Correction

Tim,

You are one of the few bloggers willing to admit a mistake.

You suspend a full gallon bucket over the ocean and it leaks into the sea. After a while you notice that it's now only a little more than half full. You measure the remainder and say, "The bucket has put 1.5 quarts of water into the ocean." Tim Blair would say, "You claim precise down-to-the-decimal-point knowledge of the entire ocean! What a fraud!"

And that, ladies & gentlemen, is how stupid Tim Blair is.

*chuckles*

'You suspend a full gallon bucket over the ocean and it leaks into the sea. After a while you notice that it's now only a little more than half full. You measure the remainder and say, "The bucket has put 1.5 quarts of water into the ocean." Tim Blair would say, "You claim precise down-to-the-decimal-point knowledge of the entire ocean! What a fraud!"'

Then the ClimateAudit guys ask for the data and want to do a validation on how much water was lost, but before that, they do up some ad-homs and ridicule those who think the hockey stick is accurate. Then they say the IPCC is a political and not a scientific organisation.

Yada yada yada. Bla bla bla.

I feel kind of sorry for the handful of Blair's supporters who tried to make these obvious points, only to be howled down by the usual moronic claque. Maybe they might start rethinking their position more generally.

At the risk of sounding as ignorant as I actually am.... doesn't an increase in heat being radiated have an effect of cooling the object doing the radiating... i.e. the earth?

Isn't this the reason that women feel the cold more than men?

Does this imply that the earth has its own defense mechanisms to global warming that will reduce the impact?

Finally, I am confused as to how you can measure our impact on the rest of the universe in metres squared (a 2 dimensional measure of area), rather than metres cubed (i.e. 3 dimensional measure of volume).

Can someone "please explain"??

Rodney, increased CO2 has *reduced* the heat being radiated and that is what is warming the earth. The impact is described in metres squared because the effect at the surface of the earth is what matters. The very very very slight cooling that the rest of the universe experiences doesn't matter.

Rodney: Yes, you are right that the way the earth will respond to the forcing of greenhouse gases is to start radiating more heat away. However, from the laws of physics, the only way it can do that is by heating up to the point where the heat it is radiating (which goes as the 4th power of its absolute temperature) once again matches the heat it is receiving from the sun.

I wouldn't really call this a "defense mechanism" but the point is that the earth does not respond to the forcing due to greenhouse gases by heating up without bound but only up to the point where it once again gets into radiative balance. Of course, this is well-understood and taken into account by the scientists. (Which is why, for example, they don't tell you that if we stabilized greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today the earth would continue getting hotter and hotter without bound...although it would continue to heat up some more...probably about another 0.5 C because measurements demonstrate that it is currently out of radiative balance, i.e., it has not yet adjusted to the greenhouse gas forcing that we have produced. The main reason it takes so long to adjust is that the oceans are a big heat sink that create a lot of "thermal inertia"...The rough analogy is of a heavily-loaded 18-wheeler having a lot of inertia and this being why it takes a long time to accelerate it up to highway speeds.)

As for m^3 vs. m^2, the point is that one is measuring the flow of energy from one region to another, so one is interested in the amount of energy crossing a SURFACE, i.e., a 2-dimensional object. One could talk about the energy density in an object in which case you would talk in terms of energy per m^3 but when one talks about the flow of energy into or out of an object across its surface, it is measured per m^2.

That's a terribly graceful apology to the otherwise wholly undeserving Kyle :)

Tim - that thread degenerated rather quickly into the normal sort of chatter that passes for discussion on Blair's blog. They tend to quote completely wrong things, 10 other people then go yippee yay - got you leftie, without having a clue whether the posters arguments made sense or not, after this and this is taken as reference. I am not posting there again.

Thanks for the response guys - although I get the feeling that you are saying contradictory things.

Tim, I thought that the issue is the reverse of what you said - the earth is increasing its radiation output, because of the temperature increase caused by 'greenhouse' gasses.

Joel, Thanks for explaining things so clearly. As a relative newbie to the Global Warming debate I am finding that clear explanations are a rare & precious commodity.

To summarise then, is it fair to say that the original comment about the Earth being out of balance with the universe is actually irrelevant (?). That the issue at hand is the internal balance of the Earths atmosphere, and that the observed warming is being ameliorated (to some extent) by the radiative forcing.

