and Alaska. After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, PTWC has extended its warning guidance to include the Indian Ocean, Caribbean and adjacent regions until regional capability is in place for these areas. These regional systems will form a global tsunami warning system once they are in operation."
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@ infinity- sorry i thought it was widespread knowledge- Bolivia appears in all the recent temperature maps as a hot spot in the ares, significantly raising the local average, which i find interesting as there have been no thermometer readings there for over 20 years...
none. zero, zilch- i'm not even sure (please correct if i'm wrong) that it has any functioning weather stations left (wrt global average temperatures).
So, the question begs, how does this VERY hot average skewing data come about, when there is not, and has not for 20 years, been any method for recording said temperature.
try goolgin 'bolivia effect', that might pick it up- if not try the bolivia, temperature average, problem string. Let me know if you still have issues and i'll try link something for you mate.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan said “Once the government develops a tax stream it will defend it and that means that they will defend the continuation of fossil fuel use at the disadvantage of alternatives.”
What is needed is home spun energy solutions, ones that avoid the tax trap. Ironically the people most likely to take an interest in such d.i.y. solutions are the sceptical petrol-heads tinkering in their garden sheds. I remember back in the 1970’s reading a newspaper article about a pig farmer who ran his Hillman Minx on methane that he produced from his own pig dung.
If only we could stop calling one another names, we could work around government to develop clean, renewable, secure energy regardless of our views on AGW. Home made energy is difficult to tax.
Complain about this comment
Another blow for the doom-bringers...
http://today.uci.edu/news/2010/04/nr_soilcarbon_100426.php
pro-AGW models predicted that as the Earth warms, bacteria will emit more CO2, further adding to the spectre of positive feedbacks. This piece claims to show the opposite effect, whereby bacteria repsiration slows longterm in warmer climates.
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if these models were just as bad as the climate models of the IPCC & friends.
Real experimental data, anyone ?
Complain about this comment
@infinty
'The "manmade global warming has ended" cry is wishful thinking. Global temperatures show no sign of reversing and co2 continues rising. The physics that underlies the link between rising co2 and future temperature rise has not changed since 2 years ago (pre climategate, pre cold winters, etc)
I predict that within the next few years we'll see global temperatures step upwards to a new level, much as they did from the 90s to 00s.'
Temperatures will rise and temperatures will fall - when they rise - it's CO2, when they fall - (i.e. post 1998) it's well, don't know why - but they will surely rise again ! You claim to know the physics of CO2-induced climate change - in fact nobody does. No-one really knows whether the feedback is positive or negative - which is the main issue. The IPCC assumes and its models account for positive feedback (no surprises there).
Yet more spurious assuptions...
Complain about this comment
Lets suppose for a moment that the case for anthropogenic climate change has been greatly over stated, that Bangladesh is not being inundated by the sea, that Africa is not turning to desert and that the earth is only getting slightly warmer, pleasantly warm for many of us. What chance is there of making the man in the street give up his greedy ways so that people far away can be feed? none at all, he will not care that they starve, but he will care if he is told that his grand children will starve. The events of the last few weeks have gone over the heads of most people, they don’t read these blogs, they just watch sport & soap, the newspapers will soon move on & there is an election to distract people. Renew the campaign at the height of summer & keep it simple, people need complex issues simplified, if it’s hot it must be getting warmer Keep it simple stupid.
Complain about this comment
"The first thing to do would be to allow rigorous testing of the data used to support the theory of AGW by individuals with no vested interest in the promotion of the theory or connections with the establishment"
What about individuals with vested interest in the dismissal of the theory?
Complain about this comment
@52
"Temperatures will rise and temperatures will fall"
Examination of the graph showing mean global temperature for the past 100 years is quite clear. Temperatures rise, level off, rise again, level off. This is consistent with an underlying warming trend with natural variability superimposed on top.
There is also a huge scientific consensus with massive evidence supporting the view that the feedback is positive. It is little more than wishful thinking on the part of sceptics to pretend this is not the case, or complete and utter arrogance to think your view is more qualified than the vast majority of the experts.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #31
(@Smiffie)
The Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth is the basis of climate change education in secondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland. Someone in the UK government mistook it for a science documentary.
By law this education includes the warning that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth has nine serious errors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Some of the nine errors touch on the case for AGW and others for its current and projected impact. In some cases Gore has been overzealous in showing the worst possibilities and the worst interpretations. In others Gore has oversimplified complicated ideas.
This last is the biggest problem as a Gore's misleading comments about Milankovitch cycles and carbon dioxide had to be clearly refuted. A clear refutation takes priority over a complicated but more accurate explanation. Schoolchildren are not automatically given the full correct explanation for Milankovitch cycles and carbon dioxide. Even when they are given the full explanation they may not understand it, and just come away with the strong impression that Gore was plain wrong.
This gives many British schoolchildren the starting point that AGW science is wrong and that pro-AGW messages cannot be trusted.
Complain about this comment
@Wolfiewoods
"Renew the campaign at the height of summer & keep it simple, people need complex issues simplified, if it’s hot it must be getting warmer Keep it simple stupid."
Won't work.
What you suggest is immoral, likely to rebound as soon as autumn arrives, and the public is not as stupid as you imply.
Or are you just taking the p***?
Complain about this comment
Re 49. LabMunkey:
"Bolivia appears in all the recent temperature maps as a hot spot in the ares, significantly raising the local average, which i find interesting as there have been no thermometer readings there for over 20 years..."
What about months where Bolivia appears as a cold spot, significantly reducing the local average?
"So, the question begs, how does this VERY hot average skewing data come about, when there is not, and has not for 20 years, been any method for recording said temperature."
GISTEMP estimates the anomaly in that area from anomalies in surrounding areas. The reason there's a hot spot there in recent months is because the surrounding measurements show a warm anomaly.
I found the "Bolivia effect" source you spoke of. It looks very much to me that it was an attempt to create an issue out of nothing - some bloggers need to conjure up controversies to create posts it seems.
Bolivia must be about 0.5% of the earth's surface, if that, so how it is handled cannot make much difference to global warming anyway. Also consider that it cannot be accused to warm bias the results because as far as we know the effect of extrapolation over the years might have had cool bias rather than a warming one! The blog source of the argument doesn't even consider that - or any of the months where Bolivia has been handed a cold anomaly thanks to extrapolation. It just focuses on a recent warm month and implies that something deliberate and wrong is afoot. If you don't like the way the extrapolation works GISTEMP does provide the means to calculate the mean without extrapolation.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
@SR
"There is also a huge scientific consensus with massive evidence supporting the view that the feedback is positive"
Unlike the warming community to overstate with words such as 'massive' and 'huge'
These words alone mean nothing. Care to give some examples ?
As for the negative feedback theory - it goes something like this - warming causes water vapour to increase (in itself a cooling effect), which condenses in the air as clouds - incraesing the albedo affect (reflection of light back), reducing the warming.
If the warming was a positive feedback, the increased CO2 in the past would have caused the atmosphere to be wiped from the Earth.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-how-mother-nature-fooled-the-world%e2%80%99s-top-climate-scientists/
Complain about this comment
56. JaneBasingstoke wrote: "The Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth is the basis of climate change education in secondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland. Someone in the UK government mistook it for a science documentary."
Nice spin Jane. Oops. Just a little accident. No doubt done by some low level minion, right?
This was no accident or mistake. If not for the efforts of the truth seeking 'sceptics' it would still be used as a deliberate brainwashing tool. No wonder Orwell set 1984 in the UK.
Then you say this:
"This gives many British schoolchildren the starting point that AGW science is wrong and that pro-AGW messages cannot be trusted."
Yes. Very true. The AGW "science" is wrong and the propagandists flogging this cannot be trusted.
Children should learn to not trust people who are trying to deliberately brainwash them with false and misleading information.
What do you call people who molest children's brains?
They should also learn to never trust people masquerading as scientists who scream the debate is over whent they are questioned. By saying that they are proving that they do not know what science is.
Check my post #18. This has nothing to do with the environment. In the meantime,the Wall Streeters still obviously have an army of drones supporting their scheme who foolishly think they are doing something noble.
Complain about this comment
OK Stop all Anthropogenic CO2 production - right now. All of it. Remove humanity too.
How will that 3.8% make any difference at all to the climate?
manysummits is approaching a tipping point I think.
Complain about this comment
About that imminently melting ice cap. How's the heroic Caitlin Expedition doing?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/27/wuwt-sea-ice-news-2/#comments
Complain about this comment
\\\ To the BBC: re posts #49 & 58 ///
I seldom read posts from what I term 'the lobby.'
But as I was awaiting the posting of my #59 and 60, I chanced to glance at these two.
Here is the temperature data from a few of Bolivia's airports, which of course have weather atations.
http://sites.google.com/site/boliviaweather/the-weather-in-bolivia
===================================================================
However, my point is this:
Is there some way to overcome outright lies and misinformation presented on this weblog?
Should the BBC revise its anonymous policy, and instead we will all post under our own verifiable names, addresses and email URL's included?
Or ssome other more innovative means of due diligence on the part of a majo website such as the BBC?
If repeated offences - i.e., outright lies and misinformation, are repeated, should an account be deleted?
Should sources be a requirement, as for example, George Monbiot articles in The Guardian?
I am all for freedom of speech, but why should sources not be a requirement?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Smiffie:
Poor people do that all the time. In rural China and other parts of the world it is not that unusual to have pigs in the next room and the methane produced run through a metal tube and used for flame for cooking, dried cow dung is another source because it is the only fuel source available. Urban areas would have a more difficult time with such solutions. Although Capitol cities housing governments buildings may produce enough for an entire urban area.I agree the energy should be on individual production and use and that may be accomplished with hydrogen. The issue of the big power producers and the taxes they pay to governemtns make going in that direction difficult because of the vested interest of both. I think you are correct in suggesting that a "tinkerer" will more likely come up with a solution as they are not constrained by big corporations,academics or government. All research is geared toward a "plug-in" to the the existing grid and that makes the development of individual production products without governmental or corporate support. These things will develop in countries that have a higher need and corruption is limited to the less formal forms of governmental graft. China brings about one new coal fired power plant on line per week and now exceeds the US, Europe and Japan combined in carbon emissions. I think that fact and Australia selling coal to China (China has recently bought two large coal producing companies in Australia)has more to do with the recent decisions about Climate Change by the Australian government than some question about the science. China imports a great deal of coal now. We would all be wise to consider that almost everything we use daily has been provided by science and the bashing of science on this page fails to appreciate that. None of these things started out as perfect. Leeches were once a form of medical treatment, as was bleeding. One may also wish to consider the possibility that the Climate Change science has under-estimated the problems. If the claim is that the science is faulty both possbilities must be considered, not just the one people would prefer.
Complain about this comment
700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming listed:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Yet the IPCC chose to use a large number of gray sources from such totally objective sources as the WWF and Greenpeace.
And the honourable Lord Oxborough somehow missed any and all information critical of his vested interests.
And of course Prince Charles loves the WWF...
"In May 2008, Prince Charles warned we had just 18 months before the world faced a series of natural disasters.
"We will end up seeing more drought and starvation on a grand scale. Weather patterns will become even more terrifying and there will be less and less rainfall," he said.
His solution was of course $30 billion a year."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100121033000AAq4zf8
Maybe the Prince and Paul Ehrlich should become fortune tellers at a carnival.
WWF = World Watermelon Fund. A subsidiary of Wall Street. Ironic how the capitalist elite has the eco-marxist drones working for them.
Complain about this comment
infinity @54:
"What about individuals with vested interest in the dismissal of the theory?"
Well, if your 'enemies' can't find fault with your work, then you know it must be solid.
In any case, many who wish to discredit something will always find ways of doing so - usually by attempting to discredit the people involved rather than their theory. People like that are certainly not minded to give the work a critical appraisal.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @57:
"What you suggest is immoral"
I agree, although that didn't stop people like Hansen and Gore from employing such tactics.
Complain about this comment
"If the warming was a positive feedback, the increased CO2 in the past would have caused the atmosphere to be wiped from the Earth."
Not at all
Complain about this comment
Many summits
Here is a source, organised 'climate change' activists manipulating the comment sections of the newspapers..
"Daily Mail and Telegraph heavily targeted again for media maniuplation by organised, man made climate change alarmists:
Campaign Against Climate Change
Sceptics Alerts... (todays list just received it)
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384
Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Are TV viewers really too stupid to spot the difference ... -
Daily Mail: The ash cloud that never was: How volcanic plume over UK was only a twentieth ... -
Daily Mail: MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The elementary fault in Labour's quangocracy
Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Are TV viewers really too stupid to spot the difference ...
Daily Mail: Every night the BBC lectures us on climate change. So why did their bosses ...
Christopher Booker: Volcano crisis: Sense vanishes in a puff of ash
Christopher Booker: It's a pity we can't vote out our real rulers
Christopher Booker: Unforgivable persecution of the Bushmen
http://www.campaigncc.org/whoweare
George Monbiot (Guardian), Michael Meacher (Lab MP), Norman Baker (Lib dem MP), Caroline Lucas (Green Leader, MEP) and Jean Lambert (Green MEP).
Don't Daily Mail journalists, editors get annoyed about this sort of thing, from fellow journalists, MP's and MEP's especially...
Todays List: Courtesy of Campaign Against Climate Change
Guardian climate change: Ukip answers questions about its science policy | General Election 2010
Guardian climate change: Catlin survey: an Inuit view of life in the Arctic
Daily Mail: BUSINESS AND ELECTION: UK needs power on poll agenda - Daily Mail
Guardian climate change: Coal activists arrested after chaining themselves to railway track
Guardian climate change: Video: David Cameron addresses the Ask The Climate Question debate
Guardian climate change: Nick Clegg addresses Ask The Climate Question debate
Guardian climate change: Video: Gordon Brown addresses the Ask the Climate Question debate
Complain about this comment
@Rob_Cambs #61
(@SR)
I am confused by your post.
You attempt to describe water vapour's contribution to the greenhouse effect, apparently forgetting that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Then you link to a Roy Spencer article. Spencer's text in the article only matches yours in his reference to clouds and low climate sensitivity.
Perhaps you could explain why you link to Spencer's article when it does not match your text.
Complain about this comment
65. manysummits wrote: "Is there some way to overcome outright lies and misinformation presented on this weblog?"
You mean like this?:
16. manysummits wrote: "the Ehrlichs were and are right."
You will find a link exposing this nonsense at #17.
I have asked you about this twice yet you don't seem to want to deal with anything factual. Perhaps you could post using your real name, just to set an noble example for us all. And perhaps some facts would help.
Complain about this comment
To whom it may concern... but then again, what do physicists know?
In a recently re-published paper, Dr Gerhard Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #62
"nice spin"
"Spin"? Favourite word of yours? Or do you always see spin where other people have a different opinion than yours?
For the record I want schools to stop showing the film. It is an own goal.
Meanwhile my line about someone in the UK government mistaking the Gore film for a science documentary was sarcasm about the scientific literacy (or lack of it) of the UK government. Sorry you didn't pick up on it.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #69
Gore has sometimes been too keen to attribute specific weather events to AGW. But Hansen?
Example please.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits:
http://www.korea.net/news.do?mode=detail&thiscode=eng030008&guid=46155
this is a link to the Korean Gov. page that outlines the adoption of reductions of carbon emissions by businesses. Although the deniers want to point to Australia as some bell-weather, Korea has put reductions within a legal framework with set targets.
Complain about this comment
@KeithHart #42 who wrote...
"My point is we are adding heat and water to the ecosphere and that therefore, in the absence of any well-defined buffering system, we are contributing to global warming and increasing the net amount of water in it."
I assure you...our contribution to the 1300 cubic kilometers that evaporates and then falls as rain every day...is insignificant.
@infinity #44 who wrote...
"The physics that underlies the link between rising co2 and future temperature rise has not changed since 2 years ago (pre climategate, pre cold winters, etc)"
You're right...it hasn't changed. In this whole time it's never been worked out. You people foolishly assume that CO2's absorption and energy on the ground are the same thing. They are not! There are other forces that act to move energy to the restricting zone (tropopause) and they grow stronger exponentially. While you lot go on about the "3.7 watts per square meter of forcing" and the minimum 1.2C of warming it should cause, you completely ignore the 6+ watts per square meter of additional latent heat and convection carries to the tropopause. You also ignore the fact that this change increases the number and temperature (causing higher emissions) of clouds. You ignore the fact that latent heat carried by water vapor negates its additional absorption...as this absorption is an integral part of the observed, most atmospheric lapse rate. Counting the "additional" absorption by water vapor means you've counted it twice (one of those violations of thermodynamics the climate scientists have admitted is possible because of parametrization of the bits they don't understand)
See, the science of AGW is exactly as it was before climategate...garbage.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #24
Don't knock HAARP. HAARP keeps BluesBerry very happy, rustling up tin foil hats while watching old DVDs of Gillian Anderson.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke wrote:
@Rob_Cambs #61
(@SR)
'I am confused by your post.
You attempt to describe water vapour's contribution to the greenhouse effect, apparently forgetting that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas'
In it's vapour form - water is a greenhouse gas. In cloud form it reflects sunlight back in to space, a cooling effect. The albedo effect is an important but largely ignored phenomenen.
Complain about this comment
A lot of the comments above demonstrate the dangers of spending lots of time reading internet blogs that tell you what you want to hear. Facts are that politicians were pretty useless at dealing with the issue of carbon emmisions before 'climategate' and they are just as short termist and inept now.
The depressing hole in the idea that the politicians inertia is a prouduct of changing scientific evidence is shown by the recent failure to get a ban in place of that type of fish that is going extinct. Overwhelming scientific evidence = no effective response by useless politicians.
Just for context on the political front here (as you would never know from the way certain people post on this blog), all the major political partys in the UK accept the mainstream science on climate change. The Welsh and Scots Nationalists actually have more heavy going policies on it than the big 3. The only partys that are 'sceptical' are the far right ideological lovelies of the BNP and UKIP, who are currently expected to win zero seats at the general election.
The nearest thing to a major 'climate change' election issue is the proposed Heathrow expansion, which is likely to lose the Labour party a big pile of seats. The reality is that climate change scepticicim remains a fringe interest within the general population.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #74
"do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams, which represent mathematical expressions clearly defined in quantum field theory [159]."
[from "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph D. Tscheuschner, version 4, 4 March 2009]
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Feynman diagrams? LOL.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @76:
Perhaps it was just coincidence that his (in)famous 1988 Senate testimony was scheduled for a particularly sweltering day, and that the air conditioning in the room wasn't working - I couldn't possibly comment.
Complain about this comment
@Rob_Cambs #80
(@SR)
Ignored? Clouds are THE most debated area of AGW science.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html
And you still haven't explained why you link to Spencer's article when your description of water vapour's contribution to the greenhouse effect does not match his.
Complain about this comment
81. At 10:06pm on 28 Apr 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:
'A lot of the comments above demonstrate the dangers of spending lots of time reading internet blogs that tell you what you want to hear'
You are right to be dispondent about this - I am too. I am a scientist, for what it's worth. I am disappointed that science in general has taken a blow in the public's eyes because of all this. The truth is that blogs (and other sources) make very compelling arguments, that are scientific (even if not peer-reviewed). I read all sides, and I do try to make an objective point. If you haven't read the dreaded 'blogs' - I suggest you do.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #83
Naughty Hansen. Should have waited until September.
Except I'm having trouble reconciling Wolfiewoods "keep it simple, people need complex issues simplified, if it’s hot it must be getting warmer Keep it simple stupid" with Hansen's testimony with its careful probabilities and caveats.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/to%3A1989/mean%3A12
Complain about this comment
Re 78. poitsplace
Your post consists of things which are either irrelevant, or things that are wrong. You also wrongly claim that scientists are ignoring various concepts.
Are climate scientists and climate models ignoring convection? No. Resoundingly no. It's bizzare that you think you can get away with even arguing something so ridiculous.
All the concepts you mention and interactions between them are represented in climate models. Better yet the models calculate the consequence of those interactions rather than just assuming them and asserting them on a BBC blog.
"While you lot go on about the "3.7 watts per square meter of forcing" and the minimum 1.2C of warming it should cause, you completely ignore the 6+ watts per square meter of additional latent heat and convection carries to the tropopause."
Climate models incorperate both convection and radiative forcing. Your mistake is to assume you can only have one or the other! In reality both exist.
Complain about this comment
@Yorkurbantree
It is rather weak to use the mainstream politicians adherence to the consensus view to support the idea that scepticism is a minority view its not anymore and the BBC will have to get use to the idea. I have heard very little on the Copenhagen consensus interestingly in the run up to the election from any party
In trying to help advocate the simplistic AGW view I think the BBC is failing to promote understanding of the real issues and the evidence base for 'climate science' , we just need good science and good debate(balance) not spin or exageration
I like Alan Titchmarshs view on this spring.. quite typical in my opinion of how the public feel a little bemused and sceptical
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
75. JaneBasingstoke wrote: "For the record I want schools to stop showing the film...
Meanwhile my line about someone in the UK government mistaking the Gore film for a science documentary was sarcasm about the scientific literacy (or lack of it) of the UK government. Sorry you didn't pick up on it."
I'm sorry I missed that too. Glad to hear that you are against the deliberate brainwashing of children with scary science fiction films.
Did you catch the introductory film at Copenhagen? Now that was really, really scary. But it was apparently for adults.
And "nice spin" was a compliment. You portrayed that decision to feed that film to the innocent children as a 'mistake' and your critique of it was like something Tipper Gore may have written. So, you did a good job in what seems to be your goal here.
Of course, I could be wrong about what I perceive your goal is here.
82. Yes. What do physicists know? And who could have ever peer reviewed that laughable paper?
Same with those 700 papers in that link at #67. They probably all work for Big Oil.
In case you have an open mind, here's something of interest. Just food for thought. Simple CO2 stories are nice digestible fodder, and useful for other agendas, but global climate is a little more complicated than that - as you appear to clearly understand.
“Seven Theories of Climate Change” available
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Who knows? They may all be wrong. But that's the beauty of real science. To keep questioning the accepted views until it gets closer to the verifiable reality. So far we are not even close to that on this issue.
Complain about this comment
81. Yorkurbantree wrote:"A lot of the comments above demonstrate the dangers of spending lots of time reading internet blogs that tell you what you want to hear."
That's true but this site seems to allow a rather lively debate on this issue. I think you are refering to sites like realclimate where inconvenient thoughts never get past their censors.
I just recently discovered this site and was pleasantly surprised by the dialogue here. Hadn't expected that as the BBC I see on TV seems to be a liitle less open to this debate, to put it mildly.
Complain about this comment
To Ghostofsichuan #77:
Thanks for the link to the Korean reductions. The cracks are starting to appear. We will go on without the USA, until they too cave in and comply.
I wrote you a long post at #59, which was origianlly posted, but later removed. Trash ad infinitum is allowed from the lobby - strange, isn't it?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
It was a giveaway, wasn't it, when the BBC did not cover Bolivia.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
As the 'climate party' loses its guests, we are better off.
In order to achieve what must be achieved we must change the process of change, which has been not only ineffective, but ruinously wasteful of time - and we are very short of time.
To produce a different result, we must use different means.
The well told story is that means.
I am at this moment re-watching "Home," free on youtube.
If it is not 'inch-perfect' in scientific accuracy, it is accurate enough. The message is clear - change or die.
There are many kinds of dying - physical death is only one. To die in your soul is another. When you give up - you die. When you say it can't be done - you lose.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@infinity #87 who wrote...
"All the concepts you mention and interactions between them are represented in climate models. Better yet the models calculate the consequence of those interactions rather than just assuming them and asserting them on a BBC blog."
Actually they've admitted that parametrization breaks many relationships and can (and in this case does) lead to voilations of the laws of thermodynamics. (like counting water vapor's absorption separately from the observed, moist adiabatic lapse rate within the atmosphere)
==================
"Climate models incorperate both convection and radiative forcing. Your mistake is to assume you can only have one or the other! In reality both exist."
No I do not assume only one can exist. I merely point out that since latent heat and convection are responsible for the bulk of the energy movement across the troposphere...it is not physically possible for CO2 to have anywhere near the forcing suggested.
If you have two resistors in parallel, changing the value of one letting through less electricity has very low impacts on overall resistance.
If you a wide and a narrow hose delivering water to your garden, slightly restricting the flow out of the narrow hose does very little to the overall flow rate or water pressure.
If you have a large and a small road going into town...an accident on the small road does less to impact traffic.
The place you're missing this is that latent heat and convection have ALREADY offloaded much of the greenhouse effect's potential forcing. The greenhouse effect is ever-decreasing for whatever GHG input forcing it gets...BUT this is an entirely different "ever decreasing" aspect from CO2 absorption. CO2 absorption is an ever decreasing input forcing...into the greenhouse effect which is its self ever decreasing. That is two...count them TWO ever decreasing functions.
As we skeptics keep pointing out...you people are using CO2 forcing as if it counted as BOTH the forcing and the overall greenhouse effect. In reality nobody has ever managed to work out what the second function is...ie, the real increase to the greenhouse effect.
Since latent heat and convection are powerful, negative feedbacks to warming in general...
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #93 who wrote...
"I am at this moment re-watching "Home," free on youtube.
If it is not 'inch-perfect' in scientific accuracy, it is accurate enough. The message is clear - change or die."
Please, we do not need to hear about your attempt to brainwash yourself into believing the orthodox sect of the AGW religion by reading their main texts over and over...and embracing every line as the inerrant word of god.
Complain about this comment
Within the last couple of days, I saw an item on one of the Euro companies complaining that the carbon traders (allowances for those companies generating CO2) were short-changing the government on the VAT tax due from Carbon profits! Now we get the real agenda. The purpose of establishing carbon allowances was never about stopping global warming; it was all about more revenue for desparate governments. The financial wizards (Goldman Sachs, e.g.) buy and sell imaginary carbon credits to stop imaginary AGW, but the governments won't settle for imaginary tax revenue! Someone must pay! (Back into the rabbit hole, Alice!)
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
Mannysummits wrote: "If repeated offences - i.e., outright lies and misinformation, are repeated, should an account be deleted?"
If you really feel this way then why not start by asking the moderator to delete many of your own posts (you know, the ones predicting doom and gloom, thermageddon and the end-of-the-world as we know it)?
Mannysummits wrote: "it is sounding the death knell of the global powers that be who have worked 'a desolation' upon the Earth and its denizens"
A rather threatening statement don't you think? How do you reconcile your own lifestyle - having made a living working for "Big Oil" for eighteen years, living in a cold climate (where burning fossil fuels is necessary to survive the winter) and driving 300 miles return regularly to perform the sport of mountain climbing, just for pure pleasure?
Complain about this comment
Got it! The way to profit from Carbon trading: have affiliates in the Euro countries to buy the carbon allowances initially. Also establish an affiliate in the Bahamas or some other nation with no corporate nor VAT tax. If the carbon allowance price rises, take the profits through the Bahama licensed affiliate. If the carbon allowance price falls, sell through the Euro affiliate. Gains are not taxed, losses become valid tax deductions in high tax nations.
I suspect that I am not the first to conjecture this arrangement. The tax officials in the nations who require carbon allowances will have fun determining which accounting entries are real.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
The Economist magazine has a feature on Britain’s environmental politics (which it describes as being "a bit dull") in the context of the election and the policies of the various parties.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15996814
Complain about this comment
There have been numerous comments in these pages about integrity of research and publishing. This week's edition of Nature has a lead editorial "Under suspicion" which sets out how that journal handles allegations about data or author (mis-)conduct and whether the published record needs to be revised.
"Under suspicion", in Nature Vol. 464, p. 1245, 29 April 2010 (Published online 28 April 2010), doi:10.1038/4641245a.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Cambs at #51
You only give the first of two observations made in the link you gave, i.e.:
"The new simulations suggest that if microbial efficiency declines in a warmer world, carbon dioxide emissions will fall back to pre-warming levels".
The second observation suggests a possible opposite effect:
"But if microbes manage to adapt to the warmth – for instance, through increased enzyme activity – emissions could intensify."
A key word in both observations is "if". As one of the researchers notes: ”The challenge we have in predicting this is that the microbial processes causing this loss are poorly understood”.
Complain about this comment
@manysimmits #65
I seldom read posts from what I term 'the lobby.'
We challenge ourselves by asking: Are we trying not only to understand but embrace different styles and viewpoints?
Try it, my friend
Warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@ infinity
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
this is the link i found- incidentally it was from a wuwt article that i first read the issue.
It's not the only place where this happens. There are a suprisnigly high number of areas where there are no actual measurements, but the temperatures are 'estimated'.
I'm sure you can appreciate that trying to estimate the temperature of a country from those of it's neighbours is like trying to tell the temperature in edinburgh, by knowing what it is like in london. or paris.
This is just YET another example of very poor data interpretation/presentation./ If you don't have data for an area YOU DONT PRESENT ANY. you don't estimate it and hope for the best, while not ACTUALLY telling anyone you're doing it.
Serisously, regardless of how the data effects the average (and it DOES show up as a hot spot), they had no data for it, so they estimated. I.E. they made it up. THIS is the state of modern climate science. If this is now what is the accepted method, then i'm ashamed to call myself a scientist.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #82
I've got just got two questions for you:
1) What's LOL funny about Feynman Diagrams (very handy things in QED)?
Feynman, was himself LOL funny, but that's not the same thing. He was just a good communicator that used humour to help convey some reasonably deep and complex ideas.
and,
2) Where did the quote
"do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams, which represent mathematical expressions clearly defined in quantum field theory [159]."
Come from?
Was it in the unsuitable link that was removed?
Just curious, as nothing in the "quoted" section is incorrect, but as it starts with the words "Do not fit" it's obviously not complete.
As I said, just curious.
Complain about this comment
New Zealanders backtracking on 'saving the planet'
From the NZ Herald
"The Government said yesterday it would probably ditch the rest of the emissions trading scheme as scheduled beyond 2013 if its major trading partners did not have schemes as well."
NZ has an odd coalition with the big National party (similar to UK Conservatives) and smaller parties including the Green Party and the 100% sceptical ACT party.
More details from the NZ Herald:
"Environment Minister Nick Smith said yesterday 'New Zealand would be unlikely to proceed with the full obligations for the energy, transport and industrial sectors and to add additional sectors to the emissions trading scheme in New Zealand if there was not progress in other countries, particularly of trading partners like Australia, Japan and the United States.'
[Smith said] 'International developments have to be a key part of decisions in that.'"
Good news.
One by one the politicians are slowing down. They're not putting the brakes on - just easing off the gas pedal and hoping no-one notices.
In the UK the 3 big parties are all stuck in a game of chicken on this and other issues. The first to speak the truth will get jumped on by the other 2 and by quasi-political bodies like the BBC.
Expect some reality after the election - not before.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke
Took my own advice to others and googled it. Found a paper by "Gerhard Gerlich" paper referencing "C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory" as reference 159.
I presume that's the paper in question, given its subject matter climate change related?
I'll read it later. Please, feel free to ignore my earlier questions in post #104
Not that I want to be ignored, of course ;-)
Complain about this comment
#100 simon-swede wrote:
"whether the published record needs to be revised"
The very idea of "un-publishing" anything is deeply inimical to truth and openness and science. We live in a new Dark Age. The Lancet has already set the example (following Stalin, of course).
Complain about this comment
blunderbunny #104 "Where did the quote...Come from?"
On page 60 in the pdf document you can find on the link in #82.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#80 Rob_Cambs wrote:
"The albedo effect is an important but largely ignored phenomenen."