Your point about the themal inertia is very useful - although in some ways it suggests that there is nothing we can really do now to avoid further warming in the near future.

Is it also fair to say that no-one has actually measured the increase in energy being radiated from the earth, but that it has been derived from the same data that shows the warming over the past X years (?).

Rodney, the original comment isn't irrelevant -- it explains why the earth is warming. Here's an analogy: I have the tap on and water is pouring into a bathtub and running out the plug hole. If the rate of water coming in balances the rate at which the water runs out, then the amount of water in the bath stays the same. If I partially block the plug hole, inflow and outflow no longer balance and the tub starts to fill. Eventually we get a new equilibrium, either with more water in the tub pushing it out of the plug hole faster, or the tub overflowing and water flowing out that way. Water inflow not balanced with water outflow => tub fills with water.

Same with Earth: energy inflow not balanced by energy outflow => Earth warms. As it warms it will radiate energy more strongly until we reach a new equilibrium with a warmer earth and energy out flow the same as inflow again. The outflow will be the same as it was before greenhouse gasses made it harder for radiation to escape the Earth.

Again, just to be clear the enhanced greenhouse effect is *reducing* the radiation from the Earth.

Ender, I visited TB's site 3-4 times (and didn't waste my time commenting). I won't be going back, there are infinitely more productive ways to spend my life. Besides which, it takes too long for the smell to wear off. The man and his brain dead, foaming-at-the-mouth goon squad aren't worth it. Life is too short.

Rodney, thanks for your kind words. What Tim Lambert and I are saying is not in contradiction. We are just talking about different periods of the process. The whole sequence of events is this: First, greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere reducing the amount of heat the earth is radiating away, as Tim notes. In response to this, the earth heats up (because it is now taking in from the sun more heat than it is radiating away). Eventually, the earth will reach a new temperature where the amount it radiates away is back up to what it used to radiate away (not higher)...namely, the same amount that it receives from the sun...and it would be back in equilibrium. However, that re-equilibration takes a while, as I noted, because of the large thermal inertia...so right now the earth is still out-of-balance.

You are right in your point that there isn't much we can do to ameliorate the warming in the near future. We have committed ourselves to an estimated 0.5 C of additional warming even if we stabilized greenhouse gas levels tomorrow. This lag time is why it is so important to get to work now. It is like trying to turn a huge supertanker around as it is heading for an iceberg...You have to start turning it well in advance.

I believe you are technically correct that scientists haven't actually directly measured the amount of radiation outgoing from the earth. I believe it is inferred from the change in heat content of the oceans over the last several years. However, this is commonly how science works. The laws of thermodynamics are well enough understood that one knows that energy is conserved so if you measure the change in heat content and you know how much energy the earth is taking in from the sun, you can calculate the amount it is radiating away.

Tim, it might be more precise to say:
- (A) The enhanced greenhouse effect is NOW reducing the energy radiated from the Earth back to outer space
and/or:
- (B) The enhanced greenhouse effect reduces the proportion of energy that is radiated from the Earth back to outer space.

(A) has the effect of altering the present heat balance.
(B) indicates that at the new equilibrium (what and when?), the heat trapped in the Earth will be greater (with the amount of energy radiated by the Sun remaining the same)

Btw, great site!

Um, this whole thread only exists because of a guy who seriously believed Saddam was gonna threaten the West with perfume sprayers.

I think poor old little tim is not just getting a crash course in the laws of thermodynamics but also in the law of diminishing returns.

If this is the best he's got to whip up his peanut gallery with then I reckon blogging nude is pretty much about only the next step he can take to keep bums on seats.

I reckon he's still a decent enough bloke not to head into full Ann "the 911 widows are lovin' it" Coulter mode so there's really not much elsewhere he can go.

More birdy and car pics perhaps?

Rodney asked:

"Tim, I thought that the issue is the reverse of what you said - the earth is increasing its radiation output, because of the temperature increase caused by 'greenhouse' gasses."

I hope I can helpfully describe what is going on in a brief way:

The greenhouse gases have cut radiation to space and now the earth is warming up.

That warming will eventually increase the outgoing radiation back to equilibrium with the incoming radiation.