Largely ignored? -- I thought it was the principal topic of conversation in the British Isles!
"Lovely day isn't it" = low albedo
"Turned out nice" = high albedo fell over time
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #107
No-one is suggesting "un-publishing" in the sense of pretending 'it never existed'.
Publically correcting or retracting a paper because of its flaws is hardly inimical to truth, openess or science. Just the opposite.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #107
In case you didn't read what actually appeared in the Nature editorial:
"If there were no data fraud and no intent to deceive, for example, and if only one or two images were involved, we would allow the authors to publish an erratum and supply appropriate data, figures, original gels or images as supplementary information. ... But if most of the figures are problematic, we will strongly urge the authors to retract the paper, even if they were cleared of misconduct and even if the paper's main conclusions have been verified independently by other labs. The logic is that the published paper did not accurately reflect the data as they were collected."
Yeah, really inimical to 'truth, openenss and science'.
What would you prefer instead?
Complain about this comment
I am quite surprised to find my post #88 edited with email confirming removal of link to Alan Titchmarshs article in the guardian online enviroment
Is this against house rules ?
I have posted to links to other enviroment articles in the Guardian and not been edited or is it censorship of the opinions in the article?
Complain about this comment
#110 simon-swede wrote:
"No-one is suggesting "un-publishing" in the sense of pretending 'it never existed'."
I'm relieved to hear that. What does it mean exactly? And what did the Lancet do with the paper on MMR that it "retracted"?
The very word 'retracted' strongly suggests that the journal's editorship "used to agree with the content of the paper", but "no longer agrees with its content". But "agreeing with the content of a paper" is hardly a proper role for a journal's editorship, is it?
"Publicly correcting or retracting a paper" seems to assume that a journal itself asserts the claims made in the papers it contains rather than simply airs these claims. It sounds completely wonky to me for a journal to assert anything except what it explicitly writes in its editorial.
There's an interesting difference between the US Constitution and the Irish Constitution (I mention these because they are the only written constitutions I am reasonably familiar with). When the US Constitution is amended, an amendment is added, and nothing is taken away. For example, to prohibit alcohol, they had had to add the 18th amendment; to undo that, they had to add the 21st amendment. But unlike that, the Irish constitution is literally re-written, so that articles and even amendments are added and removed. That strikes me as an example of (very unwise) "un-publishing".
Complain about this comment
#111 simon-swede wrote:
"Yeah, really inimical to 'truth, openenss and science'."
"What would you prefer instead?"
Please carefully consider the following distinction:
1. the desire to be right
2. the desire to have been right
(1) is a good urge. There should be more of it. It leads to self-correction, openness, testing, etc.
(2) is a bad urge. There should be less of it. It leads to the covering up of one's own errors, the refusal to share ideas and observations, and the valuing of "fitting prior data" instead of testing. Does that ring any bells?
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #114
Publically correcting or retracting a paper because of its flaws is related to (1).
Complain about this comment
@blunderbunny #104
"Feynman Diagrams (very handy things in QED)"
Exactly. Very handy in QED. Nobel Prize handy in QED.
But the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper isn't doing Quantum ElectroDynamics, it's doing atmospheric physics. It's like trying to use a Rolls Royce to brush your teeth or caviar to grout bathroom tiles.
And I can still see the link to the abstract intact in my #82. You do have to click through to the PDF though.
The paper contains other howlers such as complaining that mainstream greenhouse science introduces a factor of 1/4 by using the ratio of the area of the disc of incoming solar radiation (πr2) to the surface area of the earth (4πr2). (Page 61.)
Complain about this comment
Paul Kerr #112: "I am quite surprised to find my post #88 edited with email confirming removal of link to Alan Titchmarshs article in the guardian online enviroment. Is this against house rules?"
No.
Late spring will make up for lost time
Is that the one?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #113
Read the editorial properly! (It's obvious from your comments on retraction that you haven't done so.)
For those actually interested, Nature have also published in full on-line their "Guide to publication policies of Nature journals" which provides more details.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #113
"Publicly correcting or retracting a paper" is done by the authors, not the journal.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Kerr #88
Links aren't allowed if they are misspelt (I always use cut-and-paste) or if a blip on their site temporarily stops them from working.
Was this the Graun article you meant?
(Mods, I can't see anything wrong with this link)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/28/spring-alan-titchmarsh
Complain about this comment
@ #5 BluesBerry - Where have you got this information about HAARP from? What evidence have you got that a phased antenna array built to study the Iononsphere can do anything than just that? If you can explain to me exactly how it manages to cause droughts, floods, earthquakes and precise weather control, I'd be very interested.
In particular, I'm all ears as to how radio waves can cause tectonic plates to move.
Complain about this comment
#115 simon-swede wrote:
"Publically correcting or retracting a paper because of its flaws is related to (1)."
[(1) = the desire to be right as opposed to the desire to have been right]
If an author admits he was wrong by correcting himself or retracting what he said, fine. If an author rebuts or tries to refute what another author said, fine. But if an editor or publisher admits he was wrong, then he must have been asserting something himself in the first place and asserting something different now. Asserting (i.e. affirming the truth of) the contents of a journal of published papers is wholly inappropriate for editor/publisher of a scientific journal, and indeed inimical to openness and the proper practice of science.
The urge to publish only the true papers in a journal is much closer to (2) than (1).
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #116: & blunderbunny #104 "Gerlich and Tscheuschner"
I like this part on page 74...
"3.8.3 In the kitchen: Physics-obsessed housewife versus IPCC
...how simple it is to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse hypotheses, namely by observing a water pot on the stove: Without water filled in, the bottom of the pot will soon become glowing red. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the pot will be substantially colder."
/davblo
PS. I don't know who reviewed this paper, but it wouldn't have got past me.
Complain about this comment
@Yorkurbantree
@Paul Kerr
@davblo
"There has been a general pattern, over the last 20 years, for later springs and altered autumn frosts. Some people are wondering whether we might soon see the "frost fairs" of the 16th century in autumn and winter: fairs that were held on frozen rivers. This might, in part, be down to man-made climate change – but I think it's arrogant of us to think that we're totally responsible for what happens in nature. All the 30-odd ice ages were interspersed with warm tropical periods. Our planet is volatile – and the volcanic eruptions in Iceland have reminded us that we're not its sole proprietors." Alan Titchmarsh
Wow. Britain's top gardener says UK springs are later, downplays the later autumn frosts and talks about a return of ice fairs on the Thames.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/28/spring-alan-titchmarsh
The fact that it is Titchmarsh saying this seriously damages the credibility of studies that have shown a trend for earlier UK springs, regardless of the accuracy of either Titchmarsh or the scientists doing the studies. The public trusts Titchmarsh.
Titchmarsh seems to have got more sceptic. Here is an earlier article where the later autumn is not downplayed and the later springs are not as obvious ("wet" rather than "cold").
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7111356/Alan-Titchmarsh-Climate-scientists-should-stick-to-the-facts-and-not-use-guesswork.html
Complain about this comment
@blunderbunny #106
I found two versions of the paper. One involved a pay wall, the other didn't. I linked to the version that didn't.
No pay wall
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Pay wall (free abstract)
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html
Complain about this comment
#118 simon-swede wrote:
"Read the editorial properly!"
You already quoted the relevant passage:
"we will strongly urge the authors to retract the paper, even if they were cleared of misconduct and even if the paper's main conclusions have been verified independently by other labs"
In other words, the editorship of Nature regards itself as authority on the truth of the papers published in the journal.
That's unacceptable in science. That's how a church is run, not how open scientific publishing is run. That has been my main complaint throughout with AGW, and why I have called its practitioners "scientifically illiterate".
Complain about this comment
119. At 1:06pm on 29 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:
Bowman at #113
""Publicly correcting or retracting a paper" is done by the authors, not the journal."
The words of the editorial (as you quoted them) were: "we will strongly urge the authors to retract the paper". Strong urging is pressure applied on the basis of a judgement that no editor of a scientific journal is entitled to make. It is a judgement about the truth or falsity of the contents of a paper.
The editor's judgement should not be a judgement about truth or falsity of the paper's contents, but about its merits and demerits as a publishable paper. The editor made his/her judgement when the paper was originally published, and if the editor made a mistake then, he/she should come clean and admit the error -- the editing error -- that was committed in the first place. But what appears to be happening instead is a "Gordon Brown" exercise in blaming other people and covering one's own tracks. As in(1) above.
The authoritarianism of this editorial, and the failure of AGW practitioners to even see the problem all points to a dead or degenerate academic exercise rather that real science. They just don't "get it", do they? It's a church, not a science!
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #89
I am trying to work out whether you are being very snidy or whether you have a different interpretation of the word "spin".
What do physicists know? Well most of them know that Feynman diagrams are used in Quantum Electrodynamics rather than atmospheric physics. And most of them know that when it comes to black body emissions from the Earth that the Earth's surface is better approximated by a sphere than a flat disc permanently facing the Sun.
Meanwhile I have seen your 700 peer reviewed papers list before. It appears to have been compiled by a lobbyist rather than a scientist. It includes respectable important work by respectable AGW sceptics, but it is padded by extreme dross such as two papers of Oliver Manuel's Iron Sun nonsense.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/v3600623g8txh577/
Complain about this comment
@ CanadianRockies, JaneBasingstoke, blunderbunny
Re: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161: Gerlich/Tscheuschner: "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effect"
Just wanted to provide a little extra perspective to this particular thread.
A direct refutation to this paper has been published by Arthur P. Smith: "Proof of the atmospheric Greenhouse effect".
Smith's paper has similarly come in for a bashing by Kramm et al in "Comments on "proof..." but it appears they misunderstood the maths in Smith's paper - a point discussed on the "Rabett Run" blog
Complain about this comment
#102 mango
"We challenge ourselves by asking: Are we trying not only to understand but embrace different styles and viewpoints?
Try it, my friend"
well i can only say that i tried it for a while, but found trawling through the contrarian webosphere pretty time consuming and not very fruitful.
warmist regards
rg
Complain about this comment
Thanks Davblo and Jane Basingstoke,
Just a 'Blip' then I guess, it works fine from the moderators email sent to me with link
Complain about this comment
Manysummits
Simple question: How is your record snowfall in Calgary for today, explained through the AGW theory?
Keep warm and remember the snow chains
Kambo
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #89
By the way "brainwashing" is well over the top as a description of the Gore film, unless you have a very low opinion of the intelligence of secondary school pupils. Dimmock may use the term. I think it an exaggeration.
Here are some extracts of the judge's ruling on the film.
"It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political."
"It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."
"Although there was some earlier suggestion on behalf of the Defendant that partisan might relate to 'party political', it soon became clear that it could not be and is not so limited. Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided"."
"AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)"
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Complain about this comment
poit @94
I still don't understand your argument. The greenhouse gas effect is caused by a layer in the mid troposphere COUPLED to the surface via the lapse rate, where the lapse rate is the rate of decrease of temperature with height. There is a massive amount of energy transported from the surface via convection of heat. This convection can only happen if there is a temperature gradient. In the troposphere, there is indeed a temperature gradient and the rate of decrease of temp. with altitude is the lapse rate. Longwave radiation bouncing off the earth's surface would all be lost into space if the greenhouse did not exist, instead, the greenhouse gases absorb this radiation and re-emit it as heat. This is classical absorption - the fact underpinning AGW.
Where does this extra heat go? It is coupled to the surface via the lapse rate, in other words, less heat is required to be transported away from the surface to retain the balance. The surface warms. Of course, as you increase the concentration of GG's, the larger this effect will be, be it with a diminishing force. Unfortunately, water vapour concentrations in the lower troposphere increase with increasing temperature, amplifying the effect.
With this coupling model in mind, you'll have to further qualify this statement: "The place you're missing this is that latent heat and convection have ALREADY offloaded much of the greenhouse effect's potential forcing." You'll have to provide hard evidence if you are claiming that the lapse rate will magically change to counter GHG induced warming.
Complain about this comment
To Mango; Poitsplace; Shadorne:
An especially violent rain and snowstorm is currently engulfing Calgary and area, bringing much needed moisture.
I have just finished reading the "Peoples Agreement" from Bolivia, and a few more articles from the May "Astronomy" magazine. I had to laugh out loud at the breathtaking vision of the Bolivian accord, and to reflect on the fact that the breathtaking science recorded in the Astronomy magazine bore witness to Science at the height of its powers, while at the very same time the world was sinking rapidly into environmental Armageddon.
The moderators have deep-sixed two of my posts, # 59 & 60. Both were good, and it was unnecessary to refer them. Such is life. The mockery I viewed in the morning's papers, of an out of control oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and of Greece's and Europe's financial problems, compounded on top of the 2008 global financial meltdown, with subsequent bailout of the banks by using the people's money - all served to reinforce my notion of a world gone mad.
So I've decided to reply to your enquiries and comments - Why not?
"Home" is a favorite - not because of the science, which is mainstream, but because of its beauty. It is achingly beautiful, and reminds me of my seven years in the mountains, when I was a part of that natural beauty. All disappearing as we speak.
I am addicted to science, but it sits on my shelves, in the form of scientific articles and first hand empirical evidence from the best of the best, and in the form of books, from the cream of the crop, who have decided to enjoin the public in their findings, attempting, I imagine, to contact the world at a level more comprehensible than straight science.
When I was part and parcel of the oil industry, I did not know what I now know. I was aware, since the early 1970's and the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth", that we were in trouble, but I was young, and full of p&v, and wellsite work offered both money and adventure, and a chance to work in what I think of as a primary industry, hunting, if you will, the necessaries for our way of life. Canadian Hunter is the name of a famous Canadian oil company - I took courses from their then top wellsite/well-logging man. Many years later, I had dinner with one of their employees, a geologist who had just climbed K2.
For seven years, between 1998 and 2005, I climbed mountains as a full-time devotion, traveling back and forth in a gas guzzling half ton of Ford vintage, and later, when I had sold this in order to keep climbing, I used a more fuel efficient Camry to travel as far afield as southern Mexico, on a six weeks expedition, thereby demonstrating the principle that more fuel efficiency does not necessarily translate into less fuel use. Multiple trips to the deserts of the American southwest, on long and extended expeditions, and to Baja California, compounded this profligate energy use.
A simple demonstration of ignorance, I imagine. It is why I have coined the term:
\\\ From where we stand, and as we speak. ///
None of us are guiltless, and none of us are entirely to blame.
We were all caught, to varying degrees - unawares.
The artists are thankfully coming to the fore, with the well told story, such as Avatar, or Home, or The Age of Stupid, or Capitalism - A Love Story.
The days of the skeptics are numbered, as are the days of homo sapiens.
I wish I could tell you what those numbers are, but I can't - I am only a mountain and desert explorer, who likes to write.
I hope that has answered your questions, and addressed your concerns.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Re 103. LabMunkey:
"I'm sure you can appreciate that trying to estimate the temperature of a country from those of it's neighbours is like trying to tell the temperature in edinburgh, by knowing what it is like in london. or paris."
No I cannot appreciate that because it's false. Tell you what - seeing as the US is covered with measurements, take a GISTEMP map, remove a region in the middle of the US and then try to estimate what it is from the surrounding areas. Then compare your estimate with the actual region of measurement you removed. You'll find the estimation technique works very well. Hansen already tested the technique by the way over a decade ago when he introduced it.
The blog you got this from neither undertakes any analysis nor looks at Hansen's analysis. It's slapdash work. Typical of the blogosphere and a mile away from professional science that is undertaken by the likes of Dr Jones and Hansen.
"This is just YET another example of very poor data interpretation/presentation."
No it's yet another example of skeptics assuming, presuming and commiting slapdash errors. Real science is seemingly beyond them.
"If you don't have data for an area YOU DONT PRESENT ANY. You don't estimate it and hope for the best, while not ACTUALLY telling anyone you're doing it."
They do tell people they are doing it. You've just made yet another baseless accusation that forms the slap-dash approach. The fact they use extrapolation is all over the GISTEMP site, in published papers.
This is YET again another example of skeptics making stuff up in order to make some accusations. Your accusations in this case are pathetic and grounded in absolutely no analysis.
The blog you link to didn't even bother to analyze how much impact the estimates have or how close they get. Just the kind of slap-dash nonsense masquerading as "science" that skeptics blogs come up with.
"Serisously, regardless of how the data effects the average (and it DOES show up as a hot spot)"
That's because the blog chose a month with a hotspot. Confirmation bias if there ever was any. And you didn't even consider this possibity? Again yet more slapdash assumptions.
"THIS is the state of modern climate science. If this is now what is the accepted method, then i'm ashamed to call myself a scientist."
You misrepresent the methods and don't see the flaws in the slapdash blog analysis. I am ashamed you can call yourself a scientist.
Complain about this comment
There are some interesting affinities between editing a scientific journal and presiding over a courtroom like a judge. The judge/editor is entitled to make decisions about matters of procedure, but is obliged to avoid being an advocate for either "side". In the case of editing, the editor must try to avoid being for or against claims made in papers published in the journal. The editor is not a judge of truth but of procedure.
Similarly, one of many misgivings about "peer review" is that ideally it should limit itself to matters of procedure, but it is often understood (or misunderstood) as advocacy. In other words, many people suppose that if a paper passes peer review, the "peers" who "reviewed" it thought it was probably true, and "since they are good judges it probably is true", they tend to think.
There should be a "separation of powers" in science not unlike the separation of powers in a liberal democracy, keeping matters of procedure, advocacy, and action apart.
Complain about this comment
#134 SR wrote:
"The greenhouse gas effect is caused by a layer in the mid troposphere COUPLED to the surface via the lapse rate, where the lapse rate is the rate of decrease of temperature with height."
I waive my usual rule not to get involved in technical discussions for a moment:
I wonder if there some confusion here caused by equivocation in the word 'coupled'? -- Are you talking about a couple (i.e. a linked pair, like two clocks showing the same time) here, or a coupling (i.e. a physical thing with causal powers that links two things and transmits force between them like a railway coupling)?
The lapse rate is just a measure of the way the temperature falls off as you go up or down. It doesn't do anything. It isn't a coupling.
For an example of this possible confusion, you say:
"Where does this extra heat go? It is coupled to the surface via the lapse rate"
I'm wondering what you think is the cause and what you think is the effect here.
Complain about this comment
116, 129.Dave_oxon wrote: @ CanadianRockies, JaneBasingstoke, blunderbunny
Thanks. I learn something every day! What I learned was that there is an ongoing debate about the validity of the basic 'greenhouse' theory. That's refreshing.
-----------
128. Jane wrote: "Meanwhile I have seen your 700 peer reviewed papers list before. It appears to have been compiled by a lobbyist rather than a scientist. It includes respectable important work by respectable AGW sceptics, but it is padded by extreme dross such as two papers of Oliver Manuel's Iron Sun nonsense."
Doesn't matter to me who compiled it. I consider the IPCC to be the ultimate AGW lobbyists so I could argue that point about everything they produce - and a large proportion of what they compile is "padded" by absolute junk from the WWF or Greenpeace.
Bottom line is that the 'consensus' is not what it is claimed to be and the constant mantra that 'the debate is over' is false. Anyone who insists that the debate is over is anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. That's the mentality of the unthinking mob or religious fundamentalists.
------------
133. I think "brainwashing" fits. That movie combines fear, powerful imagery, false and/or misleading and exaggerated information designed to appeal more to the emotions than to the intellect, it is classic propaganda. It fooled many adults. Showing it to children, by an authority figure, in a classroom was indeed brainwashing. North Korean style.
Here's the quote you provided: "It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."
Most brainwashing or propaganda does have a grain of truth - that's why it works - and it is always about making a "political statement." So...
The use of fear is always about maximizing groupthink, 'us and them' thinking, and the appeal to animal instincts over reason. Gore did for AGW what Bush Jr and the poodle Bliar did for Iraq.
-------
127. Re Nature. Here's my favourite little climate summary from back before Nature was infected by AGW groupthink. Absolutely nothing has changed in those icecores or anything else since then. Well, except that the charlatans led by Mann tried to make the MWP period disappear (LOL). Too bad they couldn't get the Ministry of Truth to erase all history and archaeology.
"The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores are particularly informative, offering fine temporal resolution and continuity. This has revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale within the main 100-kyr cycle. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) identifies some 24 interstadials through the last ice age with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events."
From: Hewitt, G. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quarternary ice ages. NATURE, Vol. 405, 22 June 2000 (www.nature.com)
Again: "with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades."
Complain about this comment
#133 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
'"brainwashing" is well over the top as a description of the Gore film, unless you have a very low opinion of the intelligence of secondary school pupils. [...] I think it an exaggeration.'
If you want secondary school pupils to believe X, you should ram not-X down their throats. You hit the nail on the head earlier, when you said Gore's movie was an "own goal", and I was disappointed when it was no longer rammed down teenager throats.
As a committed Darwinian, I struggled as hard as I could to defend the teaching of Creationism and "Intelligent Design Theory" in schools. Alas, it all came to nought.
Complain about this comment
135. manysummits - Your posts provide an interesting perspective on the marxist point of view. You are a very rare breed in Alberta.
But you might want to think about some of your statements a tad more before you pontificate. Like this one:
"The days of the skeptics are numbered, as are the days of homo sapiens."
Since "sapiens" means "thinking" more or less, one could choose to interpret this to mean that when the skeptics are gone, the thinking people will be gone too.
And you really need a new hero. As I have asked you before, when was the last time Ehrlich was right about anything?
Complain about this comment
"Again: "with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades."
You are aware that wasn't a global change?
Complain about this comment
136. "professional science that is undertaken by the likes of Dr Jones and Hansen"
Best laugh of the day, if not week.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard:
The lapse rate is just a measure of the way the temperature falls off as you go up or down. It doesn't do anything. It isn't a coupling.
I'm wondering what you think is the cause and what you think is the effect here.
-------------------------------------------------
The various layers of the atmopsphere are in thermal contact and exchange heat energy. A perturbation caused by extra greenhouse gases (thus greater heat 'production') will be coupled to the surface temperature via the lapse rate. This is the basic pursuit of thermal equilibrium. The environmental lapse rate is fairly constant. The thing poitsplace needs to think about, or answer, is why perturbing middle parts of the troposphere with heat produced by absorption of CO2 will not result in an increased temperature at the surface. After all, the atmosphere is just trying to reach a balance, the new balance is a higher surfce temperature, just like a new balance in your chair at home is a higher temperature if you turn your fire up.
Complain about this comment
142. In any case, it reveals that all this talk of unprecendented climate change now is just... well... hot air. Particularly now that we know how skewed, dubious, and cherry-picked the 'global' surface temperature data.
There have been many examples detailed on wattsupwiththat and climate audit which have shown the various problems with the weather stations themselves, the convenient "adjustments" made on top of that, and now watts has found a basic recording error which calls for a fresh look at even more of it.
But even if we accept the junk data that we have now, there is still nothing unprecedented about anything that has happened recently. It has always looked like the ending of the Little Ice Age to me, and I certainly never fell for the attempted erasure of the MWP. Indeed that attempt just further confirmed what the IPCC 'science' really was/is.
BTW, biology/ecology is my background and I first realized we were being lied to when I started hearing the utterly absurd tales about the AGW poster child, the polar bear. (Talk about 2 + 2 = 5, as Winston Smith would insist.) And so many more totally bogus or fantastically stretched wildlife stories 'linked' to climate change.
Watching the BBC's David Shuskin (sp?) doing his daily doomsday report was better than watching old Monty Python reruns.
Complain about this comment
#44 SR wrote:
"A perturbation caused by extra greenhouse gases (thus greater heat 'production') will be coupled to the surface temperature via the lapse rate. This is the basic pursuit of thermal equilibrium."
"pursuit"? Explain.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard
See the laws of thermodynamics. Apply it to the climate system. Heat travels from warm regions to cold regions. The amount of heat transferred depends on the relative temperature. The lapse rate remains constant so a warming effect in the middle troposphere means less heat is transferred from the surface.
Complain about this comment
Re 145. CanadianRockies wrote:
"In any case, it reveals that all this talk of unprecendented climate change now is just... well... hot air."
What talk of unprecedented climate change? Is it Richard Black? Me? A climate scientist? Who made this claim? You won't find it in the IPCC report and you won't find it in any scientific paper. It's a strawman. Even 5C warming in the next 200 years won't be unprecedented, but it'll nevertheless have a very significant impact. The warming out of the last glacial period was about 5C. That wasn't unprecedented either. Where do you get the idea that something has to be unprecedented to have a significant effect?
"Particularly now that we know how skewed, dubious, and cherry-picked the 'global' surface temperature data."
Both satellites and surface temperature data show warming over the past 30 years, so the idea that the world may not have warmed won't wash.
"There have been many examples detailed on wattsupwiththat and climate audit which have shown the various problems with the weather stations themselves, the convenient "adjustments" made on top of that"
Read them more closely. Notice the caveats they add. They are speculating. They don't know. Get back to us when they can actually demonstrate a sizable problem with the surface record rather than just speculating there may be one. If you go back and review the claims they were making 3 months ago, you'll find they have all dissolved into nothingness. For example they claimed that station dropoff in the 90s had caused artifical warming. That claim has since been shown to be bogus.
"and now watts has found a basic recording error which calls for a fresh look at even more of it.""
watts claimed to have detected a negative sign error in a station - because a warm spike looked unphysical. But it turned out that warm spike actually did happen and was actual weather. This is what I mean about speculation. Get back to me when these 5 post-a-day wild guesses actually materialize into anything substantial.
"I first realized we were being lied to when I started hearing the utterly absurd tales about the AGW poster child, the polar bear. (Talk about 2 + 2 = 5, as Winston Smith would insist.)"
Can't wait to hear your argument about polar bears.
Complain about this comment
Re 145. CanadianRockies:
I forgot to add. Citing 7C localized warming around Greenland within decades doesn't bode well for the idea that climate is some slow reacting self-regulating system. On the contrary it suggests the climate is a little unstable and that implies a greater risk in haphazardly poking it with a stick. What do I mean by poking it with a stick? Well for example due to human emissions, co2 levels are currently higher than they've been in at least 1 million years, possibly as long as 15 million, and rising.
Complain about this comment
@Jane wrote:
Meanwhile I have seen your 700 peer reviewed papers list before. It appears to have been compiled by a lobbyist rather than a scientist. It includes respectable important work by respectable AGW sceptics, but it is padded by extreme dross such as two papers of Oliver Manuel's Iron Sun nonsense
-----------------------------------------------------
Careful Jane, I have seen the IPCC list, which one can also argue is padded with extreme dross...and even with regards to respectable scientists, much with regards to caveats and certainties is left out...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @116:
"The paper contains other howlers such as complaining that mainstream greenhouse science introduces a factor of 1/4 by using the ratio of the area of the disc of incoming solar radiation (πr2) to the surface area of the earth (4πr2). (Page 61.)"
Why's it a howler to point out that the average of powers is not the same thing as the power of an average?
If you really think that they're actually trying to question fundamental geometric formulae, then I suggest you read the paper again.
Complain about this comment
149. At 11:02pm on 29 Apr 2010, infinity wrote:
Re 145. CanadianRockies:
I forgot to add. Citing 7C localized warming around Greenland within decades doesn't bode well for the idea that climate is some slow reacting self-regulating system. On the contrary it suggests the climate is a little unstable and that implies a greater risk in haphazardly poking it with a stick.
---------------------------------------------------------
It also suggests that any 'global warming' over the last one hundred years is hardly unprecedented...does it not?
While I agree that 'poking it with a stick' is not a great idea - I have yet to see anything resembling a realistic solution. If you want to reduce emissions, lobby hard for nuclear fusion and get your government to spend lots of money developing it - short of that, I don't see any viable answers...certainly not carbon taxes, cap and trade nor windmills nor CDM, all you are doing with these 'mechanisms' is exporting emissions (and outsourcing industry and jobs) and as there are much more lax environmental controls in the developing world - greatly improving the bottom line of multinational corporations and doing even greater harm to the environment...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@infinity
Regarding Polar Bears - best estimates are that populations of polar bears have increased from around 5,000 in the 70's to 25-30,000 today.
Would you care to refute that?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #139
(@Dave_oxon)
(@blunderbunny)
"ongoing debate"
Ongoing debate? You did read the comments about the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper, didn't you?
Do you need an explanation of Feynman diagrams to understand why they are so inapplicable to atmospheric physics? Do you need an explanation of the basic geometry of discs and spheres to understand why the sphere is relevant to Earth's greenhouse?
You do realise the only reason why Smith debunked it was so that there was a peer reviewed debunk to show to lay sceptics. Because the majority of scientific sceptics cringe at stuff like Gerlich and Tscheuschner. It hurts their credibility that such nonsense gets even remotely linked with their work.
"Doesn't matter to me who compiled it"
You don't get it do you? Drivel about the Sun being made of iron. Only a really ignorant lobbyist would be stupid or cynical enough to risk linking such nonsense with decent work by respected sceptics.
"brainwashing"
How do you go from "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" to "a grain of truth"? You can't use the judgement to call it "brainwashing".
And as for scary, you exaggerate more than Gore.
Meanwhile by the time they are shown that film, schoolchildren have been subjected to stuff that is targeted specifically at them by experts since they were five that makes Gore's manipulation look decidedly third rate. When I was a kid we were laughing at some of the techniques used by advertisers by the time I was eight. Meanwhile comedians in the UK get laughs from the whole family using politicians and their tricks as material.
So manipulative yes. Political agenda yes. Exaggerated yes. Brainwashing no.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #151
We appear to be talking about different parts of page 61.
Look further down where they complain "The factor of a quarter is introduced by "distributing" the incoming solar radiation seeing a cross section σEarth over the global surface ΩEarth"
Howler!
Complain about this comment
#144 SR wrote:
"the atmosphere is just trying to reach a balance"
Oh no it isn't, as you probably know already. The atmosphere is not an agent, and it isn't "trying" to do anything at all.
Could you re-state that thought without the metaphors and agency?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard: "I'm wondering what you think is the cause and what you think is the effect here."
#144 SR: "A perturbation caused by extra greenhouse gases (thus greater heat 'production') will be coupled to the surface temperature via the lapse rate. This is the basic pursuit of thermal equilibrium. The environmental lapse rate is fairly constant." [etc.]
I ask again: What do you think is the cause and what do you think is the effect here? Please, no more B-S!
Complain about this comment
@SR
(@bowmanthebard)
Careful SR. The lapse rate is awkward for us non specialists to discuss. It's tripped me up twice.
The underlying mechanism for the lapse rate is gravitational potential. Throw a ball up in the air and it slows as it rises and speeds up as it falls. The cooler temperatures at height are directly analogous to the slower ball speed at height.
There are two types of lapse rate reflecting different weather conditions, so you need to refer to the average global lapse rate.
There are feedbacks that affects the lapse rate. The lapse rate at tropical latitudes becomes weaker with warming. The lapse rate at polar latitudes becomes stronger with warming. These feedbacks are discussed in IPCC literature.
Poitsplace's references to increased latent energy moving heat around would appear to be a reference to the mechanism of these feedbacks. Warmer planet, more evaporation of water in the tropics, more convection, latent heat contributes more to the lapse rate. Except poitsplace's version is so strong it would cancel the lapse rate. Which obviously isn't happening.
Complain about this comment
#148 "Can't wait to hear your argument about polar bears."
Well, #153, Larry Kealey explained the recent picture, though I would add that because of the uncertainties in the 1960s some estimated up to 10,000. This latter estimate is in IUCN reports, including this one which I have had since it was published:
Polar Bears. Proceedings of the 2nd Working Meeting of Polar Bear Specialists... Feb. 1970. IUCN Publications New Series, Supp. Paper No. 29.
And here's an interesting excerpt from one paper in this that confounds the usual simplistic ideas about them:
Vibe, C. The Polar Bear Situation in Greenland.
"Following the decline in the polar bear population in Greenland after 1920... the situation has again stabilized with an increase in the total catch...
This increase is not due to increased hunting activity...
[It] must be considered along with the present alteration of the whole climatical and ecological situation in the Arctic...
The ecological conditions of the Arctic have changed as a result of this alteration of the climate. Some high Arctic regions get colder winters and less open water in summer. The productivity of the sea decreases in the Arctic and increases in regions nearer the Atlantic. The ringed seal moves to the areas of higher productivity, and the polar bear follows the seal..."
It then explains, with historical and ecological detail, why warmer conditions are actually better for the polar bears in most of Greenland than colder conditions.
But that's Greenland. Each subpopulation has slightly different ecological conditions to deal with.
Speaking of which, have you ever noticed how much of the doomsday reporting about polar bears comes from the southwest Hudson bay population (the one the tourists see at Churchill, Manitoba)?
Well, that also happens to be the most southerly population in the world, thus at the margins of their range, and also most impacted by any warming trends. Moreover, that population was inflated/subsidized by their feeding at the Churchill dump. They can't do that now, and with that food supply cut off, that had predictable impacts on that population. (The same thing happened to grizzly bears in ca. 1970 when they closed the dumps there.) That fact is never explained, of course.
So in ca. 1970 they greatly restricted polar bear hunting worldwide and now, as one could predict, now we have all time high populations.
Complain about this comment
154. Well, Jane, You are very sharp which makes for interesting conversation. And it is very obvious to me that you are far more knowledgeable in the physics of this than I am. As I mentioned earlier, my background is in biology/ecology.
But here goes...
"ongoing debate"
If that was the only paper questioning the theory I would accept that. But, as I know you know, it isn't. Unfortunately the link I had to those seven alternate theories didn't work for the moderators for some reason.
They all could be faulty too. But the best part of real science is in asking questions...
-----------
But you could have done better than this:
""Doesn't matter to me who compiled it"
You don't get it do you? Drivel about the Sun being made of iron. Only a really ignorant lobbyist would be stupid or cynical enough to risk linking such nonsense with decent work by respected sceptics."
You have cherry picked one paper out of the 700. Shall I cherry pick one of the bogus IPCC sources too? Would that make the IPCC 'a really ignorant lobbyist which is stupid or cynical enough to risk linking such nonsense with decent work by respected AGW proponents'?
Well, come to think of it, it would, and it did!
-----
""brainwashing"
How do you go from "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" to "a grain of truth"?"
Because I don't accept the premise that it is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."
"And as for scary, you exaggerate more than Gore."
Wow! That really would be a scary thought! Example please.
In any case, glad that you have a problem with the use of that film in schools, and happier still to hear that you are a sceptic at heart, since age eight. Because, after all, what's the opposite of a sceptic?
Complain about this comment
#148 - infinity, you downplayed the errors discussed at wattsupwiththat, and though I disagree with your conclusions about that overall there is one point that needs clarification.
I had written that "and now watts has found a basic recording error which calls for a fresh look at even more of it.""
You wrote that "watts claimed to have detected a negative sign error in a station - because a warm spike looked unphysical. But it turned out that warm spike actually did happen and was actual weather. This is what I mean about speculation."
In fact that is not what I meant, though he did speculate that that spike may have been due to that same systematic error. It was this one:
Daily Archives: April 17, 2010
GISS & METAR – dial “M” for missing minus signs: it’s worse than we thought
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/
So, one example of a weather station reading (Eureka) which he thought might have been caused by this error was not. And he was corrected by the people there, and accepted that. Indeed, all the posts there have critiques and peer review on a level which IPCC final reports never appear to get. That's the best part of that site. Ideas are raised, discussed intelligently, and discarded when found wanting. Nobody is screaming that the debate is over. Isn't that the way science is supposed to work?
Complain about this comment
Most cliamte sceptics I know do not seem to be listening to both sides of the story. The Climategate scandal, they said, proved that scientists were faking global warming. But you know what? They never read the emails themsleves. They said they just heard it on TV or radio that a group of emails showed that people were faking global warming. That's the problem. People don't listen to both sides of the story and they don't check for themselves and always jump to conclusions. When a person had made up his or her mind his/her mind is very hard to change regardless of what arguements are made. It's strange how the climate change believers I know have heard the arguements of sceptics and can point to specific evidence that goes against the arguements of sceptics and they can show why they accept the global warming theory. I also accept it and don't believe in Climate Gate because an independent investigation found that there was no evidence of scientists manipulating evidence. And I'd rather trust independent investigators than people who are against the global warming theory. Why? Because the investigators don't have motivation to reach one conclusion or another, as opposed to climate sceptics. Oh and PS, you should all stop calling the environmentalism movement fascism/terrorism. They believe in something and they petition government to do something about it. People should not have to be called a fascist or terrorist because their views differ greatly from yours. For example, Green Peace recently revealed that Koch Industries had spent $25 million to discredit the global warming theory. You don't see the Green Peace calling them fascists or terrorists do you?
Complain about this comment
Correction to #159 - should read "(The same thing happened to grizzly bears in YELLOWSTONE in ca. 1970 when they closed the dumps there.)
Complain about this comment
@SR about lapse rate
@JaneBasingstoke
@pretty much everyone else that thinks CO2 is going to cause huge changes
It's difficult in these discussions to keep the various concepts properly separated. The lapse rate can be many things.
First and foremost we have the observed lapse rate. This is where all the various forces come together. At different points in the atmosphere different forces may be more or less powerful. Moisture slowly loses its influence at higher altitudes simply because it's too cold and all of the vapor condenses out. in the stratosphere the atmosphere is increasingly heated by the interaction with UV. The resulting stratospheric inversion provides a more or less absolute ceiling on any supposed greenhouse gas changes.
Then there is the lapse rate that the greenhouse gases would maintain...mostly CO2/methane because of water vapor's quirky issues with latent heat (which I'll go into later). The greenhouse effect is NOT about absorption. The greenhouse effect is about the gradient created because of the efficiency of CO2's emissions..bleeding off atmospheric energy AND the system's response to restore balance (cooling, establishing a gradient). "Eventually" (if the atmosphere magically started at the same temperature) the cooling causes the efficiency of CO2's emissions to drop sufficiently that they can be balanced out by CO2's absorption. And thus we have the greenhouse effect. Of course, the gradient forces other changes.
As the greenhouse gases increase the gradient, the atmosphere becomes unstable. For dry air this happens when the temperature gradient surpasses the dry adiabatic lapse rate (the rate at which you would expect the air to lose temperature due to simple pressure changes). At this point the warm air at the ground begins to rise...an alternative method of energy transfer. The greater the difference between the OBSERVED lapse rate and the dry adiabatic lapse rate, the faster the air will rise.
The convection caused when the dry adiabatic lapse rate is a negative feedback...pure and simple. Convection opposes ALL gradient increases. If there are "powerful positive feedbacks" that help increase the gradient...convection opposes them too (as well as things I'll cover below). Convection does not discriminate.
BUT...we live on a big BLUE marble. Since the world is covered mostly by water, the MOIST adiabatic lapse rate is far more important. This is the lapse rate once the relative humidity hits 100%. The moist adiabatic lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry for two reasons...water vapor is 40% lighter than air and latent heat. The impacts of water vapor being lighter is pretty straight forward. Latent heat heat works by releasing energy as water condenses, preventing the moist air from cooling as fast.
Latent heat is extremely important in the AGW debate. The amount of water vapor in the air goes up exponentially with temperature. As most are aware, as water evaporates it takes energy with it...because it takes a LOT of energy to make water evaporate. For a gram of water to evaporate from a pool of water takes 539 calories...after which everything is still the same temperature. That energy is essentially gone until the water condenses again.
Because of the latent heat water vapor does something...quirky. Heat is heat. If it allows radiation through...the radiation gets though. If it absorbs some radiation...then some of the water won't cool/condense as it rises and the energy simply continues as latent heat. This is the reason you cannot "parametrize" the absorption and latent heat of water vapor (which is EXACTLY what they do in models). This amounts to counting the radiated energy twice...saying it both carried on as latent heat AND that it was simultaneously reradiated in all directions...with half of it going down as "back radiation".
While the moist and dry "adiabatic" lapse rates are a sort of an idealized concept...the ACTUAL dry/moist lapse rates observed in the environment CAN be changed. Radiative forcing from the greenhouse effect is SUPPOSED to cause its warming this way. HOWEVER, there is a theoretical limit to the impacts of radiative forcing. The exponentially increasing transport by latent heat and increases to convection eventually outpace Co2's potential to increase the greenhouse effect.
We are already past this point. CO2 is deep into diminishing returns. While a barren ROCK would theoretically warm by 1.2C from the supposed 3.7 watt per square meter forcing of CO2...a 1.2C increase in Earth's temperature would cause not only a 3.7 watt increase in radiative output...but a 6 watt increase in transfer by convection and latent heat. This is an extremely powerful negative feedback.
SO...as we skeptics have said so many times in the past...CO2's actual forcing has NEVER been established and is without question...lower than the changes to absorption.
Complain about this comment
158 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"The underlying mechanism for the lapse rate is gravitational potential."
That only applies to air that moves in convection. Mostly it's cooler the higher you go because the air is thinner. If there were no movement at all the air would still be cooler higher up, and potential energy would have nothing to do with it.
Complain about this comment
I've looked at the emails, in context..
Also the code, also the OTHEWR documents and harry_read_me.txt
The catastrophic AGW bandwagon is nearly over, expect congressional hearings in the next year or 2..
Complain about this comment
green peace just said we know here you live.. and the uk media director, is targeting 'sceptical journalists... 25 million to koch vs 75 BILLION us government alone on 'climate'
Complain about this comment
@136
Nice rant, How were the ‘estimations’ validated? I’m sorry I do not accept that you can reliably and reproducibly estimate local temperatures from neighbouring countries. Work may well have been done on this, but as has been pointed out they rarely use statisticians to evaluate these things.
The American example is flawed, you pick an area with similar geology, yes it may work, you put an area with different geography and it won’t. What about the mountains in Bolivia? Think they’ll change the temps? It’ll certainly affect precipitation?
The point you’re NICELY skirting around is this; The hotspot WAS DEFINITLEY 100% a ‘cheery picked bit by that blog. Completely, not arguing that point one iota. BUT, despite that it shows up as a hot spot, when there’s no readings for that area. Bolivia’s quite large you know. Are you seriously suggesting you can accurately estimate the temperatures for a region that is 4 times the size of the UK? Seriously, how can you not see the issues with that?
You are right, in certain situations you can probably make reasonable estimations about close local temperatures, their trends and how they behave relative to other areas. However, as is often the case in climate science, one law is used to explain all, when that is clearly not the case (HIE being a PRIME example).
I was not, am not, claiming the blog was a definitive source on this. I only used it to highlight the issue. WUWT had a far better article, but I didn’t have time to dig it out.
You say they tell people they are estimating the temperature data for areas’ on the temperature maps. I must have missed that. Can you link it? I’d be quite interested to know just how many other countries have no temperature measurements (a slightly loaded question as I already know the answer, but as you accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about I’d love to see if you do).
As for your final attack, well par for the course. My issue is trends are being presented where large areas IN THOSE TRENDS have no data. None. I don’t care if the data would have supported the trends, or not. You simply DONT just ‘fill in the blanks’ with a guess (and that’s all it is). In ANY other science if someone estimated the results of a test, from no data, to fit a trend, then presented it- they’d lose their job.
One final point- you asked if a statistical analysis had been done to see how close the estimates had got to the actual temperatures. how pray, were you planning someone would do this without there being any temperature readings... you are aware that that was the point of the estimates right?
Complain about this comment
@ my own post #168
having re-read that it seems i'm launching an attack at infinity. i am not, if it comes across that way i apologise.
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #150
Larry, you've seen my earlier posts. You know I want both sides to put their house in order.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #164 (@JaneBasingstoke)
I have been following your discussion on this topic with interest and have done a little background research and reading. There are 3 articles in particular that I think you'll be interested in by a gentleman called Syakuro Manabe who has been looking at this question since the early 1960s.
The first article I will point you to is a short review of previous work published in 1997:
"Early development in the study of greenhouse warming: The emergence of climate models", Ambio, 26,p47 (1997)
The other two articles describe in detail the model he used (and which the aforementioned article is summarising):
"Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a convective adjustment", J. Atmos. Sci. 21 p361 (1964)
"Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity", J. Atmos. Sci. 24, p241 (1967).
Of particular interest is equation 1 in the third article which is referred to in the text thus:
"... The second term in the bracket [of eqn. 1] appears due to the change of latent energy of the air."
Therefore the assertion that "...the energy simply continues as latent heat... [which] amounts to counting the radiated energy twice" is incorrect as the change to the latent heat content of the air is being considered.
One interesting effect this model shows (figure 16 of third article) is that as CO2 content is increased the troposphere/surface equilibrium temperature increases (as Jane has been arguing) whilst the stratosphere equilibrium temperature decreases, furthermore, the decrease in temperature of the stratosphere is much greater than the increase in the temperature of the troposphere/surface (an effect not dissimilar to the one poitsplace is decribing).
After reading these papers (quickly I admit!) I get the feeling you are both right but that neither of your personal models take into account the complete picture.
As a footnote I just thought I'd add that Manabe's work is cited by Hansen et al in their paper of 1983 describing their early GCM development so it is safe to assume that this effect is incorporated into this and their later GCMs.
[N.B. I don't link to the articles directly but they are all available as pdfs, without pay barriers, with a little careful use of google/google scholar]
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #160
"But, as I know you know, it isn't."
No, I don't know. I know of no decent debunks of the very basic greenhouse theory.
If there was such a debunk, why does Richard Lindzen spend so much time on climate sensitivity instead?
In the meantime you promoting the rubbish debunk by Gerlich and Tscheuschner hurts the credibility of your fellow sceptics.
"seven alternate theories"
They wouldn't constitute debunks of the very basic greenhouse theory. Depending on the level of evidence they would either complement or add weight to work on low climate sensitivity.
In the meantime a comment about links. The mods don't allow PDF links because they are normally opened by supplementary software (Adobe). (Yes this does get frustrating when debating AGW.) There are also problems if there are personal contact details on the web page.
You can work round this by linking to a normal web page that contains links to the target document. You can also work round this by giving details as to how to find the document with a search engine (e.g. title of page + author)
In the meantime I did a search and found a book called "Seven Theories of Climate Change" by Joseph L. Blast published by The Heartland Institute. (I'm not linking to it, don't want to risk losing this post if the mods don't like it.) It doesn't appear to debunk the very basic greenhouse effect, just indirectly challenge IPCC values for climate sensitivity. Incidentally the seven theories are AGW + six others.
"one paper out of the 700"
Alright, how about the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper. You can't say I cherry-picked that, you went for it yourself.
So far I've found fault with three. Two iron sun papers and the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper.
But that's beside the point.
What do you want from your 700 papers? A reliable source of good science by sceptics that sceptics can use to demonstrate their scientific competence? A resource of reliable information for sceptics to use in debate? What happens when another sceptic goes for the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper like you did? What happens when a sceptic who isn't familiar with basic astronomy goes for one of the iron Sun papers because they look like effective debate winners?
Even if there are only three problem papers, your 700 papers list has booby traps, and they are booby traps for sceptics.
"Example please"
Actually I was referring to your use of the word "scary". But the same is also true of your use of the word "brainwashing".
In the meantime if the Gore film is so scary how come South Park got so many laughs out of it?
"sceptic at heart"
Your side chose your name for yourselves as a declaration that you were properly scientifically sceptic and that my side wasn't.
I have to use the term "sceptic" because the d-word is normally wrong and always offensive. Other terminology ("contrarian") has not taken off.
But I do not believe that your side has the monopoly on proper scientific scepticism. Some on your side do show proper scientific scepticism. But not all. There are "two" AGW related statements that people need to be sceptical about. The first is the obvious IPCC statement about AGW probably causing significant problems with sea levels and food supply. The other is the less obvious and sometimes forgotten opposite, that it is safe to stick hundreds of extra giga-tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without causing significant problems.
Meanwhile if you need proof of scepticism on the pro-AGW side of the debate, I can point you to well known pro-AGWers campaigning against carbon trading and against abuse of biofuels (recycled chip fat is OK). Perceiving a problem is not the same as signing up for every daft fix that someone proposes to deal with that problem.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/scentist-letter-hansen-barack-obama
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/lovelock-meacher-slam-carbon-trading
http://www.foe.org.uk/campaigns/economy/news/carbon_trading_21807.html
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/biofuels-green-dream-or-climate-change-nightmare-20070509
http://www.foe.org.uk/campaigns/biodiversity/news/biofuels.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HKG80770.htm
Complain about this comment
@James #162
There are environmental terrorists. There are no AGW sceptic terrorists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/unabomber/30008.stm
Complain about this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/29/another-arctic-sea-ice-milestone/#more-19040
just as an aside.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #165
(@SR)
My #158 was incomplete, it was aimed at plugging potentially misleading gaps in SR's statements.
The lapse rate is a property of the troposphere. The troposphere is well mixed by the convective weather processes you mention.
And you are repeating one of my earlier mistakes. Thinner air higher up but within the troposphere isn't cooler because it's thinner. It's cooler because of the difference in gravitational potential. (Note, with a moist lapse rate latent energy also affect the temperature.)
I remind you that temperature is an emergent phenomenon based on the movement of component atoms and molecules.
I know you don't like links, but I would also like to remind you of the Maxwell Botzmann distribution of speeds within a gas, this is best shown as a graph, and these BBC threads are text only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell-Boltzmann_distribution
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
Ouch. Typo in my #175.
That should be Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, as in the link.
Complain about this comment
#175 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Thinner air higher up but within the troposphere isn't cooler because it's thinner. It's cooler because of the difference in gravitational potential."
There are numerous reasons why higher air tends to be colder than lower air. One of these reasons is that higher air is closer to the energy sink of empty space and lower air is closer to the Earth which is warmed by the Sun. Another is that thinner air contains fewer molecules per unit volume and so works as a less effective conductor of heat.
I accept that a fast-moving molecule moving upwards slows under gravity and as it does so its kinetic energy is converted into potential energy, so there is a loose connection between high potential energy and low kinetic energy (the mean of which is temperature in a gas). But I don't think you can claim that the reason higher air is cooler than lower air is it has greater potential energy!
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon
@SR
@bowmanthebard
@poitsplace
Thanks for that.
Interesting read. Unfortunately a difficult read as well, shades of that Hancock episode where he keeps reaching for a dictionary while reading Bertrand Russell.
Meanwhile I point out that my description was never meant to be a complete description of greenhouse related mechanisms, especially with clouds and aerosols still the subject of debate. It was an attempt to put the very basic greenhouse into plain language to counter sceptic debunks of the very basic greenhouse. I can't see anything in Manabe's paper that clashes with my most recent comments.
Complain about this comment
JaneBaingstoke @158:
"Except poitsplace's version is so strong it would cancel the lapse rate. Which obviously isn't happening."
Only if you start out with the assumption that climate sensitivity is high - then the temperature at the surface would be higher, and then the effect would be enough to cancel the lapse rate. Which, as you point out, can't happen.
That leaves two possibilities:
1) poitsplace is wrong, or
2) the climate sensitivity is low.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace 180
The problem I see with what you are saying is,from what I understand, the theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect doesn't work by changing the temperature gradient as you state, that as you say would be removed by convection (this isn't news, see p13 Houghton's, The Physics of Atmospheres).
The important thing is the height where co2 is optically thin enough to allow radiation to escape to space and the temperature of the atmosphere where that radiation originates from. The height is from the concentration and the temperature would be given by the lapse rate. It is the changes in how much energy is radiated to space that effect the earths overall temperature and energy budget, not the radiative processes further down the troposphere which you are talking about or at the surface.
According to Houghton the change in radiating height for a doubling of CO2 concentration,for the side bands 700-750cm-1, is 3km higher, approximately 18C lower in temperature(250K to 232K). (The side bands aren't effected by the temperature inversion due to the stratosphere as you have previously suggested because their radiating temperature is about 250K so there is plenty of room for decrease.)
This gives the 4w/m2 decrease in energy radiated to space in the co2 band, you need (assuming inputs the same) a 1.2C increase in earths temperature so that everything else that radiates to space will radiate more energy and make up for the 4W/m2 decrease and put the earth back in equilibrium but at a higher temperature.
This is how co2 alters the energy budget not by changing the temperature gradient.
I don’t understand from your discussion of latent heat what difference this makes to the top of the atmosphere radiation budget. The forcing is at the top of the atmosphere.
With increased water vapour the lapse rate decreases therefore the temperatures at all heights would be marginally increased, increasing the amount of energy radiated but this I think is only a small effect.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #177
Then why is the dry lapse rate g/c where g = acceleration due to gravity and c = specific heat at constant pressure? And why is the moist lapse rate also proportional to g?
I remind you that the lapse rate is sometimes referred to as the adiabatic lapse rate, and that air is a terrible conductor of heat even at atmospheric pressure.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @155:
"Look further down where they complain "The factor of a quarter is introduced by "distributing" the incoming solar radiation seeing a cross section σEarth over the global surface ΩEarth"
Perhaps the translation from German made the paper difficult to understand.
They're not arguing about the 1/4 factor - that would simply be silly, besides which I don't believe for one moment that two educated German scientists would make such a fundamental error.
What they're saying is that, because of certain factors, it's not appropriate to use an Earth-sized disk to explain radiative balance.
Amongst these is the fact that, as there's a 4th power relationship between temperature and radiative energy, a change in the average of one will not result in a proportional change in the average of the other. In fact, this lack of proportionality can easily create an error as large as the widely-quoted 3.7W/m^2 average forcing, if you calculate it from the average temperature.
Another factor which I haven't seen discussed in the literature is that, at high latitudes, because of the low angle of the sun, the surface is highly reflective, whether it's ice, water, land or even the atmosphere itself. This effectively increases the earth's albedo in a way which cannot be estimated by the usual method of looking at the moonglow - the light is reflected away, not back.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @158:
"It was an attempt to put the very basic greenhouse into plain language to counter sceptic debunks of the very basic greenhouse."
I don't think any of us are trying to do that - that would just be silly.
Complain about this comment
infinity @136:
"seeing as the US is covered with measurements, take a GISTEMP map, remove a region in the middle of the US and then try to estimate what it is from the surrounding areas. Then compare your estimate with the actual region of measurement you removed. You'll find the estimation technique works very well."
That may just work over a compositionally and latitudinally-similar landscape such as the middle of the US, but it certainly does not do to estimate, say, the Arctic temperatures from land-based stations at the edge of the ocean - especially if they're influenced by the inherently higher temperatures of open water as opposed to ice. And you can't say that doing that won't have a significant impact on the global average.
Complain about this comment
andrew9999 @180:
"This gives the 4w/m2 decrease in energy radiated to space in the co2 band, you need (assuming inputs the same) a 1.2C increase in earths temperature so that everything else that radiates to space will radiate more energy and make up for the 4W/m2 decrease and put the earth back in equilibrium but at a higher temperature."
But, as poitsplace pointed out on another thread, a 1.2C increase in the earths temperature MUST result in increased convection and evaporation as well - both of which transport energy away from the surface - besides radiating more. At 1.2C more it will be losing the extra 4W/m2 through radiation alone, and so there's none left over to power the extra convection and evaporation which MUST occur. Clearly, this is an impossible situation, and so the increase in the earths temperature CANNOT be as much as 1.2C It can only balance the 4W/m2 forcing when the TOTAL loss, through radiation, convection and evaporation equals 4W/m2.
Besides, as I pointed out earlier, because of the 4th power relationship between temperature and radiative energy, the average radiated energy (W/m2) is probably significantly higher than if the entire earth's surface were at a constant temperature equal to the average. This would probably reduce the actual sensitivity even more.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @181:
"air is a terrible conductor of heat even at atmospheric pressure."
Which is why cars have radiator fans, fan-assisted heaters warm a room faster, and that the ground is cooler when the wind's blowing.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #182
"that would simply be silly"
Yes. Silly. A howler.
"Perhaps the translation from German made the paper difficult to understand."
Not unless the translator systematically went through removing the factor of 1/4 from equations earlier in the page and then got out a pocket calculator to adjust the calculated figure in line. Because they've managed to calculate a temperature of 360.6K (87.6 C) instead of 255K (-18 C) for an Earth with an albedo of 0.3 (normalisation factor 0.7).
(Note, obviously what gets used is the fourth root of 1/4, i.e. 1/√2)
Howler. Howler. Howler.
Complain about this comment
#181 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Then why is the dry lapse rate g/c where g = acceleration due to gravity and c = specific heat at constant pressure?"
You seem to be talking about changes in temperature linked to changes in pressure in pockets of air that expand as they rise or shrink as the fall (i.e. approximately adiabatic processes). But I'm just talking about the simple way thick air near the Earth's surface is warmer than thin air next to space. That is the way it would be even if no pockets of air moved up or down.
The reason I'm not much interested in adiabatic expansion of pockets of air is this: the atmosphere stays the same size overall (because the Earth's gravity and Sunlight are both nearly constant). So for every pocket of air that goes up and cools as it expands, another pocket of air comes down and heats up as it contracts, which pretty much evens things out. Or doesn't it? -- Am I missing something? That's perfectly likely!
But here I am breaking my usually rigid rule about technicality in this sort of discussion (and especially in philosophy, where technicality is to be avoided "like the pledge"). The more technical or arcane a discussion gets, the less we can trust our own judgements. Many of us are attracted to "jumping in at the deep end", and we often forget that we can all easily drown in two inches of water!
Of course no one likes to admit that technicality makes their own thought less trustworthy, because that's like saying "I am stupid". So everyone keeps banging on with the technical stuff as if it's all perfectly understood and what they're saying is perfectly trustworthy!
Oh dear -- what a narcissistic species we are, so prone to error and so reluctant to admit it!
(Not you personally, JaneBasingstoke!)
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #179
I think you haven't been following poitsplace's arguments. You can't plead low climate sensitivity on this one.
Poitsplace is arguing that the convection involved in the moist adiabatic lapse rate allows energy to take a "short cut" to the top of the troposphere. And that this increases with the increased convection on a warming planet.
Fair enough. Except poitsplace also appears to argue that this is a powerful negative feedback that nobbles any significant additional greenhouse effect, and implies that this effect is neglected by the IPCC.
Which is wrong. The "short cut" is entirely reflected in the moist adiabatic lapse rate. The increase in convection on a warming planet is reflected in the lapse rate feedback which is negative in the tropics. Both these effects are accounted for in IPCC models and explanations. Neither is anywhere near strong enough to interfere with an increase in the current greenhouse.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #183
You don't.
The better respected sceptic scientists don't.
But it does get attacked. The lapse rate and convection are only properly covered in more detailed explanations of the very basic greenhouse effect, this appears to be why poitsplace is accidentally attacking it (I presume the same is true of Joanne Nova and her attack on the Venus greenhouse).
And of course this thread has thrown up the example of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper. I don't know why they thought they could attack it. I can only presume that it is well outside their normal specialisms.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #182
@bowmanthebard
"I don't believe for one moment that two educated German scientists would make such a fundamental error" [Peter317 #182]
Peter meet bowmanthebard.
Bowman, meet Peter317
Bowman, please will you explain to Peter the philosophical error in his above quote.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #188
The troposphere is well mixed by weather. So the scientists' assumption that the dry lapse rate is adiabatic, that potential plus thermal energy = a constant, that a similar relationship exists for the moist lapse rate, seems reasonable, especially as this appears to match what gets measured.
I point out that this is consistent with the pressure and density drop with altitude that you mention.
I also point out that the next layer up, the stratosphere, has a temperature inversion because its higher levels are heated by UV.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @187:
Obviously, one of us is missing something there... I'll take a careful look and get back to you. Won't be till next week though, I'm off for a few days of fresh(er) air - enjoy your weekend ;-)
Complain about this comment
@andrew9999 #180 who wrote...
"The important thing is the height where co2 is optically thin enough to allow radiation to escape to space and the temperature of the atmosphere where that radiation originates from"
No...there are two conditions that can change it. Optical thickness could change it...and a reversing of the gradient (ie, warming above that point) would change it. By warming above (as is in fact the case in the stratosphere) the emissivity of CO2 goes up enough to get rid of all the radiation being thrown at it.
And Peter317 already covered my point about latent heat and convection increasing everywhere there is warming...which MUST reduce the overall warming. It will also reduce any warming from any other positive feedbacks because it opposes all warming with ever increasing efficiency.
======================
@bowmanthebard #188 who wrote...
"So for every pocket of air that goes up and cools as it expands, another pocket of air comes down and heats up as it contracts, which pretty much evens things out. Or doesn't it? -- Am I missing something?"
You (and most likely jane and others) are missing two important things. First off, the higher temperatures increases the energy radiated by clouds...which are black body emitters...at least in the IR spectrum. Second and related...most of the water doesn't make the return trip as vapor. It simply falls to the ground. A lot of it actually does make it across the whole of the troposphere in thunderheads. This is some of that activity that falls below the threshold of the models. Since they can't simulate it and aren't even entirely sure how it works...they parametrize it.
======================
@JaneBasingstoke #189 who wrote...
"Poitsplace is arguing that the convection involved in the moist adiabatic lapse rate allows energy to take a "short cut" to the top of the troposphere. And that this increases with the increased convection on a warming planet."
No, I'm just simultaneously considering multiple impacts from the same process.
First off, the water vapor drives convection more forcefully. Because it's moving more energy in the same amount of time it has more influence and therefore coaxes the OBSERVED lapse rate closer to the moist adiabatic lapse rate, partly (if not entirely) negating the change CO2 forcing would try to establish. It should be noted (as I touched on with bowmanthebard) that much of this activity happens in tight little clusters (thunderstorms) that are poorly understood and below the resolution of the models.
Second, that the absorption by water vapor is already a part of the OBSERVED lapse rate. It is not necessarily a 1 to 1 exchange between the absorption by water vapor and its latent heat...but it does reduce the impacts of absorption and it is entirely inappropriate to attempt to parametrize it into two entirely independent effects.
and in #190 wrote...
"The lapse rate and convection are only properly covered in more detailed explanations of the very basic greenhouse effect, this appears to be why poitsplace is accidentally attacking it"
I need to stress here that I believe there actually is an impact from the greenhouse effect and higher CO2 levels. Its just that I know increased latent heat/convection fight the process, that the tropopause (emissive zone) can only move up so much before it's balanced out by ozone warming, water vapor's absorption is NOT something you can count separately from convection/latent heat (which is something they do in the models), that cloud feedbacks are poorly understood and most likely negative, AND that all of this stuff taken together should substantially reduce the greenhouse effect.
This leaves us with an impotent warming from CO2 that is almost certainly beneficial along with increased CO2 levels which are ALSO mostly beneficial (and already help to keep people fed using less farmland).
Complain about this comment
Jane - How about ripping this one apart? Seems rather logical to me, but I'm no physicist.
"THE FLAT EARTH
All of the computer models of the climate have adopted the flat earth theory of the earth's energy, as portrayed in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208...