So yes, the earth is presently attempting to increase its radiation output by getting hotter but that radiation output has previously been cut by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

"the earth is presently attempting to increase its radiation output by getting hotter"

I should point out that I used the word "attempt" here because the earth's "attempt" to increase radiation output is being thwarted by the fact that greenhouse gases are still increasing. If the greenhouse gases were no longer increasing then the radiation ouput would most likely be increasing but since the gases are still increasing it may actually be that the radiation output is decreasing.

Ok. Thanks guys - now I get the idea. I was thrown by the original comment that the Earth had increased its radiation output.

Nice to learn something for the day. Good blog - has just made my bookmarks tab...

Cheers,

Rodney

"Tim Blair has less knowledge of science than Kyle Smith."

To make your point clear, this should read: "Tim Blair has less knowledge of science than does Kyle Smith." Or perhaps: "Tim Blair is less knowledgeable of science than is Kyle Smith." Or even: "Tim Blair's knowledge of science is equal to Tim Lambert's knowledge of logical and non-ambivalent sentence construction."

Oh little tim, that's just pathetic. You've really lost your mojo haven't you?

Not a premier performance.

(Background: little tim once called Bob Carr the Premiere of NSW)

"Then the ClimateAudit guys ask for the data and want to do a validation on how much water was lost, but before that, they do up some ad-homs and ridicule those who think the hockey stick is accurate. Then they say the IPCC is a political and not a scientific organisation."

Then they decry the Chicken Littles who ignore the good news, that the bucket is still half full.

"At the risk of sounding as ignorant as I actually am.... doesn't an increase in heat being radiated have an effect of cooling the object doing the radiating... i.e. the earth?
"Isn't this the reason that women feel the cold more than men?
"Does this imply that the earth has its own defense mechanisms to global warming that will reduce the impact?"

Yeah; the temperature rises. Very simple. The same way you put insulation around your house in the winter, if you want it to be warmer.

It all comes from a couple of simple equations.

For steady state, heat input = heat output.
or, to rearrange it,
heat input minus heat output = 0, i.e. net energy gained or lost = 0; the definition of steady state.

Temperature is a measure of energy, so
No net energy gain or loss means no net temperature rise or drop. Again, the definition of steady state.

Now; heat output rises with temperature. (not linear, something like sixth power?) I think at some level, everybody has this figured out the first time they stick their hand near a hot object.

So: leaving heat input constant:
If you partially choke off heat output with insulation or such, heat output no longer equals heat input
or
heat input minus heat output is now positive.
net gain of energy
higher energy = higher temperature.
so, temperature rises, due to less heat output than input.

But, higher temperature increases heat output (see above), so temp and heat output both rise until the value of the now partially choked off heat output equals old value of unchoked heat output, now you're at steady state again; but with a higher temperature due to more insulation. But you're still at heat output still = heat input, the internal calculation of heat output has changed to be higher temperature but lower heat flow to get the same result.

Hey thanks tim, I corrected that sentence. I expect you'll be correcting the confused science in your post very soon.

Oh, and notice the Iron Law of Grammar Flames in action. tim's comment uses "non-ambivalent" where he should have used "unambiguous".

"I corrected that sentence. I expect you'll be correcting the confused science in your post very soon."

Whoa! Slow down, tiger. Let's get up to speed on basic English first.

Is that so Nabs? The Premiere of NSW?

I was thinking of a way to explain it last night and came up with this.
Imagine that your house is uninsulated and you have a heater inside your house that can be varied from low to high. During last winter you fiddled around with the heater control until you found a setting that kept the temperature of the room reasonably constant and comfortable. You then made a mark on the heater at this point so that you could set the heater to the best heat setting straight away. What you have achieved is a balance between the heat leaving the house through the ceiling, walls and carried away by ventilation air and the heat being applied by your heater so that the temp of the house stays fairly constant.

Over summer you insulate the ceiling of your house. When the cold weather returns you turn on your heater and set it to the mark from the previous winter. You now find that the room keeps heating beyond the temperature that it was last year (we assume that you had a thermometer last year as well) up to quite a few degrees higher than last year. The reason is that at the with the heater set to the same setting as last year there is no longer a balance between the heat from the heater and the heat going out. The heat from your heater is the same however the heat leaving the house is less because of the insulation so therefore the room heats up to a higher temperature, where the heat outflow is greater, so that the house heat flows are once again in balance. You can of course save money by setting the heater to a lower setting.