There has now been a change of heart, in the following paper
Trenberth, K E, J T Fassulo, and J T Kiehl. 2009 Earth's Global Energy Budget. Bull Am. Met. Soc. 90 311-323.
This paper does a complete reassessment of the figures in the first paper. Its amended version as a mean between March 2000 and May 2004 is attached...
The earth is now thoroughly flattened, as if it had been run over by a cosmic steamroller. Most of the figures have changed. Those for input and output of radiation are now apparently correct to one place of decimals. The rest of them are in trouble...
[But] The earth does actually rotate. The sun does not shine at night. he temperature is not constant. Every part of the earth has a different energy input from its output.
There is a correct mathematical treatment. It would involve the division of the earth's surface into a large number of tiny increments, and the energy input and output calculated for each one, using the changes in all the factors involved. There would then have to be a gigantic integration of all these results to give a complete energy budget for the earth. Only when this is done and repeated over a long period will it be possible to find the influence of increases in greenhouse gases...
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5583
-------------
P.S. #172 - A last comment on the GoreFilm. You wrote: "In the meantime if the Gore film is so scary how come South Park got so many laughs out of it?"
As I recall, they made fun of The Day After Tomorrow but they may have done Gore's film too. Why not? However, on this continent South Park is shown with the warning that it is not suitable for audiences under the age of 18. That should also be the warning on Gore's movie.
And you wrote "Even if there are only three problem papers, your 700 papers list has booby traps, and they are booby traps for sceptics."
Well, its not my list. But compare that to the IPCC report "booby trap" ratio which includes the worst kind of ultraGreen advocacy 'gray' literature from hopelessly biased sources. Why anyone believes anything Greenpeace or the WWF says is beyond me, yet the IPCC chose to include material from them. That tells us what the IPCC really is.
I'm hoping that you know this:
Of "the 18,531 references cited by the IPCC... 30 percent of them (5,587) were not published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
Moreover, in 21 out of 44 chapters (48 percent) the level of peer-reviewed references was so low the chapter received an 'F' on our report card...
the rate of non-peer-reviewed source material cited by the IPCC is thirty times larger than what the British government suggested would be acceptable a mere 12 weeks ago."
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/ipcc-reliance-on-grey-literature-30.html
Thank goodness for honest citizens asking questions, eh?
Complain about this comment
#191 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I don't believe for one moment that two educated German scientists would make such a fundamental error" [Peter317 #182]
"Bowman, please will you explain to Peter the philosophical error in his above quote."
Well, Peter317, there are various kinds of mistakes in reasoning, which we call "fallacies". A very common error is the mistake of assuming that the character of the person uttering a claim -- a claim not given as testimony -- is relevant to judging the truth or falsity of the claim itself. For example, if Heisenberg was a Nazi, that would not count as evidence for or against his theories in physics; although it does have a bearing on the things he might have said as testimony in trials of war criminals.
The error in reasoning of supposing that a person's character has a bearing on his scientific theory is called an "informal fallacy of relevance". It's "informal" because it's not a "formal" error (i.e. an error generated by an invalid argument), and it's "of relevance" because the mistake it makes is to assume that something irrelevant is relevant.
I'm glad that JaneBasingstoke asked me to, er, "explain", but please, Peter317, don't take it personally as I've had this chip on my shoulder for years about people appealing to a person's bad character or good character. Same thing: irrelevant!
There is the additional problem that technicality hypnotizes us into thinking we're really clever, when we remain as stupid as we always were, and are always condemned to be, but I'll leave that to another day.
Complain about this comment
@many1summits
I don't think you read the article - no apology in order. It does not state that mosquitoes are moving North as Ghost claims. It also states that the new strain of West Nile is more virulent than the initial invading strain at all temperatures. Nor does it mention Dengue Fever anywhere.
It does state that West Nile first appeared in the US in New York - and apparently moved southward - as most cases during the peak were in the south - particularly here in Texas.
As they started looking for a link between climate change and disease of course they reported (like good AGW-ers) that its gonna be worse because of climate change - but no proof is provided.
Additionally, this is not the scientific paper - but an article, without all the caveats, etc...
I'll also stand by my assertion that malaria is much worse in Africa because they have been deprived of DDT - without which, the US would still have malaria. And by the way, even though Rachel Carson is dead, the rest of us are still alive even though we eradicated malaria with DDT.
Now, on to more important stuff...
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#197 LarryKealey wrote:
"malaria is much worse in Africa because they have been deprived of DDT - without which, the US would still have malaria"
Maybe so, but one of the most effective anti-mosquito campaigns in the history of the world occurred during the building of the Panama canal, when just about everything near standing water was sprayed with a fine mist of paraffin. The plants recovered quite quickly. The mosquitoes didn't, or not until the ones carrying malaria had died out anyway.
It's not much consolation in the middle of a horrible oil pollution disaster, I know.
Complain about this comment
#197 - Larry Kealey - There was also a major outbreak of malaria in the Pacific Northwest in the 1830s, in the midst of the Little Ice Age. Obviously had nothing to do with warming but rather the transport of mosquitoes or the hosts of malaria (people) from places where it was prevalent. Same story for how the West Nile virus got to New York. And I do remember that when the West Nile arrived the usual suspects were screaming that all the birds were going to die. A few did. Now that seems to be over.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #194
"the water vapor drives convection more forcefully"
You're not happy with me describing that as "convection involved in the moist adiabatic lapse rate allows energy to take a "short cut" to the top of the troposphere"?
"the absorption by water vapor is already a part of the OBSERVED lapse rate"
Actually I hadn't commented on you making that claim. And I think this second point of yours is at best misleading and probably wrong, depending on what you meant.
You can't use the lapse rate to cover water vapour's greenhouse absorption in the way you can use the lapse rate to cover convection. However the greenhouse gas absorption by water vapour is often combined with the lapse rate feedback in calculations because they change in step with each other.
The greenhouse gas absorption by water vapour is a positive feedback that significantly outweighs the negative feedback of the lapse rate, giving a significant net positive feedback for water vapour.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
"only move up so much before it's balanced out by [list]"
The only thing on your list that looks like a possible powerful negative feedback is clouds. And the tropopause is not some sort of special emissive zone.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #195
The following does not include answers to all your latest points. Yet.
As far as South Park and Gore were concerned, I thought you sceptics all loved the manbearpig episode.
You asked for my opinion of your 700 papers list. I gave it. I can't help it if you don't like my opinion. I point out that the booby trap problem affects your side whether or not I express an opinion on it. Any trusting sceptic could go to that list and get caught by one of the booby traps.
Meanwhile the IPCC's problems are out in the open. Do you really think that the IPCC won't want to fix them?
As for the grey literature. I don't approve of the grey literature situation with the IPCC. But its use is under the spotlight and will stay that way until they fix the problem.
I gather it isn't all from Greenpeace and the WWF. I don't know its current status but the glacier report that Pachauri dismissed as not peer reviewed was an Indian government publication.
Yes, I have seen the grey literature audit, at the original site.
And I have issues with the presentation. Firstly the front page of the report gives no clues as to the comparative health of WG1, the all important science section
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/press-release.php
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
Then there's the actual breakdown of the result. Interesting layout.
both here, As bottom of page
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php
and here, WG1 bottom of page
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php
Is someone trying to hide the comparative health of the science section?
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #200 who wrote...
"The greenhouse gas absorption by water vapour is a positive feedback that significantly outweighs the negative feedback of the lapse rate, giving a significant net positive feedback for water vapour."
First off...we don't see this behavior reflected. Second...we shouldn't expect to see any significant contribution from CO2's absorption. The concentration of water vapor only goes up by about 6% per degree. Across most of the earth...the concentration of water vapor is well over 1000ppm, often over 10000ppm.
Increases in water vapor's absorption can only be weak. The 6% per degree increase in concentration would provide negligible "forcing" and most of the time the absorption just goes into helping to maintain the observed moist lapse rate that it can't help but be a part of. In the mean time a 1.2C increase (as an example) would have elminated any excess energy from the supposed 3.7 watts of "forcing" by CO2...and water vapor/convection are throwing nearly 6 watts of additional surface energy into the troposphere.
Now you will note...none of this water vapor stuff prevents the glacial period from having overall high feedbacks. Those cold, arid and icy conditions would substantially reduce water vapor's moderating behavior...and the large quantities of low latitude ice and desert conditions lead to substantial albedo feedback. Proxy records seem to show this behavior...powerful positive feedback during glacial periods and negative (or at least weak) feedback during interglacial periods.
Sorry, the hypothesis of substantial, dangerous, anthropogenic global warming is just bad science. There will almost certainly be some enhancement to the greenhouse effect but not a lot.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #200 wrote:
"The greenhouse gas absorption by water vapour is a positive feedback that significantly outweighs the negative feedback of the lapse rate"
To ask a question again: how can the lapse rate, whatever it may be, act as a positive or negative feedback? In other words, how can it do anything such as exert a force? How can a measure of anything have any sort of causal powers at all?
If you ask me, this whole discussion is mired in equivocation and conceptual confusion. I wouldn't trust what either side says. Where technicality is as thick as fog, the appropriate attitude is scepticism.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #203
"To ask a question again: how can the lapse rate, whatever it may be, act as a positive or negative feedback? In other words, how can it do anything such as exert a force? How can a measure of anything have any sort of causal powers at all?"
This is ambiguous terminology.
Firstly, a reminder. The "lapse rate" is the temperature gradient in the troposphere, cold at the top, warmer at the bottom. (The troposphere is the layer of atmosphere closest to the Earth. It contains most of our weather.)
The "lapse rate feedback" is the effect whereby the lapse rate changes slightly with planetary warming. The lapse rate becomes weaker in the tropics (a negative feedback) and stronger at the poles (a positive feedback).
Complain about this comment
Bowman, GHG forcing does work but forces the gradient of the atmosphere toward instability (a gradient large enough for convection to start). The warm/moist adiabatic lapse rates (the idealized value) are lower than this figure. The balance between these two rates leads to the observed atmospheric lapse rate.
However, as the temperature increases, more and more energy gets shunted through convection...and even more so toward the more powerful convection driven by moist air. The ever-increasing energy that goes through the water cycle "opposes" the GHG forcing by trying to force the gradient. Its not all limited to the lower atmosphere either. Thunderstoms stab deep into the troposphere, offloading their energy in batches that are simply too small to show up in the models. The water simply falls to the ground, having left the latent heat higher in the atmosphere. Its pretty much a one-way trip for the energy that goes through latent heat.
The greenhouse gases, convection and latent heat all impact the tropospheric gradient using different phenomenon with different ranges of influence.
Increases in the greenhouse effect are most pronounced at extremely low concentrations because of the logarithmic nature of absorption, the lack of convection latent heat and competition with vast amounts of water vapor absorption in the same spectrum. Convection and latent heat are strongest at warmer temperatures because of the exponential increases in water vapor/latent heat and the lower potency of the greenhouse effect.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #202
"moderating behavior", "negative (or at least weak) feedback during interglacial periods"
I don't know where you're getting some of your facts from. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Your arguments are the first I've seen where water vapour itself is described as a de facto negative feedback, rather than the related phenomenon of clouds.
Are you sure you aren't getting muddled with clouds?
Complain about this comment
204 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
The "lapse rate feedback" is the effect whereby the lapse rate changes slightly with planetary warming. The lapse rate becomes weaker in the tropics (a negative feedback) and stronger at the poles (a positive feedback).
What do you mean by "weaker" and "stronger" here? The lapse rate -- however we interpret it -- is a gradient. A gradient can be more or less steep. I gather from what you say here that with warming, that gradient would be steeper in some places and shallower in other places. So how does that cause anything? I'm genuinely baffled. What is the cause, and what is the effect supposed to be here?
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #195
"Newslettter: NZCLIMATE TRUTH NO 244 by Vincent Gray FLAT EARTH"
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5583
First reaction, well that can't be right, the models show clear latitude related effects, like cold at the poles, warm at the equator. They also avoid the ridiculous sky high temperatures of a disc permanently facing the Sun. (Sceptics Gerlich and Tscheuschner have conveniently done this calculation - a sweltering 360.6K (87.6 C) before the greenhouse effect.).
(Actually no, that's not my first reaction. My first reaction was "whoa - CAPITAL LETTERS", something that sets my b***s*** detectors off since having a job as a papergirl in my teenage years. However b***s*** detectors can be wrong, and don't actually do the work needed to comment on a thread like this.)
Then I worked it out. Gray isn't referring to the computer models. He's referring to the explanatory doodles with their averaged energy flows, which he terms "graphs". He may also possibly have a problem with the use of the word "mean" in the caption. In this context "mean" translates as "average", and should alert him to the fact that this is a summary of global results rather than the actual model.
I warn Vincent Gray to stay away from using the London Underground tube map. The tube map doesn't have the train times on it. Nor does it show ticket prices or explain how to use a ticket barrier. Nor does it make explicit the fact that some of the lines further out are on the surface but in central London the lines are all well below ground and many have to be reached by stairs and escalators. Nor does it include the warning "Mind the Gap" or that he should "Stand clear of the doors please" before they are due to close.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.gif
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #207
If referring solely to the rate I would have said "shallower" / "steeper" rather than "weaker" / "stronger". But the rate influences the strength of the greenhouse. A shallower rate means a weaker greenhouse effect. A steeper rate means a stronger greenhouse.
OK. Reworded.
The "lapse rate feedback" is the effect whereby the lapse rate changes slightly with planetary warming. The lapse rate becomes shallower in the tropics, weakening the greenhouse in the tropics (a negative feedback) and steeper at the poles, strengthening the greenhouse at the poles (a positive feedback).
Note. The lapse rate feedback is always considered in conjunction with the water vapour feedback (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), because they are both affected by water vapour concentrations. The water vapour feedback always outweighs the lapse rate feedback because water vapour is such a powerful greenhouse gas.
None of this touches on the related feedbacks associated with clouds, which are much debated and poorly understood.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke who wrote...
"I don't know where you're getting some of your facts from. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Your arguments are the first I've seen where water vapour itself is described as a de facto negative feedback, rather than the related phenomenon of clouds."
Its a side effect of precipitation. CO2 can be "well mixed" but water vapor never can. It drops out of the atmosphere as a function of temperature. Its maximum absorption is VERY limited by the fact that eventually it will be removed from the air by condensation.
Complain about this comment
#209 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
A steeper rate means a stronger greenhouse.
It "means" a stronger greenhouse, or it causes a stronger greenhouse effect? If the latter, what is the causal mechanism involved?
The "lapse rate feedback" is the effect whereby the lapse rate changes slightly with planetary warming.
OK, if that is the effect, what is the cause of that effect?
The lapse rate feedback is always considered in conjunction with the water vapour feedback (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas)
I have no problem with the water vapour feedback, because as you say water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Photons hit water molecules and then other photons are re-emitted. But what is the analogous causal mechanism involved with this mysterious "lapse rate feedback"?
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #211
The role of the lapse rate in the very basic greenhouse.
Imagine an atmosphere that is totally transparent to IR. "Black body" electromagnetic emissions to space will be from ground level.
Now infuse greenhouse gases into that atmosphere. Some of the IR emissions from the ground are blocked. Some IR emissions are now from the atmosphere. The average altitude of the emissions to space rises above ground level.
The effect is like moving a thermostat. Provided that the troposphere is well mixed by weather, maintaining the temperature gradient, moving the average position of the thermostat to a cooler height means that ground level temperatures end up rising to compensate.
This situation is complicated slightly by the temperature inversion in the stratosphere. But the emissions that are affected by changes to carbon dioxide and water vapour are substantially from the troposphere.
Note, this applies to the average lapse rate, as there are dry and moist lapse rates.
The lapse rate feedback mechanism.
The negative lapse rate feedback mechanism in the tropics comes about because warming the planet favours the shallower moist lapse rate due to the extra evaporation of water. Convection makes the moist lapse rate shallower due to the latent energy released when the water vapour condenses as clouds.
I don't know the mechanism for the positive feedback towards the poles. It is described as being linked to ground level warming especially in winter. However what goes up must come down, so perhaps extra upward convection in the tropics means extra downward precipitation elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #210
Poitsplace you appear to be contradicting yourself. Your earlier post in #202 downplayed the response of atmospheric water vapour concentration to temperature with your "The concentration of water vapor only goes up by about 6% per degree.". Now you seem to be saying that atmospheric water vapour concentration is very sensitive to temperature with your "It drops out of the atmosphere as a function of temperature. Its maximum absorption is VERY limited by the fact that eventually it will be removed from the air by condensation.". Which is it?
Complain about this comment
@ JaneBasingstoke #212:
I admire your perseverance for trying to explain that, but the more I try to get my head around metaphors such as the average height of IR emission working like a "moving thermostat", the more I feel it is appropriate to be sceptical here. We have to approach these extremely vague yet superficially rigorous-looking ideas (big words, etc.) with due modesty.
For example, moving the average position of the thermostat to a cooler height means that ground level temperatures end up rising to compensate: What does that mean?
Let's be honest, and admit we don't know what we're talking about here, do we? -- Well OK, I'll "jump" first and admit I don't know what I'm talking about here, and I've got a degree in pure maths and years of experience in quite a broad range of scientific subjects. This is a sordid mess of metaphors and teleology.
The fact that you and poitsplace are still disagreeing over what you mean by the very terms you are using is a dead giveaway too!
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #214
Yes, its complicated, would be easier to explain if I could draw pictures.
OK. Forget "average position of thermostat". Just deal with "position of thermostat".
If you have a heater on constant and an open window then there'll be a temperature gradient between the two.
Imagine a thermostat controlling the window.
If you put the thermostat close to the heater then the window will have to be open a lot to cool the thermostat. If you put the thermostat close to the window then the window will have to be closed more to keep the thermostat warm.
Complain about this comment
Jane, CO2 doesn't exhibit signs of moving based on "optical thickness"...because the inversion of the stratosphere limits CO2's absorption so it falls in line with the temperatures of the tropopause.
Water vapor on the other hand...DOES appear to show this limiting behavior. Basically the atmosphere does that around 0C. Put more water vapor in the air and it forces it closer to the moist adiabatic lapse rate...oh and eventually water vapor content falls enough to emit but at a higher altitude...oh, and still at about 0C.
Complain about this comment
@ JaneBasinstoke
Don't let me wreck your weekend, so take a break if you want!
My problem with the metaphor of the thermostat is this. I know how a simple thermostat works, and I see how it keeps a room's temperature regulated, and I see how if you place it closer to an open window it would shut the window more, and that that would make the room hotter. That's all clear, and so far it's a fine analogy. But:
What I don't see is the "lapse rate" equivalent of the causal mechanism -- the equivalent of the bimetal strip which works as a switch to the circuit that runs the motor that opens the window. Those crucial elements of a causal mechanism are clear with the actual thermostat and the open window, but the "lapse rate" equivalent seems completely murky (to my mind anyway). In the room with the actual thermostat, the temperature gradient is affected by the thermostat, but it is incapable of doing anything itself to change the openness of the window. The gradient itself does nothing.
Complain about this comment
#208. Thanks Jane! I learn something every day. And I appreciate the way you put things.
This could be interesting. Isn't Nature one the favourite references of the AGW proponents?
"News is coming out of Finland about a latest study soon to be published in Nature magazine in June 2010 that proves CO2 is only responsible for between 5 to 10% of observed global warming, and is not the key driver of global warming let alone climate change.
The Department of Physics, University of Turku, undertook the study that showed CO2 has a significantly lower impact on global warming than previously thought. Professor Jyrki Kauppinen who led the research stated that the warming that has happened over the last century has not been because of greenhouse gases. Professor Kauppinen also stated that the warming attributed by the IPCC is way over the mark... ten time greater than that calculated by him."
http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/1595100/
Complain about this comment
@bowmnthebard #217
The lapse rate isn't the "thermostat".
In my analogy the lapse rate is represented by the temperature gradient between the heater and the window.
The "thermostat" is the black body emissions from the Earth. From space the Earth appears to average about -18 C (255 K). This is because the Earth emits electromagnetic radiation (mainly infra red) to balance that received from the Sun.
If the atmosphere was completely transparent to the Earth's emissions then the surface of the Earth would have to average about -18 C (255K). But because of the greenhouse gases some of the emissions are from higher in the atmosphere than ground level.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #216
I remind you that the stratosphere is very thin and that stratospheric greenhouse related effects are dominated by the ozone layer. Changes to carbon dioxide levels have a much bigger effect on the troposphere than the stratosphere.
Changes to the Earth's average lapse rate are minimal, and are more than balanced by the greenhouse gas properties of the extra water vapour.
Meanwhile you still haven't answered the question whether atmospheric concentrations of water vapour are comparatively sensitive or comparatively insensitive to temperature.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #218
I can't comment on his work based on a few quotes. And if it's good enough for Nature then it will need people with relevant experience to look at it properly. But it does look like a decent contribution to the debate.
Bit concerned about what looks like Kauppinen's personal email address in your link. (You don't want Kauppinen getting unnecessary emails. Also it may be covered by BBC restrictions on personal contact details.) So here are other links to the same story.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5540
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2010/04/science-journal-nature-opens-to-climate.html
(BBC thread rules have restrictions on personal contact details.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_house_rules.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_editorial_guidelines.html
Complain about this comment
Jane - That link just leads to a Yahoo news story. So not a problem.
I appreciate the need for not putting personal emails and such anywhere on Big Brother's web.
In fact, my real name is not Canadian Rockies.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #222
"real name is not Canadian Rockies"
:-)
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #120 who wrote...
"I remind you that the stratosphere is very thin and that stratospheric greenhouse related effects are dominated by the ozone layer. Changes to carbon dioxide levels have a much bigger effect on the troposphere than the stratosphere."
Look, I already said these things. You're just treating everything as an independent bunch of preset facts instead of actually working them into a coherent array.
"Changes to the Earth's average lapse rate are minimal, and are more than balanced by the greenhouse gas properties of the extra water vapour."
The changes to the lapse rate are indeed small...because they are roughly in proportion to the huge amounts of energy already being channeled through the opposing processes. But, they don't need to be very large. It is basically whatever combination moves enough energy to fix the situation. Surely you cannot be so faithful to the AGW dogma that you are blinded to the fact that such incredible increases in outgoing energy MUST oppose surface temperature increases.
Even if water vapor's absorption was capable of increasing significantly...at current concentrations latent heat would still win no matter what. Remember, it would take a DOUBLING of a greenhouse gas to cause any significant increase in absorption when the gas is already at high levels because such increases are logarithmic. BUT the amount of latent heat carried would simply double. Of course...water vapor's absorption seems to be pretty static, set more by the low logarithmic increases as well as the fact that it condenses out at the same temperature no matter what.
In the end, sometimes its easier to make your point with an extreme example. If water vapor in the atmosphere doubled, the increase in absorbed energy might go up by a couple percent. At those temperatures, however...the energy radiated through the atmospheric window would have gone up by far more...and the energy moving through convection and latent heat would have increased to over 50% of earth's entire energy budget. I assure you...water vapor's feedbacks at this point can be nothing but negative.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies at #218 & Jane at #221
I'd take the comments about Kauppinen's study being "soon to be published in Nature magazine in June 2010" with a grain of salt.
According to Nature's editorial guidelines: "Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media no more than a week before the publication date under our embargo conditions. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken."
See: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/embargo.html
Complain about this comment
#219 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
The "thermostat" is the black body emissions from the Earth.
A thermostat is a very special sort of object, because it can be teated as if it were a very primitive agent, with a fixed "goal".
For example, a thermostat that keeps a room at 70 degrees has a state analogous to a rudimentary "desire" to keep the room at that temperature, and can be in one of two states analogous to a rudimentary "belief" that the room is either warm enough or not warm enough.
For that reason, thermostats are of special interest when we try to imagine a very primitive sort of agent.
However, the danger of using the analogy of a thermostat when thinking of things such as the Earth's blackbody radiation is that the latter is nothing like an agent. It doesn't literally have a "goal" and it doesn't do anything to "compensate" if its "goal" is not met.
For that reason, I'd be very wary of talking about thermostats in this context, where no agency is involved. Teleology sneaks in the back door too easily.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #224
"CO2 doesn't exhibit signs of moving based on "optical thickness"...because the inversion of the stratosphere limits CO2's absorption so it falls in line with the temperatures of the tropopause." [poitsplace #216]
"I remind you that the stratosphere is very thin and that stratospheric greenhouse related effects are dominated by the ozone layer. Changes to carbon dioxide levels have a much bigger effect on the troposphere than the stratosphere." [JaneBasingstoke #220]
"Look, I already said these things. You're just treating everything as an independent bunch of preset facts instead of actually working them into a coherent array" [poitsplace #224]
Sorry poitsplace. Forgot we were ignoring my description of the greenhouse and focusing on yours.
Meanwhile if my #220 stratosphere comments are what your #216 stratosphere comments were supposed to mean you could have been a lot clearer.
"In the end, sometimes its easier to make your point with an extreme example. If water vapor in the atmosphere doubled, the increase in absorbed energy might go up by a couple percent. At those temperatures, however...the energy radiated through the atmospheric window would have gone up by far more...and the energy moving through convection and latent heat would have increased to over 50% of earth's entire energy budget. I assure you...water vapor's feedbacks at this point can be nothing but negative." [poitsplace #224]
Right. All energy flows are big. But energy flows are really big when it suits you that they are big. And energy flows are big but comparatively small when it suits you that they are small. Yes, that would allow you to see a powerful negative feedback.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #225
@CanadianRockies
Nature make allowances for accidental leaks, and Kauppinen's comments are pretty minimal.
"At the same time, it should be emphasized that not all data posted on the internet jeopardize subsequent publication. We encourage discussion and exchange of ideas among scientists, and in no way object to the presentation of unpublished data at scientific meetings and the online or print publication of meeting abstracts. Scientists should, however, avoid giving interviews to the press about unpublished work. It is important to note that most major meeting organizers who welcome the press also issue warnings to journalists not to cover any specific information without the author's consent."
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v2/n8/full/nmeth0805-561.html
If the paper's subject matter is as claimed there is no way that he could have kept it quiet, some colleague, close friend, family member or even professional rival would be almost bound to leak it.
Given the politics of the situation I can't see Nature risking pulling publication because of an inevitable leak. There would be a loud shout of "foul" from the sceptics.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #226
"it doesn't do anything to "compensate" if its "goal" is not met"
Yes it does.
Hotter black bodies being heated by the Sun emit more radiation than they receive until they cool to the equilibrium temperature.
Cooler black bodies being heated by the Sun emit less radiation than they receive until they warm to the equilibrium temperature.
I hope you see that although this particular "thermostat" is accidental this mechanism could be used by an inventor as an alternative thermostat to the bimetal strip.
Complain about this comment
#229 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I hope you see that although this particular "thermostat" is accidental this mechanism could be used by an inventor as an alternative thermostat to the bimetal strip."
But the extra stuff the inventor would need to add would be doing all the work.
The crucial aspect of a thermostat that enables us to treat it as an "agent" is the fact that it behaves as if it has a "goal" -- that goal being a single temperature which it causes the actual temperature to oscillate on either side of. What single value of what variable does the current would-be "agent" seem to "act" so as to maintain?
Given that this area is riddled with unwarranted assumptions of agency, I think any reference to agency should be approached with great conceptual caution.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #224
Poitsplace, we may be talking at cross purposes.
I have been talking about energy flows at equilibrium unless otherwise stated. And I have been taking it for granted that there is a new equilibrium temperature above or below the old equilibrium temperature according to forcing and feedbacks.
Whereas I suspect you may have been talking about energy flows in between equilibria. Because a lot of what you say suddenly makes a lot more sense if you are talking about temperatures stabilising at a new temperature.
You do understand that IPCC graphs showing temperatures going up and up are
1. effectively showing time delays in reacting to increased carbon dioxide
2. also effectively showing the expected continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @187:
"Because they've managed to calculate a temperature of 360.6K (87.6 C) instead of 255K (-18 C) for an Earth with an albedo of 0.3 (normalisation factor 0.7)"
I said I would get back to you, now I'm back from my weekend in "sunny" Wales, so:
Your mistake here is assuming, despite evidence to the contrary, that they were trying to calculate the average blackbody temperature of the earth.
In which case, I'd agree with you - it was a howler.
But that's not what they were trying to do.
If you had read that in the context in which it was presented, you would have seen that.
Please read things properly before assuming the worst.
Complain about this comment
#231 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Poitsplace, we may be talking at cross purposes."
Talking at cross purposes is absolutely par for the course wherever there are alternative theories. The appropriate response is modesty, a sceptical attitude, and above all testing. Testing doesn't just work as evidence for or against theories: it helps to pin down the meanings of the terms used by proponents of alternative theories.
I also recommend a healthy dose of disdain for technicality -- technicality gives the misleading impression that we know what we're talking about even when we don't.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #232
Yes, you're right about context. In terms of their argument their calculation of 360.6K (87.6 C) was a red herring. I should have paid more attention to context.
However it does help to illustrate that they really are rejecting the factor of 1/4. There are two issues with them rejecting the factor of 1/4.
Firstly their "correctly averaged" replacement factor (section 3.7.4, starts page 62) introduces more problems than it solves.
Their replacement factor is effectively based on a planet tidally locked so that the same side faces the Sun. Such a planet would have a scorching temperature of 360.6K (87.6 C) at its hottest. They are assuming absolute zero for the side in permanent night. The situation is similar to Mercury which has days that are 176 Earth days long and has no atmosphere. Despite being very close to the Sun, Mercury has very cold nights.
In other words, their approach to averaging temperatures has made things far worse. The 1/4 approximation factor was far more accurate.
To be fair they do try to fix the lack of rotation in subsequent sections (3.7.8, 3.7.9) but appear to give up.
Secondly they might have used the resulting calculated temperature to prevent errors in their 3.7.5 (starts page 65).
Sections 3.7.5 and 3.7.6 are surreal.
3.7.5 looks at problems averaging temperatures.
Now the thing about black bodies with uneven surface temperatures is that you need a comparatively big drop in temperature on one part of the surface to energetically balance a comparatively small rise in temperature on the other part of the surface. For instance an object which is uniformly 10K emits the same as an otherwise identical object that is half 5K and half 11.8K (conventional average 8.4K). This is why their tidally locked black body planet, with its temperature extremes, has an average temperature much colder than the IPCC's uniform temperature black body planet.
In fact a uniform temperature planet will always have a higher temperature than the average temperature for an uneven temperature planet with identical black body energy emissions. The IPCC's model and their figures therefore give -18 C (255K) as an upper bound for average black body temperature for the Earth.
And I'm not quite clear how to interpret them. Are they saying the Earth's average temperature is warmer than -18 C (255K) because we're doing the averaging wrong? Or are they giving up on radiative balance completely?
3.7.6 (page 66) makes a statement that really confuses me
" Departing from the physically incorrect assumption of radiative balance a mathematically correct calculation of the average temperature lets the difference temperature that defines the natural greenhouse effect explode."
I am having problems here. The first half of the statement appears to rubbish the first law of thermodynamics. I have read and re-read this statement trying to work out how it isn't rubbishing the first law of thermodynamics. Can you help?
I'm sorry, the more time I spend looking at this paper the more ... stuff ... just makes me cringe.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
#230
I have been very careful in my description of what happens. I only used the term "thermostat" because I needed to use a simple word rather than a great big long phrase. This allowed me to discuss the changing location of the "thermostat". And I have been explicit in describing processes that don't require intention.
Meanwhile as an example of an intentional use of such a "thermostat" try the design of a terra-formed Mars.
#233
Erm, not that sort of cross purposes.
I thought we (poitsplace and I) were talking about alternative theories, or different takes on the greenhouse. Instead we may have been talking about a misunderstanding by poitsplace of what the IPCC were saying.
Poitsplace may be trying to debunk an unstable equilibrium, where the temperature just keeps rising and rising. Such an unstable equilibrium is not part of AGW science.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @233
I've only had a brief look at the paper, so I'm not going to try to pretend that I fully understand it - perhaps if I spent a few weeks studying it.
What they're essentially saying there that the 1/4 factor is not appropriate, as it's a gross oversimplification. The main reason for this is the fact that, as the surface is not an even temperature, and because of this and the 4th power relationship between temperature and radiation, one can't calculate outgoing radiation by simply using the average temperature, and that it's, according to them, pretty much incalculable.
They are, however, very long-winded about it, and go into a lot of unnecessary and, perhaps irrelevant, detail. Also, as English is obviously not their first language, it is very difficult to follow their reasoning.
Complain about this comment
#235 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I only used the term "thermostat" because I needed to use a simple word rather than a great big long phrase."
I've heard this sort of thing too many times to spend any more time on it. You think your thoughts are profound because you can summon up great big long phrases which you think express these thoughts. In fact they're not thoughts at all, which is why you have to rely on a proxy -- of language -- which you mistakenly think stands for things, but in fact doesn't.
You're fooling yourself. There is no depth without clarity. Everyone's thoughts are as clear as their ability to "put it another way", and I don't see very much of that in what you've written. I don't see any genuine understanding here at all.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #236
Look. There is an issue with averaging temperatures. But not to the extent that they make out. More importantly not in the direction that they effectively make out.
Using their figures, the black body emissions from the Earth are the equivalent of if the Earth was a uniform -18C (255K).
But you say, the Earth has uneven temperatures and there are problems averaging such temperatures.
However these uneven temperatures would give the Earth a slightly lower mean temperature for the same emissions because of the fourth power thing. So the -18C (255K) is still a useful result as it gives an absolute ceiling for average temperature.
Also we are only talking slightly lower for Earth based temperatures. Look at their section 3.7.6. What is the big deal about the difference between a mean of 15 C and a fourth power fourth root mean of 15.48 C? How can such tiny differences (which are in the wrong direction anyway) explain away the greenhouse effect of about 33 C? So the -18C (255K) is at worst a degree or so out. The factor of 1/4 is a good approximation.
Meanwhile they only get their ridiculously low -129C (144K) by imagining a planet that has the same side facing the Sun so that one side is permanently baked and the other is permanently frozen night.
Sorry. Even ignoring their spurious 87.6 C (360.6K) on page 61, it's still a howler.
Complain about this comment
Ugh. Of course a new equilibrium is formed (in as much as earth's climate system can reach equilibrium). But IF the greenhouse effect increases, causing more warming...the new equilibrium will ALWAYS involve the water cycle and convection being responsible for a larger share of the energy transport across the troposphere.
If you use the raw absorption by CO2 and assume the rest of the earth doesn't react...a doubling of CO2 would cause a 3.7watt increase in the greenhouse effect...which SHOULD require a 1.2C increase in ground temperature to compensate.
HOWEVER...if you look at the raw increases to latent heat and convection for that sort of temperature increase, you find that their increases are far larger...almost 10 watts! (6 from latent heat/convection, 3.7 from increased IR output). Even if you try to add the meager 2watts per meter from the ASSUMED increases in water vapor absorption (which I assure you doesn't work...but even if it did) you end up with about twice the energy leaving from an increase in ground temperature as you have driving the change.
Clearly, this situation cannot be the case. The warming MUST in fact be significantly weaker...probably roughly 1/2 of that which would be suggested by a simple radiative balance correction. Changes to latent heat and convection are also very generic, temperature based feedbacks. They will provide the same sort of resistance to any warming (but not as much to cooling)
Complain about this comment
More reasons for the party to be short of guests:
http://euobserver.com/9/29996/?rk=1
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531731
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Fannie-Mae-owns-patent-on-residential-_cap-and-trade_-exchange-91532109.html#ixzz0mVcpVz79
Follow the money Richard - for all of us
?Mango
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #164
(@Jane, #178 - see further down)
I'm troubled by this description you gave of how water vapour behaves:
Because of the latent heat water vapor does something...quirky. Heat is heat. If it allows radiation through...the radiation gets though. If it absorbs some radiation...then some of the water won't cool/condense as it rises and the energy simply continues as latent heat.
This appears to be saying that if water vapour absorbs some heat energy, its only effect is to prevent condensation and the release of the latent heat.
If this is what you are saying it is incorrect. The extra absorbed energy will heat up the water vapour meaning that it is free to be re-radiated... the latent heat energy content is unchanged. Therefore, far from counting latent heat twice in the published models, you seem to be destroying absorbed energy in your model (i.e. if it is absorbed, is not re-radiated, doesn't heat anything and cannot add to latent heat which is a constant then it is effectively disappearing from the equation).
Having read some more papers on radiative-convective models I think this is the key misunderstanding between your description of the process and those contained in the published models.
For an alternative treatment I would like to point you to the following paper which allows for a variable relative humidity (whereas the Manabe/Wetherald paper I mentioned before has a constant relative humidity profile):
V. Ramanathan, "The role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the CO2 climate problem", J. Atmos. Sci., 38 (1981), pp918
In particular I draw your attention to figure 4 which shows the latent-heat transport of evaporation as "process 3" and quotes the magnitude of this effect at the surface as 12 W/m^2 (you have indicated in your posts that this is of the order of 10 W/m^2 so Ramanathan's figure is similar to yours).
Allowing for increased evaporation gives 2 effects (from p921) (i)latent heat transport to the mid-troposphere has the effect of additional warming of the troposphere and hence enhances tropospheric IR emission and (ii) enhanced evaporation increases the absolute humidity of the troposphere which again enhances the IR emission.
@JaneBasingstoke, #178
My comment about you not having taken everything into account was probably a misunderstanding on my part that you are simply arguing the case of the conceptual idea of the basics of the greenhouse mechanism whereas poitsplace is putting forward a quantitative argument. In this respect, I am in complete agreement that nothing you have said disagrees with the Manabe/Wetherald paper I linked you to and your concept of the process seems sound. That said, in order to argue the point on quantitative grounds then it is imperative that the mathematics and methodologies in papers like Manabe/Wetherald's and Ramanathan's be understood (Ramanathan's fig 4 is particularly good for this). In this respect I would also recommend:
N.O. Renno, "Multiple equilibria in Radiative-Convective atmospheres", Tellus, 49A (1997) p423
which, although it is even more complicated mathematically than the previous papers I have quoted, contains a nice historical digest of the problem in the introduction section, particularly focusing on the short-comings of all the models I have been discussing!
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon who wrote...
"This appears to be saying that if water vapour absorbs some heat energy, its only effect is to prevent condensation and the release of the latent heat."
No, my point was that in counting the absorption independently they lose an important interaction...the interplay between absorbed energy and the release of latent heat. By ignoring the interaction you count some (possibly a very large portion) of the radiative transfer energy...twice.
And yes, overall my point was that the water vapor removes heat from the surface, enhancing emissions (warmer clouds, water vapor and the atmosphere in general etc). Also, since thunderstorms usually occur at scales below the resolution of the models, their (thunderstorms) smearing of water vapor's energy across the ENTIRE cross section of the troposphere is likely wrong.
Water vapor and convection increases would force the gradient back in the opposite direction of GHG forcing, bypassing much of the supposed greenhouse effect...and basically force the extra energy disproportionately into the troposphere.
But of course, since the changes are seamless we don't really even notice most of them. The climate's sensitivity to CO2 is simply too weak for us to notice most of its impacts and most of the warming was likely natural (from temporary, multi-decade circulation changes)
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #239
Er, recognise some of those figures, but not others. Where do they come from?
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #237
Never guess from your post that actually I was talking about the alternative to a great big long phrase.
[sigh]
OK. Without the offensive word "thermostat".
B*****. The alternatives all have clear conscious intention.
Try and show that the teleology doesn't ruin the analogy.
Black body radiation for a planet helps keep that planet at the same equilibrium temperature, where energy from the Sun is exactly balanced by energy from black body emissions. This equilibrium temperature is dependent on the amount of energy from the Sun. It is also dependent on the albedo of the planet, pale coloured planets reflect light rather than absorb it.
If something warms the planet then the extra heat means extra black body emissions until the planet cools to equilibrium temperature.
If something cools the planet then the lack of heat means less black body emissions until the planet warms to equilibrium temperature.
The planet does not have a designed thermostat. But its black body emissions make it behave like an object with a designed thermostat. If my quote marks weren't explicit enough perhaps the adjective "accidental" might do. I.e. the mechanism that keeps the planet at equilibrium temperature can be dubbed an "accidental black body thermostat".
If you have a problem with this terminology perhaps you could suggest an alternative.
In the meantime, if we just stick to comparing behaviour, rather than looking at the origin of that behaviour, I point out that the black body emission effects on the Earth's temperature have the same behaviour as a thermostatically controlled window. In both cases if the relevant object is too cold, heat emissions get reduced until the object warms to equilibrium temperature. And if the relevant object is too warm, heat emissions increase until the object cools to equilibrium temperature.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @238:
I'm not (yet) going to comment on the -129C figure, as I need to spend a considerable amount of time going through the maths (not my strongest point) and trying to understand their reasoning (also, not as easy as it should be), but I suspect you're still taking things out of context, although I can't (yet) explain exactly why. Perhaps, if you're strong on maths, you can get there before I do - if you're so inclined.
However, I can comment on the averaging problem.
Firstly, but slightly beside the point, a half a degree may not sound much, but it makes a difference of ~2.7W/m2 emitted
More importantly, we're talking about the average temperature vs. the effective average (the effective average determines the emission), so the emissions will always be higher than what is deduced from the average temperature.
Also, bear in mind that we're considering the surface temperatures and emission from the surface, not the TOA. Regardless of the greenhouse effect, the more emitted from the surface, the more is going to be emitted from the TOA and therefore the more escapes into space. The surface is, after all, where the emissions originate - and this depends on the surface temperature - regardless of what determines the latter.
Now onto the averaging. Because of the 4th power relationship, if we keep the average temperature constant, the more deviations we have from the average and the greater these deviations are (both positive and negative, BTW), the greater the difference between the effective temperature and the average, and the effective temperature is always greater than the average. And, given that, even over a 24-hour period, you can get as much as a 100C range of temperatures over the earth's surface, the discrepancy in energy emitted can easily completely overwhelm the 3.7W/m2 of radiative forcing.
If we're talking about radiative balance, it's easy to see that the earth can be losing a lot more energy than is apparent from the average temperature, and the magnitude is more dependent on the deviations from the average than the average itself.
Complain about this comment
Some of the figures I remember off the top of my head, like you (3.7 watts...supposed forcing from CO2). The 1.2C increase is just the radiative increase that it would take (assuming cloud cover, increased absorption, etc) to offset the 3.7watts from CO2's supposed forcing.
The 2 watt figure for water vapor is just the general consensus figure I found when digging around to find the "positive feedback" from water vapor absorption. The 10 watt figure was just a straight forward relative humidity thing (although I just guestimated so I aimed a little low, hence Dave's 12watt figure from an actual study).
Complain about this comment
Me @245:
"Because of the 4th power relationship, if we keep the average temperature constant, the more deviations we have from the average and the greater these deviations are (both positive and negative, BTW), the greater the difference between the effective temperature and the average"
Small clarification required here: the more and greater the positive deviations will tend to increase the effective average. To keep the average the same we also have to increase the negative deviations. Negative deviations, by themselves, (not balanced by positive deviations) will tend to reduce the average but not necessarily the effective average.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace,#242
please bear with me as I'm really trying to understand your point - you say at #78 that 'Latent heat carried byy water vapour negates its additional absorption'. Does this mean that water vvapour is incapable of absorbing radiative energy in your model as, in the published models this is entirely legitimate and is why water vapour is a powerful GHG.
Complain about this comment
148. infiniity
'What talk of unprecedented climate change? Is it Richard Black? Me? A climate scientist? Who made this claim? You won't find it in the IPCC report and you won't find it in any scientific paper. It's a strawman'
I am mystified by your statement, we never stop hearin about how 'unprecedented' everything is and it most certainly appears in the IPCC reports. For your info -
IPCC AR4 Chapter 6
‘Recent analyses of instrumental, documentary and proxy climate records, focussing on European temperatures, have also pointed to the unprecedented warmth of the 20th century and shown that the extreme summer of 2003 was very likely warmer than any that has occurred in at least 500 years (Luterbacher et al., 2004; Guiot et al., 2005’
‘Despite differences in the detail and implementation of the different forcing histories, there is generally good qualitative agreement between the simulations regarding the major features: warmth during much of the 12th through 14th centuries, with lower temperatures being sustained during the 17th, mid 15th and early 19th centuries, and the subsequent sharp rise to unprecedented levels of warmth at the end of the 20th century.
IPCC AR4 Summary for policymakers
‘The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g., flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification), and other global change drivers (e.g., land-use change, pollution, over-exploitation of resources).’
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon
RE:latent heat vs absorption
"Does this mean that water vvapour is incapable of absorbing radiative energy in your model as, in the published models this is entirely legitimate and is why water vapour is a powerful GHG."
Water vapor absorbs energy all the time. Heck, it absorbs a huge chunk of CO2's energy too (heh, which it radiates mostly in other frequencies). BUT...any energy put into the system where water vapor dominates...prevents the water vapor from condensing just then. It will condense later and higher of course...releasing it's latent heat at that higher, colder region.
The energy still moves across the troposphere. Water vapor still tries to maintain the same gradient. Its still going to emit its energy to space when it becomes transparent enough to those wavelengths....which is determined by the temperature at which enough water vapor condenses. If you treat water vapor's absorption as if it worked independently... you haven't reproduced the behavior of water vapor.
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon #241
Thanks for that. Thirteen pages, keep me busy.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #245
Why are you wasting time defending Gerlich and Tscheuschner?
" not (yet) going to comment on the -129C figure" [-129C (144K)]
I will comment.
I expect their maths on this to be correct. I expect that it was one of the things the peer reviewers actually did check properly.
And I will point out two things.
Firstly their planet with the same side permanently facing the Sun has similarities with Mercury. Mercury has very long days and, despite being close to the Sun, very cold nights (down to about -173 C (100K)).
Secondly the very low average temperature is an extreme example of the issue they talk about whereby a big spread of temperatures has a lower average temperature than the radiative equivalent with even temperatures.
"a half a degree may not sound much"
Half a degree is normally a big deal in discussing the greenhouse effect. But the reason why it isn't a big deal here is because they are trying to debunk the whole greenhouse effect, a massive 33C difference.
"More importantly, we're talking about the average temperature vs. the effective average (the effective average determines the emission), so the emissions will always be higher than what is deduced from the average temperature."
"Because of the 4th power relationship, if we keep the average temperature constant, the more deviations we have from the average and the greater these deviations are (both positive and negative, BTW), the greater the difference between the effective temperature and the average, and the effective temperature is always greater than the average."
Yes. The reason for this is the problem with averaging temperatures by radiative balance. However there is one exception, uniform temperatures. Try using their fourth power algorithm to average identical temperatures. You get an average that is the same as the component temperatures.
Now the theoretical temperature of -18C (255K) is based on an assumption of uniform temperatures. So its radiative average will also be -18C (255K).
But the measured ground temperature average of about 15C (288K) is based on a spread of temperatures. So its radiative average will be bigger than 15C (288K).
So the 33C difference between emissions based average and measured ground based average will be even bigger.
"Regardless of the greenhouse effect, the more emitted from the surface, the more is going to be emitted from the TOA and therefore the more escapes into space. The surface is, after all, where the emissions originate - and this depends on the surface temperature - regardless of what determines the latter."
Um, no. Some of the surface's emissions can be re-radiated back down.
"And, given that, even over a 24-hour period, you can get as much as a 100C range of temperatures over the earth's surface, the discrepancy in energy emitted can easily completely overwhelm the 3.7W/m2 of radiative forcing."
Gerlich and Tscheuschner were concerned with debunking the 33C greenhouse, where these comparatively small differences are not an issue. As soon as we move away from Gerlich and Tscheuschner we are dealing with more complex issues. Computer climate models reflect latitude enough to show tropical warmth in the tropics and polar cold at the poles. They have many flaws that are up for debate, but being trumped by Gerlich and Tscheuschner's temperature averaging is not one of them.
Meanwhile you never did answer my question about their rejection of radiative balance apparently trashing the first law of thermodynamics.
Complain about this comment
Poitsplace: you talk like you have an understanding of climatology. Do you actually know the meaning of forcings? And really how greenhouse gases work? And that methane et al are also greenhouse gases. Not to mention the rate of change witnessed the last two hundred years...and the extraordinary climb in co2 the last twenty, with the past ten years (NASA data) being the warmest in recorded history. Yes, there have been warm periods in the earth's past, but the sudden nature of the current event is unparalled, and on and on..I despair. The notion that this kind of quasi-science is substituted for real climatology makes me frantic. I am not casting ad hominem aspersions against the poster; I'm hoping that someone will finally take a long look at the current climate research and realize that many of the above posts are a decade out of date, or worse.
My own guess is that the present international governmental inaction is the last nail in the coffin. Whether you like it or not, AGW is real, and the effects will persist for centuries, most likely. The carbon sink is about full, and we are about to witness things humans haven't seen before. I make a standing wager: fifteen years from now, if we haven't all shuffled off the toothless mortal coil, the debate on AGW will be moot. Moot in that there won't be any question as to its validity. But, by that time I'm afraid it will by a worthless 'win'. I hope to gosh I'm wrong. My children deserve better.
Complain about this comment
Ok, wichitazen...if you'd studied at all you'd know that the holocene optimum was significantly warmer than today. You'd know that the stability of the little ice age is actually what stands out as unusual, not the warming after it. As you mentioned before...there is a LOT of information and it is very difficult to process. AGW is real. AGW's effects will indeed persist for centuries. The difference is that AGW's effects are actually quite weak. You and your children are perfectly safe from the "perils" of anthropogenic global warming, I assure you.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace, #242, 250
Thank you for your clarifications. Having read and digested these thoughts I think I understand what you're saying...
if water vapour absorbs energy it will heat up - this, in your model, will tend to allow it to rise higher and thus its latent heat will be released at a higher level in the troposphere. This is, essentially, paraphrasing your previous posts to get to the "mechanism of the interaction" between absorbed energy and latent heat.
If this is the crux of your argument (apologies for getting it wrong before, and again if I've got it wrong this time) then there are 2 important factors missing from your argument.
the first is the timescale of the radiation absorption/re-emission versus convection. The radiative effect is extremely fast so all the gas in the atmosphere, including water vapour, can be thought of as being in radiative equilibrium through the whole atmospheric column. You have alluded to this before by stating that "it is already part of the observed moist lapse rate". Since this is the case it is not entirely correct to talk of a parcel of water vapour absorbing energy, warming and moving to a higher altitude since all the NET movement has already happened to establish the gradient and one is left considering the absorption/re-emission question. In the models I have been discussing these sorts of movements are allowed since they are attempting to establish the equilibrium condition from an unrealistic starting point (an isothermal atmosphere) but in the real atmosphere, this, of course, doesn't happen.
The second point concerns the concept of saturation vapour pressure. You have not mentioned this before but it is important in that water vapour cannot move up through the atmospheric column indiscriminately as eventually, it encounters a level where the pressure is lower than the vapour pressure in that parcel of moist air, hence some is lost releasing its latent heat in the process. Allowing vapour to move to whatever temperature level is dictated by its dew point ignores this effect and allows for the condition of supersaturation - interestingly a problem encountered in Emden's formulation when he was studying this aspect in 1913. The later models I have referred you to explicitly allow for this effect but it is the detail of how they allow for this which leads to differences in their models.
Complain about this comment
Wow. The debate goes on. Yet, once upon a time, as recently as late November 2009, there were screams that "the debate is over!!!!"
Refreshing. It goes on.
Its almost as if nothing endures but change.
Complain about this comment
I understand your concerns with the delay. But, if you ever take the time to dig around for examples of the spectrum over various areas...you find that it doesn't seem to work QUITE the way they're claiming.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daly_spectra.gif
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/spectra.gif
The whole system has delays in it anyway. The energy slowly infuses into the system. Although radiation seems more or less instant, the water vapor across much of the troposphere is still pretty much saturated...once its absorbed, re-radiation is frequently much slower. There's the day when the air fills with water vapor and evening/night when much of it falls back out again.
I'm not sure what you're thinking with the vapor pressure though. At no point in the atmosphere does the partial pressure (vapor pressure) of water vapor even approach the atmospheric pressure. The partial pressure of water vapor at 40C is still lower than that of the air pressure at 100000 feet. The "supersaturation" refers to there being more water vapor in than would be expected for that temperature. Essentially when its supersaturated the relative humidity is over 100%. Usually this actually happens when the atmosphere is so cold the water vapor would go straight to a solid.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #256
This isn't the debate.
The current debate in this thread is a cul-de-sac with amateurs going over ground that the professionals and the better informed amateurs have already decided is robust - the very basic greenhouse effect (greenhouse effect before the climate sensitivity debate).
In this thread we are exposing ignorance and misunderstandings on both sides, so far only Dave_oxon has consistently shown both competence and knowledge. Some of us are learning. But it isn't the debate.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace, #257
(@Jane - see further down)
My apologies, the line in my post #255 which read:
"it encounters a level where the pressure is lower than the vapour pressure in that parcel of moist air"
is quite wrong as it isn't made clear that I was talking about satisfying imposed conditions within the model. If you'll allow me I'd like to correct myself:
"As the parcel of moist air rises it encounters a level (in the model) where its vapour pressure is greater than the saturation vapour pressure (es) multiplied by the relative humidity (h) so a mixing ratio adjustment (i.e. condensation) must be made to maintain the relative humidity. If this is not done then a layer of supersaturation may result (particularly in relation to the relative humidity) which is not observed in the atmosphere so is unrealistic. The mixing ratio adjustment releases the latent heat to that particular level in the atmosphere. These adjustments are continually made until an equilibrium condition is reached (the asymptotic approach discussed in the papers)."
I hope that is clearer. This error obviously led to confusion, entirely my fault.
On the subject of "delays" in the system, I was not referring to a delay as such, merely that any "movement" of gas takes place on a much longer timescale than the process of absorption/re-emission - the difference in these timescales is the reason that convection/latent heat energy release may be considered separately from the 'greenhouse' effect of the vapour absorbing and re-emitting IR radiation.
Basically the idea of the vapour absorbing and 'holding on' to the IR energy, moving upwards and then releasing it (which seems to be the mechanism you are referring to when you sey "the interplay between absorption and latent heat") is too gross a process on which to base a model - the movement to equilibrium must necessarily be computed via the integration of the appropriate differential equations which consider incremental changes to the temperature gradient, taking convection, latent heat, radiation etc into account whilst (and this is important) maintaining the condition of radiative equilibrium (radiation in=radiation out at the top of the atmosphere).
As for the spectra, I assume you are talking about the difference between the black-body curves and the observed spectra. This is not really an issue since the actual observed spectrum can be theoretically produced by a much more complex radiation model (see, e.g. This graph generated by This code) but compared to other sources of error in the calculation, the black body curve is usually sufficient and less laborious to work with.
@Jane - very kind words but, as I've just demonstrated above, my competence is limited in these areas where I am not a specialist. The main knowledge and competence I feel I am bringing to this forum is that of how to conduct a literature search (google scholar is an excellent service for this task). If my experience in research has taught me anything it is that, in coming to a new field where one is very much the amateur, anything one can think of that might seem to be a novel take on the subject has usually been dealt with before... as in the case of the convection effect in the climate which has been debated in much more thorough terms than on this thread ever since Arrhenius first considered radiative equilibrium over 100 years ago. In this case I am merely trying to point out that the effect poitsplace is discussing has been well-researched using a number of different approaches.
One thing that I think is rather interesting is that, from what I have read, poitsplace seems to be basically right on the conceptual level in that transport and release of latent heat is a very important process. However, without a full numerical 1-D model of the atmospheric column, it is very easy to get the numbers wrong which is what I think has happened in this case - an earlier work by Moeller (J. Geophys. Res. 68, (1963) p3877) found an order of magnitude level sensitivity to CO2, it was a more appropriate consideration of convection that brought this level down to ~1-2 Kelvin in the Manabe/Wetherald model. (The Ramanathan paper has a nice graph reviewing levels of sensitivity in models developed in the period 1960-1980, those that show basically no sensitivity (of the order < 0.25 Kelvin) have obvious shortcomings that are mentioned.) I get the feeling that poitsplace may be starting with the low atmospheric sensitivity version and applying (conceptually) a similar convection correction to arrive at an even lower figure.
This problem of concept right/numbers wrong is why one must never appeal to "common sense", "Occam's razor" or other such principles when discussing complex processes. Nor is it particularly instructive to resort to 0D time-insensitive calculations (what in the trade is known as a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation) when a proper answer requires a more careful approach. Sure, b-o-t-e calculations have their place and are how physicists generally work out whether it is worth spending a great deal of their time calculating something complex (i.e. if your b-o-t-e scribble shows very little effect, no matter how much you vary the important variables then its probably not worth pursuing. If you can vary them and produce order-of-magnitude effects, as in the case of radiative equilibrium, then it is). There is much in the physical world that is non-intuitive (e.g. look up "quantum tunneling" for a good example) so b-o-t-e calculations can never serve in place of thorough investigations.
If, after all this discussion, poitsplace considers he still has a case (and I'm perfectly willing to admit I may still misunderstand him and that hea does have a case) then I would suggest preparing it as a journal submission with the appropriate supporting maths (something that we are unable to discuss properly on a blog which is why I keep referring to the literature where the maths is laid out for us). Only as a term in an equation can the concept of "interplay between radiation absorption and latent heat" be turned into an unambiguous definition. Just one request, poitsplace: if/when you do write it up please keep it much briefer than the "Gerlich..." paper discussed above, most of which seems to have been copied out of textbooks... there's very little original work in it!
Apologies for rambling on but this particular discussion piqued my interest.
Complain about this comment
Viz: 'holocene optimum'...(outdated terminology): this from RealClimate.org...:
"This is yet another oft-repeated but problematic assertion based in this case on the mis-characterization of the so-called Mid-Holocene Climatic Optimum” or “Mid-Holocene Warm Period”. Paleoclimate experts now know that the mid-Holocene warmth centered roughly 8000 to 6000 years ago was probably restricted to high latitudes and certain seasons (summer in the Northern Hemisphere and winter in the southern hemisphere). Because much of the early paleoclimate evidence that was available (for example, fossil pollen assemblages) came from the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, and is largely reflective of summer conditions, decades ago some scientists believed that this was a time of globally warmer conditions. More abundant evidence now demonstrates, for example, that the tropical regions were cooler over much of the year.
All of these changes are consistent with the expected response of surface temperatures to the known changes in the Earth’s orbital geometry relative to the Sun during that time period and associated climate feedbacks, as detailed in the peer-reviewed literature (see Ganopolski et al, 1998; Hewitt and Mitchell, 1998). The best available evidence suggests that annual, global mean warmth was probably similar to pre-20th century warmth, but less than late 20th century warmth, at this time (see Kitoh and Murakami, 2002)."
They then provide a link for further information on this subject.
Complain about this comment
Dave_oxon #259 wrote:
"This problem of concept right/numbers wrong is why one must never appeal to "common sense", "Occam's razor" or other such principles when discussing complex processes."
In a sense, one cannot but implicitly appeal to these things when engaged in any type of thought, even when relying on technical manipulation of abstract symbols as exemplified by mathematics.
We rely on such symbol-manipulation when common sense tells us that symbol-manipulation can go deeper than common sense itself. But even when common sense "abdicates" and makes way for symbol-manipulation like that, it doesn't quite relinquish power altogether, nor should it. We are all fallible, and when we "rely on instruments" we can make really catastrophic errors -- such as being "out by orders of magnitude". We must always have a pretty clear idea of what we're talking about, and a rough idea of the approximate quantities involved.
No great breakthrough in science is achieved by simply not bothering with clarity of thought. And most bad attempts at science -- such as phrenology or the current equivalent of "looking at areas of the brain lighting up" in brain scans -- are conceptually lazy. Or dead.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @252:
Why are you wasting time defending Gerlich and Tscheuschner?
I'm not defending them. I had previously taken a brief look at that paper, but, as it's heavy-going and difficult to follow, I didn't really bother too much with it. I do have other interests, you know ;-)
But, in response to your comment at the end of #116, I wanted to see for myself what the fuss was about and, as it turns out, you had taken things out of context. When I pointed that out to you, you started attacking another part of the paper.
I believe in the principle of, 'innocent until proven guilty', and so I try to approach things with an open mind and try to come to a complete understanding of what people are saying and the reasoning they use. And if something doesn't make sense then I read it over again until it does. Only once I understand what they're saying do I make a judgement on whether it's good, bad or debatable. I'm not inclined to write something off as soon as I come across a perceived error, or simply because something doesn't seem to conform with my particular world-view. (I'm not necessarily accusing you of anything, BTW, I'm just describing what I try not to do)
And I'm also fully aware that even if a paper seems faultless, it can easily fall down when the theory is subjected to real-world testing. Also, even fatally flawed papers can make good points in parts.
Besides which, I'll waste my time whichever way I see fit ;-)
Firstly their planet with the same side permanently facing the Sun has similarities with Mercury. Mercury has very long days and, despite being close to the Sun, very cold nights (down to about -173 C (100K)).
Secondly the very low average temperature is an extreme example of the issue they talk about whereby a big spread of temperatures has a lower average temperature than the radiative equivalent with even temperatures.
I won't comment until I have read, and understood, it for myself.
Half a degree is normally a big deal in discussing the greenhouse effect. But the reason why it isn't a big deal here is because they are trying to debunk the whole greenhouse effect, a massive 33C difference.
Ditto
Yes. The reason for this is the problem with averaging temperatures by radiative balance. However there is one exception, uniform temperatures. Try using their fourth power algorithm to average identical temperatures. You get an average that is the same as the component temperatures.
Yes, if you have uniform temperatures. But those don't exist in the real world.
Now the theoretical temperature of -18C (255K) is based on an assumption of uniform temperatures. So its radiative average will also be -18C (255K).
But the measured ground temperature average of about 15C (288K) is based on a spread of temperatures. So its radiative average will be bigger than 15C (288K).
So the 33C difference between emissions based average and measured ground based average will be even bigger.
Apples and oranges. The theoretical uniform -18C doesn't actually exist, except in theory. Why do you appear to assume that the TOA (the effective blackbody) is a constant, uniform -18C?
Um, no. Some of the surface's emissions can be re-radiated back down.
Yes, a proportion will be back-radiated, but that doesn't affect the fact that the more you have in the first place, the more will escape. Besides, back-radiation does not add to the total - it just slows down the rate at which energy leaves the surface (bwo radiation, I might add - energy also leaves the surface bwo convection and evaporation)
Gerlich and Tscheuschner were concerned with debunking the 33C greenhouse, where these comparatively small differences are not an issue. As soon as we move away from Gerlich and Tscheuschner we are dealing with more complex issues. Computer climate models reflect latitude enough to show tropical warmth in the tropics and polar cold at the poles. They have many flaws that are up for debate, but being trumped by Gerlich and Tscheuschner's temperature averaging is not one of them.