Now the Earth does not have an internal heater in the same way as a house does. What happens is that radiation from the sun is absorbed by the Earth and then re-radiated at longer wavelengths. This forms the function of the heater in the house. The amount of radiation we receive is more or less constant. Greenhouse gases perform the same function as insulation. We are adding to the amount of insulation in the ceiling by releasing greenhouse gases such as CO2. So therefore like our house we would expect the temperature of the Earth to rise until the balance between radiation from the sun and heat flowing out from the Earth is again in balance and the temperature is reasonably constant once more at a higher level.

Does basic English include knowing the difference between "ambivalent" and "ambiguous", tim?

Your addition of an update featuring someone who doesn't believe in the conservation of mass is interesting. Your plan is to make yourself look knowledgable by comparison?

tim (sic) wrote:

Whoa! Slow down, tiger. Let's get up to speed on basic English first.

Very nice, tim. Notwithstanding your ignoring the semantic buffoonery pointed out in your own earlier comment, you've decided to shift the subject of the debate from science to grammar.

I'm not a climate expert, and I'm reading this as an interested observer, but I guess that tells me everything I need to know, doesn't it?

Indeed it does. Tim B might think about the position of the "interested observer" and recognize the certain disinterested curiosity and intellectual confidence it shows.

Instead, he seems to think he is an expert in everything.

"Tim Blair has less knowledge of science than Kyle Smith."

It's actually a nice example of ellipsis.

This debate reminds me of economic debates caused by confusions between stocks and flows.

Tim L. (and Boltzman) would state that the overall global stock of energy is conserved (following 2nd law of thermodynamics). But that there can be drastic changes in the local flows of energy over time.

This does not imply any specific prediction about the size of the universe's global energy stock for any given time period. Or a detailed prediction of its distribution. It does imply a (confirmed) prediction about recent changes in local celestial/terrestial energy flows.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the global stock of energy is conserved for all time. But it obviously allows changes in local energy flows over time.

We are absorbing more energy than we are radiating than we did before hydro-carbon industry became global. This is giving the terrestial region (ie earth and atmosphere) an increased "current account surplus" of energy. To preserve global equilibrium this surplus is matched by a an increased "current account deficit" for the celestial region ie rest of the universe.

Terrestial warming could be caused by changes in the local environment throug an increased amount of heat captured by our atmosphere. This is the position taken by the anthropogenic school of global warming (most scientists).

It could also be caused by changes in the regional environment ie the amount of heat radiated into our atmosphere. This is the position taken by the "helio-genic" school of global warming (most denialists).

It is not likely that the sun's radiating power has been increasing much over recent times. It seems logical to assume that the earth's absobing power has increased with the creation of a "carbon blanket". This is consistent with physical theory and our metereological knowledge.

Therefore Tim L's grasp of astral thermodynamics seems to be closer to the truth than Tim B's.

"Does basic English include knowing the difference between 'ambivalent' and 'ambiguous', tim?"

Well, you'll note that I didn't refer solely to you getting up to speed on basic English; "let's" is a contraction of "let us". Incidentally, the term I used was "non-ambivalent"; perfectly acceptable, although admittedly more clumsy than "unambiguous".

""I expect you'll be correcting the confused science in your post very soon."

Whoa! Slow down, tiger. Let's get up to speed on basic English first."

If you want to correct the basic English in your post before correcting its confused science then by all means do so.

Sorry, "non-ambivalent" is incorrect, unless you think that sentences have feelings.

Oh look, tim's made this mistake before. [Here](http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/media_watch_attacks_pt_iii/)

>the ambivalent meaning of "edit" (it can be taken to mean "cut" rather than "fine-tune") probably leaves his response on that matter somewhere below the level of, in McEvoy's words, "false information".

and [here](http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/your_choice_of_headline_goes_he…)

>The wording is ambivalent

How about I buy you a dictionary, tim?

"Your addition of an update featuring someone who doesn't believe in the conservation of mass is interesting. "

But conservation of mass has not been proved. It's Just A Theory.

"Incidentally, the term I used was "non-ambivalent"; perfectly acceptable, although admittedly more clumsy than "unambiguous"."

ambivalent (uncertain or unable to decide about what course to follow) "was ambivalent about having children"

ambiguous (having more than one possible meaning) "ambiguous words"; "frustrated by ambiguous instructions, the parents were unable to assemble the toy"

Of course, that's Just A Theory, never been proved.