I'm not yet in a position to comment. What you say may be right, but it may be wrong - or partially right - I don't yet know.
Meanwhile you never did answer my question about their rejection of radiative balance apparently trashing the first law of thermodynamics.
Sorry, I'd forgotten about that one. Once again, I'll comment when I get there.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317
@Gerhard Gerlich
@Ralph D. Tscheuschner
"you had taken things out of context. When I pointed that out to you, you started attacking another part of the paper"
I agree.
I accused them of getting their geometry wrong. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph D. Tscheuschner did not get their geometry wrong. You were correct to defend them.
Then I wriggled out of an apology.
Sorry.
Sorry Peter317
Sorry Gerhard Gerlich
Sorry Ralph D. Tscheuschner
Complain about this comment
#258 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"In this thread we are exposing ignorance and misunderstandings on both sides, so far only Dave_oxon has consistently shown both competence and knowledge."
I take what Dave_oxon says very seriously -- when I have a hangover, a bit too seriously -- but I wouldn't downgrade the role of amateurs too much. The great fossil-hunters and comet spotters were amateurs. Darwin and Einstein -- easily the greatest theoreticians since Newton, in my opinion -- might be described as "amateurs".
As Kuhn pointed out, it is almost always newcomers who have earth-shattering new ideas. But of course most newcomers and amateurs don't. The "bell curve" of newcomers and amateurs is wider and flatter than that of professionals, so they are better-represented at the extremes.
And the curve is skewed towards the "lower" end. Yep, males and amateurs have a lot in common!
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
@Peter317
@Dave_oxon
The humiliation. Pwned by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph D. Tscheuschner. Despite their paper being full of howlers I can't even debunk it without being pwned by it.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @263:
Sorry.
That's OK. Make mine a double Scotch and all is forgiven ;-)
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @265:
You're not trying to bait me now, are you?
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #264
@Dave_oxon
@poitsplace
I wasn't putting down amateurs in general. Just the current discussions about the underlying very basic greenhouse effect on this thread.
But that's just my impression.
Dave_oxon has spent quite a bit of time trying to understand poitsplace. Enough for me to think, well perhaps poitsplace is on to something important and just needs help articulating it.
Something that does throttle AGW.
Sorry poitsplace. I have been a patronising idiot.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #267
No.
Your "innocent until proven guilty" made me feel ashamed. Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper does have faults but I need to show them properly.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @269:
Just like your willingness to admit to mistakes humbled quite a few of us - including me - a few months ago on another thread.
We're all fallible, and here to discuss, make mistakes and (hopefully) learn.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #262
"More importantly, we're talking about the average temperature vs. the effective average (the effective average determines the emission), so the emissions will always be higher than what is deduced from the average temperature." Peter317 #245
"Because of the 4th power relationship, if we keep the average temperature constant, the more deviations we have from the average and the greater these deviations are (both positive and negative, BTW), the greater the difference between the effective temperature and the average, and the effective temperature is always greater than the average." Peter317 #245
"Yes. The reason for this is the problem with averaging temperatures by radiative balance. However there is one exception, uniform temperatures. Try using their fourth power algorithm to average identical temperatures. You get an average that is the same as the component temperatures." JaneBasingstoke #252
"Yes, if you have uniform temperatures. But those don't exist in the real world." Peter37 #262
But it is useful in inequalities. That uniform temperature is an upper bound. It is the maximum average temperature for given radiative emissions. Earth's average temperature as seen from space cannot be above -18C (255K).
"Apples and oranges."
Not apples and oranges. Using an inequality.
We can compare radiative averages. The radiative average calculated from the black body calculations is -18C (255K). The mean of measured temperatures is 15C (288K). So the radiative average of measured temperatures is >15C (>288K). The difference between the two radiative averages is >33C.
Or we can compare means. The radiative average calculated from the black body calculations is -18C (255K). So the mean of black body calculated temperature (for uneven temperatures) is < -18C (255K). Mean of measured temperatures 15C (288K). The difference between the two means is >33C.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @271:
Earth's average temperature as seen from space cannot be above -18C (255K).
There's no law saying it can't. It can be higher one moment and lower the next. Or the next day, or the next century...
While it's higher, the earth loses energy, and vice versa. The average effective temp may be close to -18, but it can vary quite a bit over varying timescales.
So the mean of black body calculated temperature (for uneven temperatures) is < -18C (255K). Mean of measured temperatures 15C (288K). The difference between the two means is >33C.
You do mean the calculated average temp is < -18C, don't you? (assuming the effective temp is -18C) - sorry, just nit-picking - just ignore me ;-)
I agree that there's a roughly 33C difference, part of which is (probably) down to the greenhouse effect, part of which is (probably) down to the adiabatic lapse rate, part of which is (probably) down to thermal inertia and part of which is (possibly) down to other factors, some of which (possibly) haven't been considered by anyone.
What's not clear is the mix.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #262
"Yes, a proportion will be back-radiated, but that doesn't affect the fact that the more you have in the first place, the more will escape. Besides, back-radiation does not add to the total - it just slows down the rate at which energy leaves the surface (bwo radiation, I might add - energy also leaves the surface bwo convection and evaporation)"
OK. The very simple greenhouse.
Earth receives A watts from the Sun.
Ground receives A watts from the Sun
Ground receives B watts from the atmosphere.
Total received = A + B watts.
Ground emits A - B watts escapes to space
Ground emits 2B watts to the atmosphere
Total emissions = A + B watts
Atmosphere receives negligible from the Sun (transparent to visible light)
Atmosphere receives 2B watts from the ground (greenhouse gases trap IR)
Total received = 2B watts
Atmosphere emits B watts down to the ground
Atmosphere emits B watts out to space
Total emissions = 2B watts
I hope you can see that the ground receiving A+B watts makes it warmer than if it only received A watts.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #272
"Earth's average temperature as seen from space cannot be above -18C (255K)." JaneBasingstoke #271
"There's no law saying it can't. It can be higher one moment and lower the next. Or the next day, or the next century...
While it's higher, the earth loses energy, and vice versa. The average effective temp may be close to -18, but it can vary quite a bit over varying timescales." Peter317 #272
If you are going to average temperatures over time as well as over the Earth's surface the same temperature averaging rules apply.
Although perhaps I do need to expand on the caveat of using their figures to point out that this means the figure is calculated for a given value of solar radiation and a given albedo.
I remind you this argument isn't about variations in the Earth's climate, it is about the basic greenhouse effect itself, which dwarfs changes in the Earth's climate.
Complain about this comment
To: poitsplace:
Have you ever considered sending RealClimate.org a summary of your ideas to get a good bit of feedback from a varied group of scientists and interested laymen? Despite some wariness from people who are AGW doubters, RC is a genuine and viable forum, and would be a valuable place to sound out what you think to be issues needing airing. Mostly we all avoid places that seem 'hostile', but if what you say has merit, then have at it. What do you think?
Complain about this comment
#258 Well, Jane, I would say blogs like this represent a nice reflection of the 'debate' out there. That's just my opinion, of course.
But I stand by my totally unoriginal comment that nothing endures but change. That always applies to climate too.
#275 wichitazen - Couldn't agree with you less about Realclimate. But different strokes for different folks.
I think its worth looking at but only in the context of many sources. I find wattsupwiththat and climateaudit much more interesting, informative, and open.
As they say, the more you know, the more you know.
Complain about this comment
@dave_oxon who wrote...
"These adjustments are continually made until an equilibrium condition is reached (the asymptotic approach discussed in the papers)"
That's in line with what I'm saying (although only part of it)...the equilibrium for current temperatures (in as much as you can call it equilibrium in a system with delays) already exists. If you increase the concentration a new equilibrium is reached.
But whatever, I'm not so in love with this secondary concept that I require it or need it for the main thrust of my criticism of AGW. Impacts from water vapor's absorption would be much smaller than those of latent heat/convection anyway. The most important point is that latent heat/convection by themselves reduce the potential enhancement of the greenhouse effect by so much that it's pretty much a non-issue.
==================
@janebasingstoke
Well at least you're giving it consideration
==================
@wichitazen
Real Climate is home of the AGW faithful...like Michael Mann. It has long been criticized for rampant censorship. I do not therefore consider it a "genuine and viable forum"...nor should anyone else. There's an entire site dedicated to screen captures of posts from RC before they were deleted, many with very valid points.
In fact, everything on RC should be taken with a grain of salt...not unlike Michael Mann's own "hockey-stick" reconstruction (sings *It isn't about the truth at all...it's about sounding plausible*). While they like to claim they understand the climate system very well and know exactly why the holocene optimum was as warm as it was, they have no explanation for the majority of the numerous peaks and valleys we find over and over again in the proxy records...and their models can't reproduce anything prior to the LIA (which is kind of telling...since the thing that stands out as unusual about the LIA is it's relative stability)
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #277
I am not giving it consideration.
I do not have enough of it to give it consideration. This is partly down to the text based medium of blogs where you can't draw pictures.
So far I have only seen bits of it, all of which fit the more conventional theory. This is complicated by some of its component arguments where you appear to have either retracted or clarified to give the component argument a different meaning to the one that first appeared.
I feel like you've got a jigsaw with pieces that are a similar but not identical shape and you are trying to force pieces into places where they don't belong but almost fit. Perhaps you feel the same about the conventional theory.
So I am not giving it consideration because if it is correct then you aren't explaining it clearly enough, perhaps because it needs pictures.
In the mean time I am familiar with an alternate theory that does appear to hang together, which so far you don't appear to have scratched.
Complain about this comment
@Bowmanthebard,#261
"In a sense, one cannot but implicitly appeal to [common sense] when engaged in any type of thought"
"We must always have a pretty clear idea of what we're talking about,... "
Agreed, a clear idea of what you're talking about is, of course, essential. But if you want to talk about relative magnitudes of effect, at some point you have to bite the bullet and crunch the numbers.
"...and a rough idea of the approximate quantities involved."
You sound exactly like one of my old university lecturers whose favourite definition of a physicist was "Someone who can calculate anything to within an order of magnitude on the back of an envelope."
This implies the clarity of thought to understand the concept, the skill to be able to cast it into a calculable framework and, most importantly, the open mind to take an answer one doesn't expect and investigate it further.
One of my favourite quotes from Isaac Asimov I think is particularly applicable:
" The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!), but 'That's funny...'"
#264, "I take what Dave_oxon says very seriously" - a very genuine "thank you", this has always been apparent from your posts, likewise I have always taken your statements seriously as, I hope, is evident from the breadth and depth of my discussions with you.
@Jane, #265
"Pwned by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph D. Tscheuschner"
That did give me a chuckle. Do not despair - there is a huge difference between you and them, you are prepared to admit a mistake and learn more. From what I have seen of their work, they are not! (Their paper linked to in this thread is "version 4", they've been at this for quite some time).
#273, I like that - a clear concise description of a radiative balance diagram. Your next challenge is to adapt it to include evaporation/latent heat effects ;o)
@poisplace,#277,
"If you increase the concentration a new equilibrium is reached."
Indeed
"I'm not so in love with this secondary concept that I require it or need it for the main thrust of my criticism"
How can the equilibrium be a "secondary" concept in this discussion? The form of the equilibrium is the discussion i.e. the eventual time-invariant temperature profile of the atmospheric column given particular radiative/convective internal dynamics.
The convection/latent heat release mechanism, which is your primary concern, is one component of the dynamic system and must necessarily be considered in conjunction with the other dynamic processes in order to assess its impact on the overall system. The purely conceptual argument is insufficient to make a statement one way or the other about the magnitude of effect a change to one component of the combined dynamic system will have on the overall equilibrium.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #276
It's a reflection of the debates on the blogs amongst the less knowledgeable debaters. It is not a reflection of the debates amongst the scientists or the better informed amateurs. And yes, I am including proper sceptics amongst the scientists and better informed amateurs.
As for your comments about RealClimate. OK, you don't like them. But what's poitsplace got to lose? If RealClimate tell the truth to poitsplace then poitsplace benefits, regardless of whether poitsplace is wrong or right. If RealClimate tell lies to poitsplace then this can be exposed to RealClimate's loss. If RealClimate say nothing poitsplace can accuse them of ignoring the truth, regardless of whether poitsplace is wrong or right.
Complain about this comment
I'm saying I'm not willing to dredge through the idea that you cannot separate absorption and latent heat properly (or at least that it's not properly separated in current models) to get everyone to see my point...when the latent heat/convection energy exchanges are substantial enough on their own to place limits on the maximum GHG forcing.
And Jane, it was the idea of convection/latent heat limitation to GHG forcing that I assumed you had considered ...not the secondary concept involving an inability to properly separate and/or model the separation of water vapor's absorption and its latent heat. Its difficult for me to get these things across sometimes because I don't actually have to think about one or the other. I can just think about them both simultaneously and be aware of the range between one alone and both.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #277
(@wichitazen)
Mann doesn't contribute that many posts. RealClimate is Gavin's baby.
RealClimate is an important source of plain language explanations of AGW science. It is also an important source of first hand accounts of controversial events by AGW proponents, and an important source of opinion of AGW scientists. All the better sceptic blogs link to it for these reasons.
This is its main aim.
Tackling stuff in the comments is secondary. If an issue in a modded comment is really important and genuinely relevant it will earn its own article on one of the better sceptic blogs. If an issue in a modded comment is really important and genuinely relevant and stays ignored by RealClimate this hurts RealClimate more than the commenter.
Interesting to look at their official moderation policy - it is very strict about repetition, competence and staying on topic. It is also very strict about avoiding arguments based on motive.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/comment-policy/
Comments on moderation made back in 2005 (main article)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/one-year-on/
Comment on moderation made immediately after Climategate (reply to comment 44)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
In the meantime I have yet to find a sceptic blog with a volume of pro-AGW posts that is comparable to the volume of sceptic posts at RealClimate. If you know of one, then I would be interested to see how it copes with the pro-AGW posts.
If you want to follow the real debate you need RealClimate. This does not mean you have to like them.
And I remind you that RealClimate were engaging scientifically with the science of sceptics such as Lindzen and McIntyre well before Climategate. There is a qualitative difference between RealClimate's treatment of real AGW sceptic science and dodgy output by journalists, wannabes, and people outside their specialism.
Or do you need your blogged science completely scrubbed free of rhetoric?
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon
I may have been too generous in my apology.
That 360.6K (87.6 C) might not have been a spurious calculation. It might have been an attempt to imply an upper bound for a global average temperature, i.e. ignoring their own constraints on temperature averaging later in their paper.
The whole thing is so rambling that it is difficult to work out what they are trying to say, unless they are just trashing radiative balance (and therefore conservation of energy) because some of their sums give apparently nonsense results.
For the record their nonsense results are correct for extreme situations
360.6K (87.6 C) would be the temperature of the Sun side of a flat disc facing the Sun, with zero heat conductivity to the colder side.
360.6K (87.6 C) would also be the hottest ("Noon", summer solstice, Tropic of Cancer) part of the planet for a planet with the same side always facing the Sun, again with zero heat conductivity to colder parts of the planet.
-129C (144K) would be the average (mean) temperature for a planet with the same side always facing the Sun, again with zero heat conductivity to colder parts of the planet. This is substantially below -18C (255K) because it involves taking mean of 0K for half the planet and varying temperatures up to 87.6 C (360.6K) for the other half.
Meanwhile Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph D. Tscheuschner have taught me two valuable lessons.
1. No matter how daft the argument never let my guard down - check the argument properly.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner deserved better than my earlier debunks. Howlers need to be exposed properly.
Debaters like Peter317 deserve better than Gerlich and Tscheuschner. But debaters like Peter317 also deserve better than my earlier debunks of Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
2. Beware of the page throw in a long rambling document. Beware of the apparently complete argument in a long rambling document.
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon
Correction to my #283
"hottest ("Noon", summer solstice, Tropic of Cancer) part of the planet"
Same side to the Sun means negligible axial tilt. Gives
"hottest ("Noon", equator, no axial tilt) part of the planet"
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace, #281
"I'm saying I'm not willing to dredge through the idea that you cannot separate absorption and latent heat properly... to get everyone to see my point..."
Regarding your conceptual claim about the separability of convection/latent heat vs. absorption/re-radiation - you need to describe the mechanism properly. I have put forward the argument as to why they can be separated i.e the action of each process on entirely different time-scales. It is now up to you to argue why they can't.
"...when the latent heat/convection energy exchanges are substantial enough on their own to place limits on the maximum GHG forcing."
This claim cannot be made without the working to back it up. "Substantial" is a word that implies a value. "Limits" is a word that implies a value. Without working out those values you only have a concept, not an argument.
If you do neither of these things your entire argument adds up to:
"Convection and subsequent latent heat release is important"
Nobody's disagreeing with this, people have been discussing it for decades!
Complain about this comment
Dave_oxon #279 wrote:
one of my old university lecturers whose favourite definition of a physicist was "Someone who can calculate anything to within an order of magnitude on the back of an envelope."
That would almost be my definition of an engineer!
the open mind to take an answer one doesn't expect and investigate it further.
I'm OK with the "open mind" as long as it isn't too open, and I'm OK with the "investigate it further" bit, but both involve common sense (or something very like it).
I think the final arbiter on all the matters we have been discussing is "how well everything hangs together". For example, sometimes observations are disregarded as "aberrant", because accepting them would cause too much disruption to the way everything seems to hang together. So we say "oh -- that particular clock must have been faulty" rather than dismiss all of special relativity as mistaken. Or we say "that particular Petri dish must have been contaminated somehow" rather than re-embracing the theory of spontaneous generation. Thus the "ship of theory occasionally pulls the tug of observation", as Quine put it.
When mathematics throws up something that seems crazy, we shouldn't immediately accept the crazy result and say "so much the worse for common sense!" -- It is better to go back and spend more time checking the mathematics, or trying to reconcile the apparently crazy result with common sense by "updating" common sense. Einstein went to a lot of trouble doing the latter. Conceivably, we might end up saying "I can't find an error in the mathematics, but there probably is an error in there somewhere, because the result is just too implausible to be accepted". Either way, common sense plays an essential role in the procedure.
This issue is related to our earlier discussion about induction, because again I'm saying that reasoning in science is a "two-way street" rather than a "one-way street" that leads from observations to theory or from initial conditions to something bigger via mathematics. In both cases, I'm rejecting "foundationalism".
Complain about this comment
@Jane, #283,284
(@Peter317)
I said (#279):
"you are prepared to admit a mistake and learn more."
you said (#283):
"I may have been too generous in my apology."
Indeed you may - I'm sorry I didn't have time to check through the numbers to any great extent and say so myself (I've been busy reading up on radiative/convective modelling rather than wading through G+T's ramblings), I was merely commenting on your willingness to correct yourself and learn more. Furthermore you have pointed out what you've learned in the process which, again, is a great deal more than Messrs. Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
In section 3.7 G+T have solved a very specific case of the radiative balance problem, and have done so correctly as far as the maths is concerned. Their mistake is claiming that the mathematical average temperature of their specific case - non-rotating planet with zero heat capacity - is a fair representation of the real case - a rotating planet with finite heat capacity. The latter is fairly represented by the effective temperature and not the average. Therefore their claim that there is a problem throughout radiative balance theory with proper averaging is simply untrue.
To anyone wishing to study section 3.7 of G+T's account, I would suggest reading it in conjunction with Smith's paper (which I linked to earlier) as Smith manages to eloquently (and briefly) reproduce Gerlich and Tscheuschner's results, explain the difference between average and effective temperature, and provide insight into the problem of a rotating planet, something that G+T do not even attempt bar the proposal of suitable boundary conditions.
Jane - you're doing fantastically well at this, don't give up, you'll love their section on Magnetohydronamics!
Complain about this comment
@myself, 287
@Jane
"you're doing fantastically well"
Sorry, that sounded rather patronising, I merely meant to convey my admiration for your tenacity in getting to grips with the subject so thoroughly.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @273:
Jane, I realise you probably went to a lot of trouble to put together your explanation of the Very Simple Greenhouse.
Unfortunately though, I can't seem to make sense of at least parts of it. (maybe it's just me) For instance:
"Earth receives A watts from the Sun." - Is this the total solar average?
"Ground receives A watts from the Sun" - Is this 'A' the same as the above 'A'?
"Ground receives B watts from the atmosphere." - Is 'B' a measure of back-radiation?
"Ground emits A - B watts escapes to space" - Does that mean, "Ground emits A, and B escapes into space"? Or is it something else?
"Ground emits 2B watts to the atmosphere" - Is 2B the same as A? (see above point)
"Total emissions = A + B watts" - From where? And to where?
And I have similar problems with the 2nd part as well.
Would you please perhaps consider rephrasing it, or possibly plugging some numbers into it.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #289
"A watts" is the same amount of watts in each line where it is referred to. It is supposed to be the incoming solar radiation, or the matching quantity going out.
"B watts" is the same amount of watts in each line where it is referred to. It is supposed to be the amount of back radiation, but it also matches other radiation movements.
The "-" in my "A - B" is a minus sign, not a hyphen.
So
"A + B" means the quantity A plus the quantity B, it is more than A,
and
"A - B" means the quantity A minus the quantity B, it is less than A,
and
"2B" means double the quantity B.
(Sorry. Should have remembered Billy Connolly's comment about problems with the B times table.)
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @290:
Jane, in order to try to make sense of it, I plugged some numbers into your explanation, substituting 10 for A, and 5 for B (arbitrary amounts I know, but the principle stays the same regardless of the numbers), and I get the following:
Earth receives 10 watts from the Sun.
Ground receives 10 watts from the Sun
Ground receives 5 watts from the atmosphere.
Total received = 10 + 5 = 15 watts.
Ground emits 10 - 5 = 5 watts escapes to space
Ground emits 2x5 = 10 watts to the atmosphere
Total emissions = 10 + 5 = 15 watts
Atmosphere receives negligible from the Sun (transparent to visible light)
Atmosphere receives 2x5 = 10 watts from the ground (greenhouse gases trap IR)
Total received = 2x5 = 10 watts
Atmosphere emits 5 watts down to the ground
Atmosphere emits 5 watts out to space
Total emissions = 2x5 = 10 watts
The problem is, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, yet we see 15 watts being emitted by the ground while there's only 10 watts coming from the sun. Where does the extra 5 watts come from?
Am I missing something?
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @290:
"2B" or not "2B", that is the question
Sorry, couldn't resist...;-)
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon #287
"their section on Magnetohydronamics!" [starts page 81]
Right. So they believe our atmosphere is a significant conductor of electricity. Perhaps they think we are immersed in salt water. Ah! I geddit. They're dolphins! Or is that insulting dolphins?
(Sorry Peter317. Couldn't resist the joke.)
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #292
:-)
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #291
Personally I'd have gone for A = 100 and B = 30, but yes, that's right.
Note in your example:
1. The ground absorbs 15 and emits 15 = balanced
2. The atmosphere absorbs 10 and emits 10 = balanced
3. If you do the sums you will see that the total emissions to space are 5 from the ground + 5 from the atmosphere = 10. This balances the 10 received from the Sun.
Yes there is something you are missing.
I remind you that this is a very simple example. This is the final state when everything is balanced. The system is acting like a battery and has stored extra heat. It remains "charged" because the energy going in and out is balanced. While it is charging the planet's total emissions are less than those received from the Sun.
Complain about this comment
I tracked down that Finnish research bit referred to earlier...turns out, it is uncertain whether to be published June in Nature...nobody knows for sure. Preliminary information indicates an outlier researcher, and information indicates it (the research) will not be the revolutionary balloon deflater for CO2 claimed. Go to RealClimate.org..for more detailed info...
This is one more bit from someone outside the professional climatology field throwing their two cents in. All information is welcome, of course, but these kinds of claims are both incendiary, premature, and inflated. Apparently the researcher has a more personal beef of some sort with the IPCC...
The fantastic headline stuff (Noah's Ark found!!!...Alien bodies located in Nevada desert!!!...cold fusion proved in Utah...) usually turn out to be either bad research or nonsense. If the claim is a 180 turn from the sum of all research up to date, approach with caution.
Complain about this comment
A little further browsing round the web led me to the following interesting page:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/models.html
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
This lists some online models related to climate/atmospheric modelling that can be run from the web-page. Of particular relevance to the discussion in this thread is the model entitled "MODTRAN". This even lets you save out the model result data so that you can compare several model runs at a later date in a spreadsheet.
If this grabs your interest for modelling then you can move on to:
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
which, as the website states, "provides a research grade GCM... that can be run on a desktop computer". (We are all fortunate enough that home computers have advanced so much that we all have far more number crunching power at our fingertips than the most advanced research institutions of the 60s and 70s.)
Whether you agree or disagree with the various modelling techniques, knowing how they work will only ever serve to make your own particular argument stronger!
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke
What have you guys got against Magnetohydrodynamics?
Again, this is useful to very useful stuff - it can be used to smooth laminar flows, reduce friction and even provide propulsion, it does work in air too providing that it's been suitably ionised first.
You would just need an air spike to create a plasma in front of your vehicle and then magnets to accelerate those charged particles past you, it's all theoretically quite sound and it may indeed be used in future hypersonic aircraft.
Propulsionwise, you can Google Leik Myrabo NASA for some interesting stuff or simply "air spike". Some of it’s still a little "out there"/"fringy" (oh! please ignore the guys in the little tin foil hats), but it should become more mainstream in years to come.
If you want something that's already more mainstream then a quick google for Fusion and Magnetohydrodynamics would probably bear some more suitable/prosaic fruit.
It seems that I really have to find a bit of spare time to read this paper!!
QED and Magnetohydrodynamics.......it must be one hell of a read.
Complain about this comment
@wichitazen #296
(@CanadianRockies)
(@simon-swede)
You mean like here?
"According to [the Turku daily] Turun Sanomat, who was the first to report on the matter, Kauppinen intends to publish his research result in the June issue of the Journal Nature.
Kauppinen tells however to CO2-raportti, that the article is only just being written, and it hasn’t even been offered yet to any science journal for review. He hopes however that science journals would publish it."
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3846
I presume this misunderstanding was caused by Kauppinen being so enthusiastic about getting it into June's edition of Nature.
PS, your suggested on a previous thread you had problems with links. It is OK to link to most climate stuff, so long as you don't link directly to PDFs or other formats that normally need separate software (Adobe in the case of PDFs) to open.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/the_bare_facts_of_biodiversity.html#P95597729
Apart from the PDF thing, the other main problems are if there are temporary connectivity issues at the target site, or if you have brackets, "(" ")", or colons ":" in the link.
BBC thread rules
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_house_rules.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_editorial_guidelines.html
Complain about this comment
@Blunderbunny, #298,
"What have you guys got against Magnetohydrodynamics?"
Absolutely nothing - when it's relevant.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #298
I have nothing against magnetohydrodynamics in its place. It explains the Earth's magnetic field. It explains phenomena associated with the solar wind. It explains why the Sun has such a small proportion of the solar system's angular momentum. It even explains a voltage caused by the tidal movement of sea water (early measurements in the English Channel by Wollaston).
But magnetohydrodynamics only applies to fluids if they are significant conductors of electricity. (Note, "fluid" in this case is an umbrella term that includes plasmas and gases as well as liquids.) But last I heard air was actually quite a good insulator. Here I am, nothing between me and a 240 volt electricity supply except air. And I'm not being electrocuted.
Sorry Peter, it's another howler. And you are beginning to remind me of Sancho Panza.
(warning, spoilers if you haven't read Don Quixote)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sancho_Panza
"Whatever happened to dear old Lenny? The great Elmyra, and Sancho Panza?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B4bsqYxwo0&feature=channel
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #298
Actually there isn't any Quantum Electrodynamics, they just complain about its absence from conventional climate work.
But there is absolutely no way Quantum Electrodynamics could help a paper on atmospheric physics any more than knowing your computer uses zeroes and ones helps you navigate the internet, or knowing the chemical formula of petrol (gasoline) helps you drive a car. It's way too low level.
That is why their reference to Feynman diagrams is such a howler.
Complain about this comment
@blunderbunny #298
@Peter317
Sorry, must be going blind, spend too much time replying to the message, not enough replying to the person. Blunderbunny, my #301 and #302 should be addressed to you. Peter317, my #301 and #302 are still relevant to you.
:-S
Looks like Gerlich and Tscheuschner have a Sancho Panza each.
:-)
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies,
@Peter317,
@blunderbunny
(@JaneBasingstoke)
A quick digest of what we have learned from the G&T paper "Falsification of the greenhouse..."
1)They know how to do maths
2)They do not know the difference between average and effective temperatures (i.e. they get the maths right but the physics wrong)
3)They do not know how to solve the problem of modelling a rotating planet
4)They do not know what Feynman diagrams are for but complain climate models don't account for them
5)They do not know what MHD is for but complain climate models don't account for it
Anyone still willing to defend this paper?
Meanwhile, many others continue to defend the "Greenhouse" theory, Dr. Roy Spencer amongst them:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
Complain about this comment
#304 Dave_oxon wrote:
1)They know how to do maths
2)They do not know the difference between [...]
3)They do not know how to solve the problem of [...]
4)They do not know what [...]
5)They do not know what [...]
Anyone still willing to defend this paper?
Not me, but it sounds like your complaint is that they are doing maths competently, while failing to grasp concepts adequately. Aren't you guilty of your own criticism of "concept right/numbers wrong" here?
Complain about this comment
@Bowman,
No. Read the paper. You'll see what I mean.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #305
"they are doing maths competently, while failing to grasp concepts adequately"
For a more extreme example of this sort of behaviour turn to "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman", chapter "Judging Books by Their Covers", page 293. The bit where "John and his father" start adding temperatures for stars to get a total temperature for stars.
Note, unlike "John and his father", Gerlich and Tscheuschner get meaningful results from their temperature maths. They just don't always realise what the relevant meanings are.
Complain about this comment
#280. JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"It's a reflection of the debates on the blogs amongst the less knowledgeable debaters. It is not a reflection of the debates amongst the scientists or the better informed amateurs. And yes, I am including proper sceptics amongst the scientists and better informed amateurs."
Your generosity is duly noted ;-)
But we know that if we had depended on "the scientists" this discussion would have been shut down some time ago. But we also know that "scientists" are just humans working in science, and that that all humans are political and economic animals, with a dangerous tendency toward groupthink and herd behaviour when feeling threatened. And we know that the nonstop barrage of scary media stories had people feeling threatened.
This works like a charm for the military-industrial complex, so why not apply it to environmental issues? They said.
----------
"As for your comments about RealClimate. OK, you don't like them."
Like isn't the word. I simply recognize them for what they are. Most people do. That's why fewer people go there now.
In any case, my point is simply that if one were to be so foolish as to only look at one information source, one would be choosing to be misinformed by its particular bias. For example, in TV land, one would watch only the BBC, or Fox news, or whatever, to reinforce one's own prejudices and predetermined conclusions.
Better to publish books than to burn them.
-------------------
#296.wichitazen, #299. jane - Well, isn't that interesting! Of course, whether that is actually true or not remains to be seen. One source is never enough, especially one that biased. We shall see in due time.
Speaking of unreliable sources, everyone does know about wikipedia, don't they? AGW's Winston Smith works there.
----------------------
304. Dave_oxon wrote:
@CanadianRockies,
@Peter317,
@blunderbunny
(@JaneBasingstoke)
A quick digest of what we have learned from the G&T paper "Falsification of the greenhouse..."
You mean what you have learned, don't you? Or did you already know all that?
Did not realize that that paper would provoke so much interesting discussion, most out of my league but educational nonetheless. Not exactly the simple "howler" Jane first suggested - unless by howler she meant the monkeys which, of course, are complicated creatures which we will never fully understand.
But what's poitsplace got to lose? If RealClimate tell the truth to poitsplace then poitsplace benefits, regardless of whether poitsplace is wrong or right. If RealClimate tell lies to poitsplace then this can be exposed to RealClimate's loss. If RealClimate say nothing poitsplace can accuse them of ignoring the truth, regardless of whether poitsplace is wrong or right.
Complain about this comment
#307 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
For a more extreme example of this sort of behaviour turn to "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman"
I've never read that book, but I enjoyed Herman Wouk so much (an extract of which you linked us to recently) that I just ordered it!
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke - Climate Sensitivity
Hi Jane,
Long time no speak etc
What do you think about this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/strong-negative-feedback-from-the-latest-ceres-radiation-budget-measurements-over-the-global-oceans/
/Mango
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @295:
I remind you that this is a very simple example. This is the final state when everything is balanced. The system is acting like a battery and has stored extra heat. It remains "charged" because the energy going in and out is balanced. While it is charging the planet's total emissions are less than those received from the Sun.
This is where the problem comes in.
If the surface is always receiving more energy than is coming from the sun, (your A+B) it will get hotter, therefore emitting more and consequently receiving even more and so getting hotter still. In the absence of other gains and losses, this will continue ad infinitum, and the surface will continue getting hotter.
This does not happen, as Woods' experiments showed.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #309
A Feynman fan and never read SYJMF?
Well here's a minor spoiler. The reference I made was to when he reviews prospective school text books. One school text book gives various temperatures for stars of different colours. Then it has its fictional "John and his father" adding these temperatures into a "Total temperature". Not to calculate an average temperature. Just to make addition more interesting by giving it a starry flavour.
Complain about this comment
Me @ 311:
Oops - I pressed the 'Submit' button a bit prematurely.
Of course the temperature won't continue to climb ad infinitum - the boundary being the max value of A + the max value of B. In theory, if the max value of B corresponds to 33C, then the max temp attainable, under controlled conditions, should be something like 87.6 + 33 = 120.6C. In practice the max temp attainable, under controlled conditions, is less than 87.6
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #308
"if we had depended on "the scientists" this discussion would have been shut down some time ago"
There is a lot of c*** in this discussion. Stuff that is at best nonsense (Gerlich and Tscheuschner would seem to be a good example) and at worst violence inducing poison (decent scientists and decent bloggers on both sides of the debate have received death threats).
Meanwhile the scientists do like attention being paid to their actual discussion, this including their discussion with the genuine sceptics amongst the scientists. As I say you can see the different tones at RealClimate.
"That's why fewer people go there now."
Their loss. It is the best site for plain language explanation of the mainstream science.
"works like a charm for the military-industrial complex"
That's different. Guns are patriotic and earn politicians votes. Much more of a vote winner than "going on holiday is bad for the planet".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/9/newsid_2500000/2500847.stm
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/gotcha/
"Better to publish books than to burn them."
If a book is full on nonsense then it deserves to be slagged off. Note that the ability to slag a book off is also essential for freedom of speech.
"especially one that biased"
It isn't a RealClimate opinion. It's a cut-and-paste of an English language translation of a news article from CO2-Raportti. Here is a rather scruffier translation of the whole article.
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fi&u=http%3A//www.co2-raportti.fi/index.php%3Fpage%3Dilmastouutisia%26news_id%3D2174&ei=JH3lS6OiJY_y0gT148W0AQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsite%3Aco2-raportti.fi%2Bkauppinen%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1R2ADFA_enGB351%26prmd%3Dv
Here's an English language description of CO2-Raportti.
http://www.co2-raportti.fi/index.php?page=about
"so much interesting discussion"
I admire blunderbunny and Peter317 for standing up for this paper, they show a real interest in being fair to its authors.
However this paper is full of nonsense. It does nothing for the credibility of your cause that it is still out there after all this time (check version history). It is a booby trap for both sides, it makes your side look foolish and it makes my side think we are dealing with fools.
Complain about this comment
#314 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"There is a lot of c*** in this discussion."
I haven't read the paper, but I suspected that as soon as I heard the Second Law of Thermodynamics was putting in a guest appearance!
That law, more than anything else I can think of in genuine science, seems to attract the wrong kind of attention. It's probably because it's sometimes interpreted in terms of that demon-weasel word 'information' (which can mean two entirely different things, but I'll leave that as an exercise). Dazzled by mystical references to "order" and "chaos", people nearly always forget that it only applies to closed systems.
It's much safer to think of the second law of thermodynamics as saying that in a closed system motion tends to dissipate as a matter of statistical necessity.
In its vicious demon-weasel form, the law is often understood as saying that "order inevitably breaks down into chaos". Aha! -- mystics inevitably chime in -- "but life on Earth is the emergence of order from chaos! In contravention of the Second Law of Thermodynamics!"
The answer to that sort of thing is to remind them that the Earth is not a closed system but subject to an energy flux. Anywhere there is an energy flux "order" inevitably emerges out of "chaos" (whatever they are exactly). To see this, get a tray of sand, tilt it slightly, shake the higher end (but not the lower end), and watch the interestingly "ordered" patterns that form.
Complain about this comment
#312 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"A Feynman fan and never read SYJMF?"
I was completely bowled over by The Character of Physical Law, and I really enjoyed some of his other introductory lecture books, especially on QED, but I found his collected letters at first too painful to read. (Not because they're bad, but because they hurt me too much to read: they start off with the tragic death of his young wife from TB while he is away at los Alamos... they were published when I was a bit vulnerable -- although I hasten to add that I was not suffering any comparable bereavement through the intervention of the Grim Reaper!)
For that reason, I have mostly avoided his personal recollections.
One of the reasons I find him so compelling is his extremely dismissive attitude towards technical/academic philosophy, an attitude which sits perfectly happily with his being a "natural philosopher" (in both senses of the word -- he was born to ask awkward questions, and he was an old-fashioned scientist who preferred explanations to number-crunching).
Wittgenstein also despised technicality. As I said before, we are all liable to drown in two inches of water, including the most intelligent among us, so let's be extra specially careful about jumping in at the deep end. We need flotation devices galore, which in this belaboured metaphor means tests.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #311
No.
A+B coming in.
A+B going out.
Balance.
No temperature change.
@Peter317 #313
The scorching hot 87.6 C is a red herring.
It only applies to the Sun being directly overhead and staying overhead. I.e. at the equator of a planet with the same side facing the Sun (rotates once per year to keep same side facing the Sun), no axial tilt, and the longitude of the planet that would correspond to noon on a planet with conventional rotation.
However your #313 would be correct for -18C without greenhouse and -18C + 33C = 15C with greenhouse.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @317:
I was talking about an experiment under controlled conditions, not about the whole planet. And I also assumed 30% albedo. With the albedo close to zero, the theoretical temperature under controlled conditions should go to 87.6 for an inclination of around 20 degrees.
OK, I'll put it another way. if you had a perfectly insulated 1 cubic metre box with a black interior in near-earth space, one side of which is glass (opaque to IR), and attached by gimbal to the spacecraft so the glass side always faces the sun, what temperature would you expect the interior to attain?
BTW the sun is directly overhead at the equator twice in every year - in March and in September.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #318
Gerlich and Tscheuschner got their sums right but some of their interpretations wrong.
The most straightforward way you can get 87.6 C for the energy intensity that hits the Earth is for that energy intensity to hit the ground perpendicularly and constantly and for the albedo to be 0.3. I.e. the hottest part of a planet that keeps the same face to the Sun, by rotating once a year.
The calculation for zero albedo but other input the same as the Earth gives an average of 5.7C (278.7K).
Meanwhile although your comment about the real equinoxes is correct, the Sun won't stay put overhead. It'll be directly overhead the tropic of Cancer at the summer equinox and directly overhead the tropic of Capricorn at the winter equinox. This would mean that even if such a planet only rotated once a year it wouldn't be showing exactly the same side to the Sun.
"OK, I'll put it another way. if you had a perfectly insulated 1 cubic metre box with a black interior in near-earth space, one side of which is glass (opaque to IR), and attached by gimbal to the spacecraft so the glass side always faces the sun, what temperature would you expect the interior to attain?"
Actually this question is far harder to answer than you seem to realise. The glass isn't the barrier to heat you think it is, and the answer would depend on its actual thermal conductivity.
Meanwhile the near vacuum of space is a good "insulator", hey most of us have used vacuum flasks to keep drinks hot or cold. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask ) Far more straightforward to talk about the exterior temperature of an object in orbit around the Sun.
And a planet that keeps the same face to the Sun is not impossible. Our Moon keeps almost the same face to us because it has become tidally locked. Our astronomers only mapped the far side of the Moon in the space age.
"controlled conditions"
What are your "controlled conditions"? A small object made from a very good thermal conductor (same temperature all over)? A large object made from a very good thermal insulator with very little heat capacity (potentially big range of temperatures)? An object with a day length no longer than the Earth's? An object that takes so long to rotate that it always keeps the same side facing the Sun?
The only way I can use simple maths to incorporate 20 degrees is if you mean a large object made from a very good thermal insulator with very little heat capacity (potentially big range of temperatures), and with the same side to the Sun. Such an object could have the Sun's rays at 20 degrees from the vertical. But this doesn't give me 87.6C for an albedo of zero. Instead I get a slightly hotter 115.1C (388.1K).
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #315
(@Dave_oxon)
Yes.
I have made a number of comments about their rejection of radiative balance and therefore implicitly the 1st Law (conservation of energy).
But they have problems with the second (entropy) as well. Not as far as I can work out the issue of what constitutes a closed system. Instead they have a problem with the idea that the transfer of heat from hotter to cooler is only a net transfer. Perhaps they are as prone to hypothermia in warm summer weather as cold winter weather.
Anyway here's their angry reaction to being criticised on the 2nd Law.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/02/pesky-physics-for-some-time-people-have.html
Complain about this comment
#314 - Janebasingtoke
First, I admire your knowledge of the physics involved and have learned much from your comments on those aspects. Too bad about the rest.
Interesting response to my comments.
You evaded the main points while cherry picking only what you wanted to address. No wonder you like RealClimate.
I pointed out that it is foolish to jump to conclusions on any 'news' based on a single source, particularly one that is clearly and unequivocally biased; "particularly" when biased, but true in all cases.
You replied that the story in question was actually just reposted from another source called "CO2-Raportti."
Irrelevant. It is still from a single original source. Just repeating something does not make it more true or acceptable.
I pointed out that this debate, or conversation if you prefer, would now be over if we simply took the word of what you call "mainstream science."
That is indisputably true. But you effectively evaded that point by using some bogus distraction about "threats of violence." Total nonsense. I have seen those allegations, and who made them. And it is simply tooooo obvious why they did that. Very old trick.
And then you topped that off by claiming that "the scientists do like attention being paid to their actual discussion, this including their discussion with the genuine sceptics amongst the scientists."
Really, Jane. Did your nose grow when you wrote that? Even without the emails that is so obviously false that I laughed out loud when I read it.
You do know that Steve McIntyre is from Canada, eh?
And interesting when you wrote "the scientists" which, if one were clueless, would imply some unique species.
But "scientists" are just humans who work in some field of science. All humans are political and economic animals, including those working in science. A naked ape with a PhD is still a naked ape.
And you keep revealing that when you continually set this discussion in the 'us vs them' context by referring to "your side" etc. That is just basic primate 'thinking' which reinforces social bonding and group cohesion.
Great for appealing to the simplest instincts and emotions to 'rally the troops,' or mob. Especially when, just months ago, "the scientists" were eagerly demonizing anyone who dared question them with name calling - 'denier,' with all the negative connotations that come with that word. And even moreso when you add the campaign of fearmongering propaganda that has been used to try to stampede the public into accepting a 'truth' that is as valid as Iraqui WMDs. And even worse when the same gang has gone out of their way to deliberately scare innocent children. Pathetic. But Goebbels would be proud of their work.
I once accepted the alleged "consensus" on this issue. What caught my eye was the Big Lie about polar bears. From my background, I immediately knew that was so false and utterly Orwellian that it was laughable - or perhaps 'cryable.' So I had to ask: if the evidence for AGW is so sound, why do they have to tell lies to sell it?
And when I started to look at the alleged evidence, I found that it was not sound at all. That was several years ago. And it has just become clearer by the day. Now 'not sound' is putting it very mildly.
AGW is the modern Piltdown Man. And while it may still be believed in the land of Lord Oxborough - and the Piltdown Man - it has collapsed in Canada and in the U.S. And Australia, India, Russia, etc. In China they were never duped in the first place.
The AGW emporer now has no clothes. Turns out he's a fraudulent tax collector and a social control freak, wearing a white coat.
In the meantime, this rot has unfortunately already spread into the credibility of the real environmental science we actually do need to be guided by, and all real science has been damaged. So sad.
Complain about this comment
#314 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"It is a booby trap for both sides, it makes your side look foolish and it makes my side think we are dealing with fools."
Well said.
Complain about this comment
#321 CanadianRockies wrote:
"The AGW emporer now has no clothes. Turns out he's a fraudulent tax collector and a social control freak, wearing a white coat."
There is plenty wrong with the theory of AGW, but the claim about "fraudulent tax" collection is as misguided as the mirror-image claims that sceptics are the pay of "Big Oil". These are nutty conspiracy theories that reveal nothing except the political biases of each side.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @319:
Please, read my lips - I was talking about a controlled-conditions experiment and not about the planet - where you obviously have to take rotation and a myriad of other factors into consideration.
And you're the one who's stuck on G&T - I'm not. I did not mention them, nor even alluded to them in any way, but you did.
Actually this question is far harder to answer than you seem to realise. The glass isn't the barrier to heat you think it is, and the answer would depend on its actual thermal conductivity.
Meanwhile the near vacuum of space is a good "insulator", hey most of us have used vacuum flasks to keep drinks hot or cold. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask ) Far more straightforward to talk about the exterior temperature of an object in orbit around the Sun.
Which part of "perfectly insulated" did you not understand?
I'm well aware that glass conducts. I'm also well aware that a vacuum insulates, but that's outside the box. By "perfectly insulated", I meant that the heat inside the box cannot conduct through to the outside, from where it can be radiated into space.
If this were a real experiment, the glass conduction etc would be known quantities which could be accounted for. But we don't actually have a box in space so, for the purpose of this theoretical discussion, we simply assume that no energy escapes from the box. So what is your answer now?
And thanks, I'd never have known how a vacuum flask works had you not kindly pointed me to that Wiki article.
But this doesn't give me 87.6C for an albedo of zero. Instead I get a slightly hotter 115.1C (388.1K).
Yes, I got that a bit wrong - the dangers of calculating in your head - had I used a calculator I would have said around 45 degrees.
But that's beside the point - the whole point of that exercise was about your A+B.
Using your figures, the incoming energy from the sun is 1386w/m2, so, taking the 20 degree inclination into account, you get 1286.4w/m2 for A. This gives an equilibrium ground temp of 115.1, which then radiates 1286.4w/m2. So, to satisfy A+B = 1286.4, B must be zero.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard @323:
These are nutty conspiracy theories that reveal nothing except the political biases of each side.
The very fact that these political biases exist says a lot.
Complain about this comment
Viz: the greenhouse effect:
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961 (paper...google and read)...
The nonsense about 'refuting' the greenhouse effect is a waste of time. If people are going to argue defective science, then this is not productive.
Complain about this comment
Viz: polar bears:
This link: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/what-the-experts-say/expert-q-and-a/numbers
It addresses many of the misconceptions about this topic...
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #321
"You evaded the main points while cherry picking only what you wanted to address."
Sorry you feel that way. I addressed points that I felt strongly about.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #321
"I pointed out that it is foolish to jump to conclusions on any 'news' based on a single source, particularly one that is clearly and unequivocally biased; "particularly" when biased, but true in all cases.
You replied that the story in question was actually just reposted from another source called "CO2-Raportti."
Irrelevant. It is still from a single original source. Just repeating something does not make it more true or acceptable."
Your use of the phrase "One source is never enough, especially one that biased." strongly suggested that bias was the bigger problem. (Your use of the phrase "if one were to be so foolish as to only look at one information source, one would be choosing to be misinformed by its particular bias" was from a general critique of RealClimate.)
There are ways to assess the reliability of single source information. In this case I thought they were sufficiently obvious to not need pointing out.
However if you really need them pointing out:
The CO2-Raportti article is a news article not an opinion piece. CO2-Raportti appears to be a substantial Finish language website that includes a lot of news articles on climate science, they would not want to risk their reputation by misquoting someone. Also Kauppinen is based in Finland. If the article had misquoted him then Kauppinen would be complaining about it. The article was published in mid April. Where are those complaints?
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #321
"I pointed out that this debate, or conversation if you prefer, would now be over if we simply took the word of what you call "mainstream science."
That is indisputably true. But you effectively evaded that point by using some bogus distraction about "threats of violence." Total nonsense. I have seen those allegations, and who made them. And it is simply tooooo obvious why they did that. Very old trick.
And then you topped that off by claiming that "the scientists do like attention being paid to their actual discussion, this including their discussion with the genuine sceptics amongst the scientists.""
Now you are exaggerating the role of my comments about the death threats. They were only there as one of the motives of the climate scientists in wanting to correct misinformation.
OK. To clarify.
I have seen climate scientists complain about specific examples of scientific nonsense. I have seen climate scientists complaining about being misquoted or having their quotes and behaviour described in a context that turns genuinely acceptable behaviour into wrongdoing. I have seen climate scientists complaining about their mistakes being grossly exaggerated. I have seen climate scientists complain they are getting excessive hassle from the likes of Inhofe and Cuccinelli due to the resulting misinformation. I have seen climate scientists on both sides of the debate complain about death threats due to the misinformation.
I have seen scientists in other subjects obviously keen to share with the general public and I have seen RealClimate engaging scientifically with proper sceptic science as long as RealClimate have existed.
I naturally interpret this as them wanting to share the actual debate with the general public. If you don't then you are either privy to evidence that I haven't seen or you are far more cynical than me.
"the debate is over"
When the scientists say this they aren't claiming the science is 100% proved. Instead they have misunderstood the politics in the Rio precautionary principle: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
The scientists have interpreted this as not needing to prove AGW beyond reasonable doubt.
The scientists are wrong, they have misunderstood the politics. Voters and vested interests are applying a similar but stricter precautionary principle to protect the economy and the Western lifestyle. Its stricter rules, its lack of conscious recognition by many on my side of the debate, and its powerful political backing makes protecting the economy trump the environment, the science needs proving way beyond reasonable doubt.
78% of UK support protest against high petrol (gasoline) taxes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/922949.stm
Meanwhile there are important deliberate loopholes in the Rio declaration, loopholes that are there to protect the politicians. I hope you see that without much stronger proof than the IPCC's "very likely" voters and other vested interests will restrict states capabilities to tackle climate change to measures that don't hurt. I hope you can also see that the IPCC's "very likely" is not good enough to calculate the cost of climate change, limiting cost effective measures to those that pay for themselves.
"if we simply took the word of what you call "mainstream science.""
I am not asking you to do that. The scientists are not asking you to do that, they are only asking you to reject the nonsense, reject the misquotes, take proper account of context and deal with them fairly.
However the politicians are asking you to do that. But so what, they're politicians. The general public should always question what politicians say.
""threats of violence." Total nonsense. I have seen those allegations, and who made them. And it is simply tooooo obvious why they did that. Very old trick.
The death threats are a reaction of a minority to tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Both sides have been on the receiving end.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/daily-mail-special-investigation/#comment-208792
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/08/9844/#comment-214899
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/08/9844/#comment-214977
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #321
" And interesting when you wrote "the scientists" which, if one were clueless, would imply some unique species.
But "scientists" are just humans who work in some field of science. All humans are political and economic animals, including those working in science. A naked ape with a PhD is still a naked ape. "
I am using the term scientist to distinguish between the scientists and other contributors to the debate, including politicians, journalists, the big name bloggers and wannabes.
I happen to be particularly cynical about the contribution of politicians to the debate, and I am therefore keen to separate the scientists' contribution from the politicians'. Do you have a problem with my lack of faith in politicians?
" And you keep revealing that when you continually set this discussion in the 'us vs them' context by referring to "your side" etc. That is just basic primate 'thinking' which reinforces social bonding and group cohesion.
Great for appealing to the simplest instincts and emotions to 'rally the troops,' or mob. "
I can't ignore the tribalism. I think it more honest to state my position in the debate up front. I can't give you complete independence when I happen to have a point of view. I'm sorry if you don't like that.
I can and do aim to tackle misunderstandings between the tribes that turn what should be an honest debate with strong feelings into something more toxic.
"Especially when, just months ago, "the scientists" were eagerly demonizing anyone who dared question them with name calling - 'denier,' with all the negative connotations that come with that word."
I avoid the d-word, except where discussing its use.
Many of the scientists use the word "contrarian" instead, although "contrarian" has not taken off with the general public. According to date based Google searchs RealClimate have preferred "contrarian" over the d-word as far back as their articles go.
I point out that although some people on my side of the debate mean to link it to its most offensive connotations the d-word is often used in the same sense that people talk about being "in denial" about having a weight problem, reaching middle age, or the safety of smoking cigarettes. This latter group gets confused when sceptics complain about an insult that they didn't mean. Please do not punish the latter for the misbehaviour of the former.
I also point out that the use of the term "holocaust denier" was not much used before David Irving. Previously people that denied the holocaust tended to be Nazis. David Irving is a holocaust denier, and he may have other unpleasant views. But he cannot be called a Nazi.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #321
"polar bears"
I agree that the situation has been grossly oversimplified by some of the non-scientists.
This situation is complicated by the fact that there are multiple populations of polar bears and that until recently some were hunted, along with their prey. With some populations there is insufficient information on population trends.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
It is my understanding that where trends are known many of the populations are in decline and that population increases are bears bouncing back after hunting was reduced, or after hunting of their prey was reduced.
I remind you that longer periods without access to sea ice for hunting means bears make more of a nuisance of themselves for people. And that much of the threat to the bears is associated with anticipated future loss of sea ice.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #321
"fraudulent tax collector"
I assume you are referring to carbon trading.
The problem with describing carbon trading as a "scam" or a "hoax" or a "fraud" is that carbon trading needs debunking properly.
For politicians carbon trading looks like a free lunch - fix carbon trading and boost the economy for free. It isn't a free lunch. Not for them. Not for the general public.
It is a free lunch for the carbon traders in the City and on Wall Street. Middlemen get a licence to suck money out of the economy. Money that can't therefore go on investment in a low carbon economy.
Carbon trading has artificial elements that involve what can only be described as fudge fixes in setting the price of the carbon credits. Although not deliberately fraudulent the artificial nature of the fudge fixes leave carbon trading wide open to abuse by the most financially powerful elements in the chain, and nearly impossible to police.
Meanwhile I point out to you that the pro-carbon-trading lobby have two things on their side. Firstly they have the same lobbying skills and money that convinced politicians that deregulating the banks was a good idea. And secondly they have self-belief. They believe their own spin. They believe that whatever makes them rich will be good for the economy.
Discrediting AGW won't get rid of carbon trading. Carbon trading lobbyists sing its praises as a cure for the economy's woes. This needs debunking.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #324
"controlled-conditions experiment"
Sorry. Misunderstanding.
I asked what you meant by "controlled-conditions experiment", including whether you included rotation in line with your subsequent comments or not. I am sorry if my question was not clear.
"nor even alluded to them in any way"
Sorry. Misunderstanding.
Your reference to 87.6C looked like a reference to Gerlich and Tscheuschner. As did your use of an object constantly presenting the same side to the Sun.
"And thanks, I'd never have known how a vacuum flask works had you not kindly pointed me to that Wiki article."
Sorry. Misunderstanding.
I was not clear you were asking a greenhouse question rather than a simple black body question.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #324
"Which part of "perfectly insulated" did you not understand?
I'm well aware that glass conducts. I'm also well aware that a vacuum insulates, but that's outside the box. By "perfectly insulated", I meant that the heat inside the box cannot conduct through to the outside, from where it can be radiated into space.
If this were a real experiment, the glass conduction etc would be known quantities which could be accounted for. But we don't actually have a box in space so, for the purpose of this theoretical discussion, we simply assume that no energy escapes from the box. So what is your answer now?"
You don't get it. Your question is doubly difficult.
Equilibrium temperature depends on reaching radiative balance, energy in equals energy out. You have given a way in - the visible / near visible "window" in the glass's absorption. You have not given a way out, except implicitly by the same way in. (Or except by the dark side, I presume the side facing away from the Sun in your example is also closed to energy escape).
Under such circumstances you would have an extreme greenhouse where the insides heated up until some of the emissions were so short wave that they could get out the same way energy gets in, as visible light. For the extreme situation where only visible light could get in or out this would mean that the insides would visibly glow.
Meanwhile greenhouse sums are more fiddly than simple black body sums. The sums to calculate the internal temperature of your imaginary object are fiddly. They involve integrating the segment of the black body energy distribution curve between 400nm and 700nm for the Sun's emissions and doing the same with guesstimates of the equilibrium internal temperature of your experimental object.
Meanwhile no glass is that extreme, either as an insulator or as a filter to block IR. So emissions from the glass would complicate things further.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #324
"But that's beside the point - the whole point of that exercise was about your A+B.
Using your figures, the incoming energy from the sun is 1386w/m2, so, taking the 20 degree inclination into account, you get 1286.4w/m2 for A. This gives an equilibrium ground temp of 115.1, which then radiates 1286.4w/m2. So, to satisfy A+B = 1286.4, B must be zero."
Really confused by all of this.
All your calculations in this section are black body calculations. There are no inputs, either theoretical or measured, from the greenhouse effect. So of course B is zero.
Am I missing something?
Complain about this comment
#331 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
Many of the scientists use the word "contrarian" instead
It's revealing that they have some sort of problem with the word 'sceptic', isn't it? It's as if they half-recognize that a sceptical rather than gullible attitude is more naturally "scientific", and cannot bring themselves to attribute this attitude to their opponents.
To be fair to them, for my own part I cannot bring myself to use the word 'scientist' for anyone who does not use anything like the hypothetico-deductive method. But at least I have criteria for not using the word, which I'm happy to explain and defend.
Complain about this comment
@Peter,#324, @Jane, #335/6
The difficulties in your discussion arise from the fact that Jane is talking explicitly about a system at equilibrium, Peter is talking about a system NOT at equilibrium, hence Jane's A and B would have to be turned into functions of time and temperature (and latitude if you want to talk about a sphere). If we assume they are equilibrium values then they are time invariant and the balance diagram proposed at post ~#273 works fine.
Amongst the discussion, Peter has proposed a thought experiment in which energy can be added to a perfectly insulating box from which NO energy can escape. Given these conditions the temperature inside the box is simple to work out:
Given a heat capacity of the material inside the box of C J/Kg/K and an influx of radiation S Watts, the temperature inside will be:
T(t)=T0+(S/C)t
where T(t)= is the temperature at time t (in Kelvin) and T0 is temperature at time 0. Unfortunately, after some time I think you'll agree that your box will probably have vaporised under the intense heat, unless we postulate, as part of the thought experiment, a material that will never vaporise such as a magnetic confinement system. Now, however, we're getting a long way from the simple radiation physics. To bring the system back towards describing the simple greenhouse effect we have to take into account the temperature dependence of energy emission from the materials of the box (as Jane was saying) and the rates of thermal transfer through the materials of the box (via various mechanisms), which also includes their various heat capacities.
If you set these thermal transfer rates and heat capacities to zero then you end up with the system that G+T solved which, as I hope this brief discussion shows, can be framed as a correct calculation but tells you nothing about the greenhouse effect in a planetary atmosphere.
Complain about this comment
@Wichitazen, #326
Re:Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
Thanks for pointing out this paper - unfortunately you're ~200 posts too late, it was mentioned early on in this thread (first @ post #129). I too thought it would stem the discussion of G+T.
However, I tend to find that this blog is populated by a very inquisitive type striving for a full understanding of the issues. The subsequent discussion seems to be a lot less about what G+T have to say, and is, rather, a discussion amongst those eager to understand the underlying physics (hence why I continue to throw in the odd comment such as #338 above where I think I may be able to aid the discussion). Treating this as a discussion of G+T or a debate about the existence of the greenhouse effect, rather than a discussion of basic physics would be an error, one made previously at post #256.
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon
That may have applied to some of poitsplace's arguments (those of the "the system resists change" variety). It also applied to Peter317's #291. It also partially applied to #311. But I can't see how it applies to Peter317's #313 / #318 / #324, unless Peter is suggesting new models to get round an impasse.
OK, here is the very simple greenhouse warming up before it reaches equilibrium:
Earth receives A watts from the Sun.
Ground receives A watts from the Sun
Ground receives D watts from the atmosphere.
Total received = A + D watts.
Ground emits A - E watts to space
Ground emits 2C watts to the atmosphere
Total emissions = A + 2C - E watts
Ground being "charged" at D + E -2C watts
Atmosphere receives negligible from the Sun (transparent to visible light)
Atmosphere receives 2C watts from the ground (greenhouse gases trap IR)
Total received = 2C watts
Atmosphere emits D watts down to the ground
Atmosphere emits D watts out to space
Total emissions = 2D watts
Atmosphere being "charged" at 2C - 2D watts
Whole planet emitting A - E + D watts to space
Whole planet being "charged" at E - D watts
E - D is positive while planet is warming (zero at equilibrium)
Numerical example (note, these figures are very arbitary)
A = 10
E = 4
D = 1
C = 2
Planet receives 10 watts from the Sun.
Ground receives 10 watts from the Sun
Ground receives 1 watt from the atmosphere.
Total received = 10 + 1 = 11 watts.
Ground emits 10 - 4 = 6 watts to space
Ground emits 2x2 = 4 watts to the atmosphere
Total emissions = 10 + 2x2 - 4 = 10 watts
Ground being "charged" at 1 + 4 - 2x2 = 1 watt
Atmosphere receives negligible from the Sun (transparent to visible light)
Atmosphere receives 2x2 = 4 watts from the ground (greenhouse gases trap IR)
Total received = 2x2 = 4 watts
Atmosphere emits 1 watt down to the ground
Atmosphere emits 1 watt out to space
Total emissions = 2x1 = 2 watts
Atmosphere being "charged" at 2x2 - 2x1 = 2 watts
Whole planet emitting 10 - 4 + 1 = 7 watts to space
Whole planet being "charged" at 4 - 1 = 3 watts
4 - 1 = 3 is positive
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon
@wichitazen
@bowmanthebard
Arthur Smith has also blogged on G+T.
(Bowman don't be put of by the title. You may particularly approve of his paragraphs 7 8 and 9, before he starts on his problems with G+T.)
(Note, his "instantaneous balance" has the same effect as my "same side of the planet facing the Sun")
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_arrogance_of_physicists
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon
To expand a little on my #340
I think Peter317 is asking for an equilibrium temperature for his box, and is not aware of the contradictions in his statements (glass that allows visible light in but no energy out would be impossible one way glass) (no energy out = no radiative balance).
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #377
The word "sceptic" for your side is unfair.