According to the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia:

"a common error is to use ambivalent instead of ambiguous"

but we already knew tim was a font of common errors.

But conservation of mass has not been proved. It's Just A Theory.

I imagine that's a common line of argument among the Tim Blairs of the world. Of course any philosophy of science 101 will include Karl Popper's famous maxim that no scientific theory can ever be proved, only disproved or not.

(Just out of interest, does this apply to mathematics?)

(Just out of interest, does this apply to mathematics?)

Nope.

I seem to remember T.B. confusing "imply" and "infer" a while back, but I can't be bothered doing a search and in any case these usage errors (the least of his faults) only have significance in light of his habit of mocking others for typos, often when all else fails.

"no scientific theory can ever be proved, only disproved or not.
"(Just out of interest, does this apply to mathematics?)"

Note that Godel's theorem that there exist propositions which cannot be proved or disproved, must imply that they are true; as false propositions can pretty much always be disproved with a counterexample. I.e. "no herring is purple." "Oh yeah, here's one!" "all flopzits are garbazoid" "not this one!" etc.

Of course, that's Just A Theory, never been proved.

tim wrote:

Incidentally, the term I used was "non-ambivalent"; perfectly acceptable, although admittedly more clumsy than "unambiguous".

No, tim, "non-ambivalent" is not a "clumsy" alternative to "unambiguous". Ambivalence is descriptive of a thought process, whereas ambiguity is descriptive of a specification. An inanimate entity (like, say, a sentence) can't be "ambivalent" about something.

Of course, normally I wouldn't bother to argue the point, but you're the one who decided to be a grammar nazi in lieu of having anything to say about the subject at hand.

Correct, Millimeter. I was most definitely wrong.

To atone for this, I will correctly employ "ambiguous" or a variation thereof in an upcoming post.

Oops. I may have been wrong about being wrong. OED definition:

Having either or both of two contrary or parallel values, qualities or meanings.

1965 Camb. Rev. 20 Feb 273/1 A Ph. D. is a somewhat ambivalent acquisition: it is not always clear whether it is mentioned as a positive desideratum or a last resort.

Grace under pressure - consolation points to TimB.

But he loses those points for deflecting the debate away from the real issue, which is his ignorance of, among many things, the science of global warming.

"Oops. I may have been wrong about being wrong."

We already knew that since if you're wrong about everything then....

No correction yet from Tim L? I'm shocked!

"Who shook me awake? Why can't I get any ice for my drink? I heard someone at the pointy end of the boat shouting about seeing a whole lot of ice, so I know there's plenty. And why is the back end the boat underwater? Isn't this a silly time to be going out in those little rowboats? Where are the waiters and crew?? Someone fix this deck immediately, it's starting to tip rather steeply. WHY isn't anyone bringing me more ice for my drink?"

tim: Tim has nothing to correct here. There's no need to "correct" what's been correctly referred to by Anthony above as "a nice example of ellipsis", which is not a grammatical error. You could look it up.

On the evidence you've presented you'd really be being remarkably deluded if you were presuming - as you seem to be - to have the capability to correct Tim on matters more substantial than spelling and grammar that he usually posts about here. For what it's worth I think it'd be safe to say that "we" don't care that much about which tribe's colours you're wearing, and probably care only a little about who wears the pants in your gang. We are interested in whether you might or might not have a clue about what you're blathering on about ...
And it's only a venial sin to laugh a little at some people's pretensions, I'd suggest.

Ender, I visited TB's site 3-4 times (and didn't waste my time commenting). I won't be going back, there are infinitely more productive ways to spend my life. Besides which, it takes too long for the smell to wear off. The man and his brain dead, foaming-at-the-mouth goon squad aren't worth it. Life is too short.

Ender, I visited TB's site 3-4 times (and didn't waste my time commenting). I won't be going back, there are infinitely more productive ways to spend my life. Besides which, it takes too long for the smell to wear off. The man and his brain dead, foaming-at-the-mouth goon squad aren't worth it. Life is too short.

Ender, I visited TB's site 3-4 times (and didn't waste my time commenting). I won't be going back, there are infinitely more productive ways to spend my life. Besides which, it takes too long for the smell to wear off. The man and his brain dead, foaming-at-the-mouth goon squad aren't worth it. Life is too short.