Plenty on your side show absolutely no scepticism when someone on your side spouts nonsense or misquotes a pro-AGWer. And its use for your side suggests to a naive listener that your side has a monopoly on scientific scepticism which is not true. I have been told off by people on your side of the argument who assume that because they are called sceptics and because I am not called sceptic that I do not understand the importance of scientific scepticism at the heart of science.
However fairness has nothing to do with language.
The general public has already decided to call your side "sceptic", both for good sceptics that show scientific scepticism and bad sceptics that show no scientific scepticism and spout nonsense. I think people on my side should acknowledge they have lost the battle on this and use the word "sceptic". "Contrarian" isn't understood outside ivory towers. And the d-word undermines the credibility not only of those who use it but of everyone on my side of the debate.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
Agh. Dyslexia moment.
My #343 should refer to your #337 (not #377).
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke
The word "contrarian" is also not a nice one, as much like the d-word it implies a slightly derogatory negative. So why not just stick with sceptics or perhaps you could just call us "coolists" or even "anti-AGWers"
As to who or what’s a sceptic?
All those with a scientific bent are inherently sceptics, so I’d have no problem with you calling yourself a sceptic too!! Given the word’s colloquial use, you might need to further clarify that, but that’s for people on your side of the argument to decide for themselves.
Maybe, you could be a low sensitivity sceptic ;-)
Complain about this comment
#343 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
The word "sceptic" for your side is unfair.
Scepticism is just the withholding of belief, from some area or other, for whatever reason. And whenever someone withholds belief, he does so because he some other beliefs in some other area that he thinks licenses his withholding belief from the area in question.
For example, in academic philosophy the word 'scepticism' applies to a rag-tag collection of belief-withholding positions, most of which are grossly immodest and metaphysically extravagant. Take Cartesian scepticism. At the outset of his Meditations, Descartes tried to withhold belief from absolutely everything he felt he couldn't be certain about. The result is a bizarre and metaphysically loaded image of his own disembodied mind, with the outside material world not existing at all.
But that ridiculous -- nay, psychotic -- solipsism is still labelled 'scepticism', of a particular sort. One of my complaints with academic philosophy is that one of its most interesting and serious branches -- epistemology -- has been 99% fixated with the problem of Cartesian scepticism like a hamster on a treadmill.
Some people are sceptical about AGW because they think space aliens have communicated to them that it isn't true; some are sceptical because they think there is a gigantic CIA conspiracy to raise taxes; some are sceptical because they think the greenhouse effect is a lie, or that AGW contravenes the second law of thermodynamics; these are all grossly extravagant and frankly ridiculous positions. But they are all sceptical positions in respect of AGW.
I hasten to add that I am sceptical about AGW for "none of the above" reasons!
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke, #342, @Peter317
"I think Peter317 is asking for an equilibrium temperature for his box, and is not aware of the contradictions in his statements..."
I agree (Peter317 - Please correct us if we're wrong!) which makes the purpose of my small calculation at #338 - to show the absurdity of postulating a system that can receive energy but emit none - a little flippant so please accept my apologies.
From the perspective of needing a dynamic calculation, Jane's post #340 is a nice instantaneous snapshot but the "2C", "2D" and "E" values confuse the issue a little since there are no explicit relationships between "C", "D" and "E".
To make amends for earlier disrespect I would like to propose a solution using a simplified version of eqn. 39 of Smith's paper. For the very simple case we're discussing here (the perfectly insulating box, with glass on one side facing the radiation source through which radiation can enter and leave), this can be re-written with the geometrical factors and albedo removed:-
d(E_box(t))/dt = S(t) - sigma(1-f/2)T(t)^4
the left-hand-side is rate of change of energy content of the box, S is incoming solar radiation (Jane's "A"), sigma=Stefan-Boltzmann constant, sigma*T^4 is equivalent to Jane's "A+2C-E", i.e. total radiation emitted by the ground, sigma*f/2*T^4 is equivalent to Jane's "D" where 'f' is the fraction of the outgoing radiation absorbed by the intervening media (glass in the case of Peter's insulated box - value between 0 and 1 - 'f/2' could also represent the 'reflection factor' of the glass if you prefer to think of it as a reflectivity rather than absorption/re-emission problem, it's all quite arbitrary in this instance). This simplifies the model somewhat as the glass is now only characterised by the value of 'f' rather than the balance between "C", "D", and "E".
Now, if we know how E_box converts into temperature (i.e. we know about the heat capacity of the material inside the box, i.e. T=E/C where C=total heat capacity of box contents and assuming an infinite rate of heat conduction throughout the material), we can work out how T of the box varies in time but what we really want to know about is the time-invariant equilibrium state, hence we can set the LHS to 0 and solve for T given certain values of S and f.
Using the value for S from post #324 (S=1286 W/m^2 - assuming a box of 1m^2 area normal to incident radiation) and setting f=0 this reproduces the temperature of 388K that was obtained earlier. Now assuming f=0.5 (i.e. glass absorbs half the outgoing radiation and re-emits it isotropically OR glass simply reflects a quarter of the outgoing radiation - really f should also be temperature dependent but we can ignore that for now), we get the higher equilibrium temperature of ~417K.
Albedo and inclination effects are easily included in the quantity "S" if you wish to study those effects.
I hope this worked example is sufficiently illustrative - I would suggest a closer read of Smith's paper to satisfy yourself this works and how the problem is applied to planetary greenhouse effect.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #346
When it comes to the AGW debate there are two attitudes to be sceptical about.
The first is the IPCC claim; that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are substantially affecting the climate, risking irrigation problems for farmers, risking sea productivity via plankton and risking sea level changes.
The second is the opposite claim; that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not substantially affecting the climate, not risking irrigation problems for farmers, not risking sea productivity via plankton and not risking sea level changes.
How is being sceptical about the second claim not being sceptic? Surely someone only sceptical of the first claim cannot claim to be more sceptical than someone only sceptical of the second claim. And ideally anyone calling themself "sceptic" should be sceptical in some degree towards both claims. Which is not what I see in most AGW sceptics.
Complain about this comment
#348 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"How is being sceptical about the second claim not being sceptic?"
Your second claim reads like a reversed mirror-image of AGW, with "it is not the case that..." put in front of all of the claims of AGW! -- So of course that is not scepticism. "Scepticism about X" is the withholding of belief that X, not belief that not-X!
A sceptic about AGW does not believe in not-AGW, but instead does not believe AGW. My own scepticism goes a lot further than that. It includes the following lack of beliefs:
1. I don't believe global warming is still happening.
2. Even if it is still happening, I don't believe that human activity is likely to be the main cause.
3. Even if it is still happening, and human activity is the cause, I don't believe it is a bad thing.
4. Even if it is still happening, and human activity is the cause, and it is a bad thing, I don't believe the proposed "cure" would be better than the "disease" itself.
5. Even if it is still happening, and human activity is the cause, and it is a bad thing, and the proposed cure is better than the disease itself, I don't believe we can realistically hope to bring about that cure, because of various constraints on rational action (connected with the "tragedy of the commons").
There are a lot of non-beliefs there. Please note that I am not "anti-science", and I have described myself as a "scientific realist" for decades.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #349
If this was a simple academic matter I might agree with you.
However the second claim is what the business-as-usual lobby, particularly sceptics working for Big Carbon, but also some members of the general public keen to justify current lifestyles, are asking us to believe. They do effectively believe in NOT-AGW rather than have straightforward doubts about AGW. This shows up in their indiscriminate acceptance of nonsense that appears to support NOT-AGW.
Complain about this comment
"the absurdity of postulating a system that can receive energy but emit none"
I know shouldn't raise my big vulnerable head with the ears sticking out above the parapet in this technical discussion, but what about radiation? Everything hot emits infra-red light, even if it's perfectly insulated.
Complain about this comment
#350 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"However the second claim is what the business-as-usual lobby, particularly sceptics working for Big Carbon, but also some members of the general public keen to justify current lifestyles, are asking us to believe."
You don't do yourself justice here, in effect dismissing your opponents' views as the unthinking products of the politically motivated. Nor do my side when they wheel out the old taxation paranoia.
I don't work for Big Carbon or Big Oil or Duke of Oil or anyone else like that. I suppose I do believe in "business as usual", most of the time, because I think we humans are very vulnerable, epistemically, to suggestions that we are culpable for something. "If you want to get rich, start a new religion", as a rich guy once said, and I say: if you want to get believed, start saying that the West is to blame for something.
However, although I believe in "business as usual" most of the time, I am no member of a "business as usual" lobby, or any other lobby for that matter. I am my own man. I am not a number!
Complain about this comment
"...asking us to believe."
Every sceptic, of whatever particular persuasion, withholds belief about something. If asked to defend his or her withholding of belief, the sceptic is obliged to produce reasons for non-belief -- which involves exhibiting other beliefs.
That involves "asking us to believe" something. But one is mistaken if one thinks one has somehow "nailed scepticism" by pointing out that sceptics have to appeal to beliefs in the first place.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBaingstoke #335 etc:
@Dave_oxon:
There were actually two points I was trying to make:
1) A perfectly insulated box which let energy in but none out would, as you point out, heat up until it started emitting in the visible spectrum -which can pass through the glass.
But, as you also point out, although the glass is opaque to IR, it allows energy to escape by conduction through the glass. And when the radiation from the outside surface of the glass equals the incoming radiation, the system is in equilibrium - so far, so good.
Also, in our theoretical perfectly insulated box, it wouldn't matter if you pointed it away from the sun for half of the time - the interior would still heat up, although it would now take longer to reach the same temperature.
Now we substitute a planet for the box, completely enclosing it within a glass sphere made of our theoretical non-conducting glass. Now, just like our theoretical box, the surface of the planet would, as no energy can get out, heat up until it started emitting in the visible spectrum.
But this can only happen in theory, as glass will always conduct, so practically (as practical as it can be to enclose a planet in a glass sphere), equilibrium will be reached when the outer surface of the glass emits as much as it receives.
Now we remove the glass sphere and substitute an atmosphere like that of the earth. Now we have a layer of gas around the planet which, like glass, is (almost) opaque to IR but, unlike glass, is an extremely poor conductor.
So now, with (almost) no IR getting out, and little conduction through the gas layer, what stops the earth from getting ever hotter? Even if the temperature went up very slowly, over millions or billions of years it would add up to a humungous temperature. So why has this not been happening?
I believe we have convection and evaporation to thank for that, which transfer large amounts of energy up through the atmosphere.
My point in all of this is that none of these large energy paths have been adequately quantified (I haven't even mentioned clouds) so we're doing little more than guessing how much goes where, and how.
2) Wood's 1909 experiment showed no substantial difference between the temperature in a box covered by glass and one covered by rock-salt. Now, this was 100 years ago, and we're now in the space-age. You would think that, by this time, we would have repeated this experiment in space, where the results would be unaffected by the atmosphere. Then we'd have actual figures, and there would be fewer things to guess about.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #352 #353
I am not talking about all AGW sceptics. I am talking about some AGW sceptics. The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper has a lot of support out there, despite being debunked back in 2007.
And I remind you that this conversation started as a conversation about language. I am not trying to ad-hom all sceptics.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #354
OK. So you are sceptical about an effect where you basically only know the name of the metaphor? (Not a dig at you. More a moan about the lack of decent plain language explanations.)
Glass greenhouses work by trapping warm air, preventing convection carrying heat out of the greenhouse. Planetary greenhouses don't work like that.
First of all I describe the lapse rate.
You may be familiar with the concept that (on average) temperatures get cooler the higher up you go. Mountain peaks with snow on them all year round. This is due to a temperature gradient called the lapse rate in the lowest layer of the atmosphere - the troposphere.
(Things are different above the troposphere, but we are only looking at the simplest version of this explanation.)
You may also be familiar with the spread of speeds of component air molecules. This spread of speeds is different at different temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell-Boltzmann_distribution
The average kinetic energy from this speed is a big component of temperature. Hot temperatures mean faster average speeds of air molecules. Cold temperatures mean slower average speeds of air molecules.
(This is not the only type of thermal energy, but it is important in gases, and we are only looking at the simplest version of this explanation.)
So imagine an air molecule travelling upwards. Gravity slows it down. Imagine an air molecule travelling downwards. Gravity speeds it up. This is why temperatures are cooler at height, warmer closer towards the ground.
(Things are complicated by condensation of water vapour into clouds, but we are only looking at the simplest version of this explanation.)
Now I remind you of black body radiation.
At equilibrium temperature black body radiation emitted from a warm object matches the temperature being absorbed by that body.
But where is that radiation emitted from. If there are no greenhouse gases present then the black body radiation is emitted from the ground.
If there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere not all the black body radiation from the ground can escape to space. Instead it is trapped by the atmosphere. Meanwhile greenhouse gases in the atmosphere emit black body radiation to space.
So instead of all coming from the ground, some of the planet's black body radiation that escapes to space comes from higher up. Where the air is cooler.
So the Earth's black body temperature of -18C is real. It is colder than the average ground level temperature because it is an average of warmer ground level temperatures and cooler atmospheric temperatures.
Meanwhile I would be hard pushed to imagine a circumstance where repeating Wood's experiment in space would actually help.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #356
Ah, back from a short hiatus...trying to explain complex subjects to people wears me down. Anyway, you wrote...
"So imagine an air molecule travelling upwards. Gravity slows it down. Imagine an air molecule travelling downwards. Gravity speeds it up. This is why temperatures are cooler at height, warmer closer towards the ground."
This is really more what determines the steepest stable gradient. It doesn't mean a magical, non-emitting atmosphere would actually shift to this sort of configuration under stable conditions. There's just as much energy moving side to side as there is moving up and down. The atmosphere would bang around from side to side too...slowly propagating its energy through the magically non-emitting atmosphere until it finally reached equilibrium ...with the whole of the atmosphere at the same temperature.
What this helps to determine, Jane...is the highest stable temperature gradient. It helps to set the bar. But its a constant. GHG forcing is all about moving toward the unstable side of the "bar" that this helps to set. The actual observed lapse rate is determined by many things...which is what we're debating. CO2 would tend to make a more pronounced gradient BUT it has three things fighting it.
First we've got convection. Convection starts up the moment any atmospheric lapse rate pushes into the realm of instability.
Next, we've got the water cycle. Here on this big, blue marble you will notice that MOST of the surface is covered in water. Most of what isn't covered in water has fairly abundant water. The water cycle greatly enhances convection (because water vapor is so much lighter than air). But more importantly...water vapor greatly increases the amount of energy being moved. In turning to a vapor, water absorbs immense amounts of energy (so its never "heat" in the first place) and drops it off higher in the atmosphere when it condenses again.
Finally there's the nature of the greenhouse effect its self. As I have pointed out time and time again...the greenhouse effect is NOT about absorption...its more about emissions. More importantly it's the relative efficiency of emissions verses absorption. Emissions go up exponentially with temperature. The greenhouse effect is NOT some kind of bottomless pit of potential in a finite atmosphere.
So again, I assure you...these fears of substantial warming from CO2 are ENTIRELY unfounded. There are PLENTY of environmental issues that are far more important than the trivial increases to the greenhouse effect.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317, #354,
Just a quick reply to some of your direct questions:
you asked:"with (almost) no IR getting out, and little conduction through the gas layer, what stops the earth from getting ever hotter?
No IR is passing directly through the intervening layer (atmosphere) but, since it has a finite (and non-zero) temperature, it will be emitting black(or grey)-body radiation itself back to the ground but also into space. Hence it has a mechanism to lose energy. Once the losses equal the input then equilibrium is established. Therefore the system can't keep getting hotter, as you have correctly surmised would be the case were this loss mechanism not present (the absurd condition I referred to before where no energy could escape the system - @Bowman, you were perfectly correct @#351 and this is why I described the system as "absurd").
Evaporation/convection are, as you say, important mechanisms for transfer of heat energy from the ground to the atmosphere but they do not account for removal of energy from the system, since the planet is sitting in the vacuum of space, only radiation can account for the final emission of energy via the mechanisms captured in Smith's equation #39 (referred to in my post above).
you wrote:"Wood's 1909 experiment showed no substantial difference between the temperature in a box covered by glass and one covered by rock-salt..."
Your point 2 about Wood's experiment concerns the behaviour of a real greenhouse which, as has been discussed previously on these threads, is a poor analogy for the planetary "greenhouse effect". I would advise you not to get too caught up in comparing glass greenhouses with the planetary effect. Instead it would be more instructive to examine such things as spectroscopy in Ultra-high-vacuum systems (there's no need to go out into space as we can create pretty hard vacuums in closed systems in the laboratory - down to pressures of ~10^-11 mbar). In particular I would suggest having a read about an instrument known as a "pyrometer" which can be used to measure the temperature of materials inside a vacuum chamber by measuring the spectrum of black(grey)-body radiation emitted. Now, even if Wood's experiment hasn't been repeated in such a system, I think you'll see that none of the physics and instrumentation I've just described would work if the thermodynamics we've been discussing above were seriously in error.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #357
My #355 was the absolute simplest version of the lapse rate explanation of the planetary greenhouse. It includes three markers where there are significant additions to go in. Condensation of water (which is the reason why the moist lapse rate is shallower than the dry lapse rate) is one of them.
Your two points about convection and water cycle are double counting of the water condensation issue, unless you were referring to dry convection with no condensation of water, which does not significantly change the average dry lapse rate.
I remind you that the global average lapse rate is about 6.49K per kilometre and that the dry lapse rate is about 9.8K per kilometre. I point out that I did not quote the 9.8K dry figure in my piece and that if Peter317 had looked up lapse rates elsewhere Peter would have found the 6.49K per kilometre environmental lapse rate.
I also remind you that changes in the lapse rate due to recent warming preferring a moist lapse rate are small. The moist lapse rate's contribution to the lapse rate does not throttle the greenhouse in the manner that some of your posts describe.
As for your point about sideways motion, it has no effect on the changes in gravitational potential energy with height: mgh for short height distances close to sea level, ∫GmM/((R+h)^2) dh for significant altitudes. Air molecule collisions and weather processes will keep the speed distribution in line with Maxwell-Boltzmann.
"In turning to a vapor, water absorbs immense amounts of energy (so its never "heat" in the first place) and drops it off higher in the atmosphere when it condenses again."
It's heat when it makes the water evaporate. And when it condenses again it releases heat.
"Finally there's the nature of the greenhouse effect its self. As I have pointed out time and time again...the greenhouse effect is NOT about absorption...its more about emissions. More importantly it's the relative efficiency of emissions verses absorption. Emissions go up exponentially with temperature. The greenhouse effect is NOT some kind of bottomless pit of potential in a finite atmosphere."
Emissions and absorptions are different sides of the same coin, you don't get one without the other, both are essential in explaining the simplest version of the lapse rate greenhouse.
Your last sentence makes sense when talking about reaching a new stable equilibrium, or about the logarithmic nature of climate sensitivity. The former was implicit in me talking about an equilibrium temperature. The latter is not relevant to explaining the very basics of the lapse rate greenhouse mechanism.
If you are complaining about a lack of mention of negative feedbacks in my deliberately and clearly simplified explanation I point out that I missed out all the positive feedbacks for the same reason. This includes non-greenhouse gas feedbacks like ice reflecting sunlight.
Complain about this comment
@Janebasingstoke who wrote...
"Your last sentence makes sense when talking about reaching a new stable equilibrium, or about the logarithmic nature of climate sensitivity. The former was implicit in me talking about an equilibrium temperature. The latter is not relevant to explaining the very basics of the lapse rate greenhouse mechanism."
The latter point however is devastating to the hypothesis of substantial and dangerous anthropogenic global warming...which is a good thing. We're all safe from AGW and we always have been. There aren't enough recoverable fossil fuel reserves to cause dangerous climate change.
Complain about this comment
323. bowmanthebard
See JaneBlasingstokes's comment #333. She got what I was talking about for the most part.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke - Thanks for all your comments re #321.
It seems that were are destined to disagree about this parrot.
Interesting book: 'Cloak of Green' by Canadian author Elaine Dewar.
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #360
I remind you that my explanation was very very basic.
I remind you that my side of the argument has always been very up front about the logarithmic nature of climate change. This is why references to climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide are to doubling of carbon dioxide.
(warning, the Climate Sensitivity article was substantially written by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley
Normally you sceptics don't trust Connolley, however I am only asking you to look at the non controversial definition.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm
I remind you that I don't use words like "dangerous". I might use words like "substantial", which covers mild concepts such as "distinct and uncomfortable but we muddle on" and strong concepts such as "undermines our way of life mainly due to changing rainfall impacting agriculture". Because if the IPCC doesn't know the precise value of climate sensitivity "likely between 2C and 4.5C for a doubling of CO2, best estimate 3C" and the precise impact of such a climate sensitivity, then I certainly don't.
Perhaps given the fact that the IPCC are upfront about climate sensitivity's logarithmic nature means they are less alarmist than you think. Perhaps you are confusing the IPCC with Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Or with "The Day After Tomorrow".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
Meanwhile I remind you that my explanations cover the more robust parts of the science. Your attempts to describe apparent alternative mechanisms are interesting but far from clear. The real debate, the one involving big name sceptics such as Lindzen and Spencer, is over feedbacks affecting climate sensitivity, particularly clouds.
Now are you going to continue picking over my short piece complaining that caveats more appropriate to a much longer piece are missing?
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #362
I don't expect to "convert" anyone on the subject of AGW. I don't have the knowledge to tackle the main debate on climate sensitivity.
I do expect to be able to tackle some of the nonsense and misunderstandings. (The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper is full of nonsense.) I want to contribute to a situation when both sides are listening to each other and scientists on both sides of the debate can do their job properly without hassle or unpleasantness.
Dead parrot? Very much alive and squawking.
Incidentally did you know the dead parrot was called "Eric"?
Complain about this comment
#361 CanadianRockies wrote:
"See JaneBlasingstokes's comment #333. She got what I was talking about for the most part."
Carbon trading is as crooked as the trade in papal indulgences, but it isn't obviously a "tax"!
Complain about this comment
#364 JaneBasingstoke - Speaking of sensitivity, seen this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/spencer-strong-negative-feedback-found-in-radiation-budget/#more-19293
Complain about this comment
How RealClimate works...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/12/where-the-is-svalbard/
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #367
That's not how RealClimate works. That's how Michael Mann threads on RealClimate work.
Let me see now
1. Michael Mann is being very defensive over his science, forcing his opponents to do all the hard work, heavily downplaying any admissions of mistakes.
2. Some of Michael Mann's stats are open to criticism.
No. Nothing new there.
Meanwhile there are issues with Eschenbach's two Svalbard graphs.
The first one, the rainbow sine wave backed with a photograph, completely disguises any long term trends as there is no simple way of picking out which colour belongs to which year.
The second one, with blue monthly and black yearly, disguises extreme monthly anomalies unless they are close to the summer and winter extremes after the solstices. It does this in two ways. Firstly by using actual temperatures rather than anomalies. Secondly by squashes the time axis so that a warm temperature in, say, April 2006 is indistinguishable from a normal high in July.
The second one also disguises any long term trends. It does this by squashing the temperature axis, by displaying yearly and monthly actual temperatures (rather than anomalies) on the same graph
Complain about this comment
Thanks JaneBasingstoke. Thought that provided an interesting case study. And, well, it was Michael Mann after all, and all good Canadians know about hockey sticks and our hero Steve McIntyre.
But I must say that I have seen many other comments on similar censorship of inconvenient comments at RealClimate. And I have looked at that site, though not for some time now, and particularly since I have a better understanding of who's running it.
I also used to look at "demogsblog" long ago - yes, so long ago that now I can't recall how to spell it as you can see - but not since I encountered the lowest form of academic dishonesty there in an article about, what else, polar bears. One of their chosen contributors actually used two references that did NOT support the statements they supposedly did. Not even close. When you see that kind of thing you know exactly what you are dealing with.
Interesting comments on the graphs. I find the photo backgrounds to be nice and all, but do not help seeing the graphs clearly.
The graph I look at for the most part comes from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok I believe)ice cores. Seems to me that global climate change can only work on that time scale so these little short term trends are much ado about nothing - in terms of climate that is.
P.S. I did not know, or remember, that the dead parrot's name was Eric.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies
"many other comments on similar censorship of inconvenient comments at RealClimate"
I've seen those comments too.
I've also seen comments from pro-AGW commenters about long moderation queues at RealClimate. I've seen RealClimate's very strict moderation policy (you can't repeat a critical comment that someone else has made or is already addressed) (they do after all use their comments for Q&A), and their apology for when moderation goes wrong ("both overzealousness and undermoderation").
(Comments on moderation made back in 2005 (main article))
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/one-year-on/
(Comment about moderation queues - comment 46)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/first-cru-inquiry-report-released/
I remind you that if an issue is really important RealClimate is hardly the only forum. And I have yet to see the equivalent sceptic site fielding that many comments from its opponents.
P.S. All Praline's pets are called Eric.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies
Bearing in mind the complexities of the situation with polar bears (problems with measuring some populations, some populations rebounding after a drop-off in hunting by humans, much of the threat associated with disputed claims about future ice loss) and your lack of an example, I will be taking your comment about DeSmogBlog (who are not a science blog) with a pinch of salt.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #366
(@MangoChutneyUKOK)
"I don't have the knowledge to tackle the main debate on climate sensitivity." JaneBasingstoke #364
"Speaking of sensitivity, seen this? [link to Roy Spencer's latest contribution]" CanadianRockies #366
OK, what part of "I don't have the knowledge to tackle the main debate on climate sensitivity" didn't you understand?
There is a substantial amount of working and assumption in Roy Spencer's piece that is missing. I assume that some of the missing info will be well covered ground not needed by the other experts. I assume that other parts of the missing info are missing because it's a blog and not the paper. (The paper is behind a paywall. http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=JD )
I am a little confused as to whether he really does mean net radiation (Earth-to-space minus Sun-to-Earth) as there is no apparent reference to measuring the incoming sunlight.
2002 to 2009 is also a comparatively short period, obviously limited by the hardware. I find myself wondering what Spencer's methodology would have turned up if he had had data that went back as far as his temperature set.
There may also be issues with time lags blurring the short lived changes he seems to be investigating.
But these are my very amateur opinions. I suspect that both of us will have to wait for the associated paper to be scrutinised by others.
PS. Spencer is in a different league from Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
Complain about this comment
#370 - JaneBasingstoke - You wrote: "And I have yet to see the equivalent sceptic site fielding that many comments from its opponents."
You must have missed wattsupwiththat and climateaudit. Of course not everyone involved there pretends to be a "professional climate scientist"... but then those professionals couldn't seem to find any of the problems that have been found. So, one wonders what those professionals were being paid to do.
And #371 - Take all the salt you want, but perhaps not too much for health reasons. I can't be bothered going back two years to dredge up that story and the specific examples but all I can say is that did it for me for that website. And that's all I really need to say or, more importantly, know.
And while I defer to your knowledge of physics, I certainly don't on just about everything and anything related to biology, ecology and historic and current wildlife populations in North America at least. And that knowledge does not come from websites. As I explained some time back, the polar bear fairy tales told by the AGW gang was the reason why I immediately knew there was something very, very wrong with this whole campaign.
Speaking of that poster child, its hard to believe how truly clumsy the AGW campaigners can be. I'm sure you have seen this:
http://thebenshi.com/2010/05/10/37-photoshopped-polar-bear-is-the-climate-science-community-really-really-really-this-clueless-yes/
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/sweating-the-details-in-climate-discourse/
Are they actually trying to destroy their own credibility or what?
And #372 - Thanks for an honest attempt at it. So many questions remain.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies
"And I have yet to see the equivalent sceptic site fielding that many comments from its opponents." JaneBasingstoke #370
"You must have missed wattsupwiththat and climateaudit." CanadianRockies #373
It was my impression that they got considerably less opponent posts than RealClimate. Conversations in the comments at CA are civilised chats between sceptics. Conversations in the comments at WUWT are sometimes shouty more-sceptic-than-thou competitions, with Watts occasionally having to distance himself from the more extreme stuff. (Notably during Yamal Watts vouched for Briffa being genuinely ill.) Very very few pro-AGW posts at either site.
Or, based on the dearth of opponent posts at those two sites, are you accusing WUWT and CA of being worse censors than RC?
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies
As for the photo-shopped polar bear in Science magazine.
They put their hand up to this error and replaced the photo-shopped picture with a real one. Perhaps they believe science should be self-correcting.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689
I point out that the photo-shopped photograph massively helps the sceptics who want to bash the pro-AGW side of the argument with a big stick. Meanwhile I have yet to hear why the photo-shopped picture is more helpful to my side of the argument than its replacement.
In the meantime some of the points in the letter seem to be echoed by sceptics.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #373
"And while I defer to your knowledge of physics, I certainly don't on just about everything and anything related to biology, ecology and historic and current wildlife populations in North America at least. And that knowledge does not come from websites. As I explained some time back, the polar bear fairy tales told by the AGW gang was the reason why I immediately knew there was something very, very wrong with this whole campaign."
I don't ask you to defer to me on any subject. In the case of the polar bears I reference and paraphrase work done by professional scientists and show why it gives me cause for concern for the future of polar bears.
I am not clear whether you think my interpretation is unreasonable (my #332), whether you think the PBSG website misrepresents the work of the scientists or whether you have issues with the work of the scientists. I am not defending the more simplistic statements on polar bears by some of the green lobby.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
Complain about this comment
#374 - JaneBasingstoke - Your comments on those two sites seem spot on. But I don't think there's any censorship involved. It is simply that humans have a tendency to go to where their beliefs are reinforced, and vice versa. Thus one doesn't find too many Christians at a Muslim mosque, and vice versa.
#375 - Time short today. Let me just point out that ALL the doomsday predictions about polar bears are based on models of future climate which are now in dispute shall we say, plus some cherry picked research from the Hudson Bay population which is the most southernmost in the world and not at all typical.
The widely publicized story of 'drowning polar bears' is pure nonsense based on a very few cases, all in one year, and their ability to find drowned polar bears has increased exponentially with the amount of research, including helicopter flights. Polar bears always have and will drown. No crisis. Same with the 'cannibal polar bears.' Nothing new. Both just used as false poster anecdotes to falsely portray a nonexistent crisis.
Oh, and you must realize that with more polar bears, simple probability would predict more drowned polar bears... accidents happen. And the same is true for 'cannibalism.'
So again, why would they attempt to turn these isolated but natural incidents into evidence of a crisis?
Forgot I had these links handy...
www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears/
This explains that the 'Myth of the Starving Cannibal Polar Bears' is also based on 2004 incidents - possibly one predatory bear - and is not new behaviour in any case.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
There was another much publicized case of a bear eating a cub in that southern Hudson Bay pop last fall as I recall. In any case, it is part of normal bear behaviour, in brown (grizzly), black, and polar bears.
And again, with so much research they tend to find these things more often.
Complain about this comment
This is part of the fallout/blowback from the secret document that had been drafted up by the "Haves" prior to the opening of the Copenhagen Conference, the one that was going to stab all the developing nations in the back.
Whatever it was as a long term plan that the Haves thought they could get away with, either they were monumentally stupid or they leaked the docs intentionally in order to scuttle Kyoto's aims. (I suspect the latter; I could never understand how the Haves willingly went along with such damaging policies to their nations' economies as Kyoto represented.)
Either way, Kyoto and its draconian measures have been undone, and it will be a LONG time before the developing nations will trust the hubristic Haves of the world again.
Copenhagen has ended up creating a dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, world on the issue of carbon emissions.
Nice going, guys!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS