Global Warming Links

Note to College Republicans, when the hook and bullets crowd agrees with Al Gore, it's time to give it up!

"when the hook and bullets crowd agrees with Al Gore"

Yeah, off the Internet, the huntin' n' fishin' types have always had a strong environmental presence, which must sit awfully strangely with their Bushiness. Heck, even Bush's fake ranch is an environmentally sound showcase. In Connecticut one of those pro-business Republicans with a strong pro-environment record is retiring from the State Legislature where he's been for 40 years. I presume before everything got so polarized he came to the reasonable conclusion that having the Love Canal in your backyard is bad for business.

How long will the New Zealand Climate Science people continue to emabrass themselves by hosting Ring's material?

"Yeah, off the Internet, the huntin' n' fishin' types have always had a strong environmental presence, which must sit awfully strangely with their Bushiness."

No argument from this angler, and if the GOP is indeed headed for disaster this November, losing that constituency may be one reason why.

Ian Gould: "How long will the New Zealand Climate Science people continue to emabrass themselves by hosting Ring's material?"

They have no shame. When I went over there I noticed a new link to an editorial by Tim Ball on their site. An absolute shocker, and elevates bare-faced lying to a fine art...

What are the chances that the YR's will take their ice show to a place where it could really be used, like Anbar?

In the absence of any scientific understanding, tim blair's only arguement is to repeat the claims of those he doesn't agree with, using a silly voice.

The sun is not "the rest of the universe." Gore's statement was stupid.

"The sun is not "the rest of the universe." Gore's statement was stupid."

And you didn't understand it.

Yeah I did. It was stupid.

CL, it wasn't stupid. It's explained in the Wikipedia link. Energy arrives at the earth from the sun, but gets radiated out in all directions i.e. to the rest of the universe.

I'm OK with the meta-environmental concept Tim but wouldn't you agree "the rest of the universe" was a uselessly hyperbolic angle for Gore to take on the issue? It makes him sound loopy and sets back any possibility of consensus - and Gore has taken that route many times.

CL, its not hyperbolic, it's perfectly accurate. Explaining the science leaves you open to likes of Blair ripping statements out of context, but that doesn't mean you should avoid explaining the science.

It's only hyperbolic to the same degree that the most common statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - "The entropy of the universe increases in any spontaneous process" - is hyperbolic. In each case, "universe" in practice means the system together with its surroundings.

So Gore's using accuracy for dramatic effect hey? The bastard!

May I ask what approximate area of the universe is occupied by the earth and the sun, about which Lambert's compelling Wikipedia link is primarily concerned? Because I'm deeply concerned about "the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe."

I guess it's something like 70 per cent or so. Maybe more!

Sigh. Wikipedia says:

>Most of Earth's energy which affects weather comes from the Sun. The planet and its atmosphere absorb and reflect some of the energy, with that which is absorbed tending to produce warming. An amount of heat is radiated back to space, tending to cool the planet. The balance between absorbed and radiated energy determines the average temperature.

Energy arrives at Earth from the sun and is radiated out to the rest of the universe. Do you get it now?

Tim L., maybe you ought to describe it in monosyllables, using 'liberal green nazi energy' and 'brave conservative energy' in order to make your point.

Best,

D

Sigh. Again, I ask: what approximate area of the universe is occupied by the earth and the sun?

I know! Let's [use a cartoon](http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/05/global_warming_or_none_li…).

Dear tim, the Earth radiates energy to the rest of the universe, not just to the sun. (And don't you know the difference between area and volume?)

Sun shine to all space (the universe).

Earth in way of sun shine. So Earth get some sun.

Earth not keep all some sun. Earth say to some sun: "go away".

Some sun go away. Sometime far away. Some sun not stay near Earth. That is: some sun not stay in, say, one place near Earth. Some sun escape to all place in universe.

Me hope this help tim.

Best,

D

" area of the universe"

Ah, there's the problem. The rest of us live in three-dimensional space.

Okie dokie. Anyone able to calculate the volume of the galaxy occupied by the earth and sun? I'd also like the figure for the precise amount of sun-derived energy reaching the most extreme edges of the galaxy after bouncing off Tim Lambert's head.

(By the way, this line -- "the Earth radiates energy to the rest of the universe" -- sounds like something Galileo opposed a few centuries back.)

Tim (Blair): I can't believe what I am reading here. Three words, "I was wrong" would go a long way toward not making yourself look sillier and sillier. Your motto seems to be, "If your in a hole, keep digging!"

Well .... to his credit Tim Blair is at least keeping it civil and even a little humorous while saying silly things and demonstrating his near universal ignorance of science. It makes it a pleasure to hear from him compared to the unholy noise of the posters he suffers (encourages?) at his own site!

And to his credit, Tim L. hasn't stolen anything from me lately. Returning to the subject, can anyone please provide past and current energy levels of a) the earth, and b) the rest of the universe?

Once armed with such information we may finally discover the accuracy of Gore's "balance of energy" claim. Get cracking with those calculators, kids!

I haven't stolen anything from you, tim. Are you afraid of being photographed because you think the camera will steal your soul?

Didn't you understand the wikipedia page I linked to? It tells you that the radiative forcing from increased CO2 is about +1.5 Watts per square metre. Or, in other words, we have altered the balance of energy between earth and the rest of the universe by 1.5 W/m2.

Did you look at the cartoon I linked?

"Okie dokie. Anyone able to calculate the volume of the galaxy occupied by the earth and sun? I'd also like the figure for the precise amount of sun-derived energy reaching the most extreme edges of the galaxy after bouncing off Tim Lambert's head."

Well, as long as we're correcting your posts; since the volume of the earth and sun has nothing to do with the radiation of energy from the earth, I assume that you are asking something to do with the fact that the energy radiated from the earth does, in fact get sinked into, if not infinite space, at least the volume bounded by the speed of light times elapsed time. You obviously disagree strongly, so it would be most useful if you would post some indication of what you feel the correct volume of the universe which absorbs Earth's radiated energy might be, in order that we be properly educated.

"Are you afraid of being photographed because you think the camera will steal your soul?"

How insensitive! I assume you've complained to the ABC over its non-scientific warnings that certain programs feature images of dead Aborigines.

"We have altered the balance of energy between earth and the rest of the universe by 1.5 W/m2."

Hmm. Is the entire rest of the universe static?

since the volume of the earth and sun has nothing to do with the radiation of energy from the earth

I hope that you don't design heat sinks for a living.

Heh... this is what happens when people take scientific hypothesis as religion, and there are few more sad things than a religious zealot who refuses to admit their faith.

No, tim, the rest of the universe is not static. If you are interested in the details of radiative forcing, [Chapter 6](http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/212.htm) has more details and references.

Tim Lambert, re your comment:
"Dear tim, the Earth radiates energy to the rest of the universe, not just to the sun. "

... could you provide a breakdown of the amount of energy RE-radiated from the earth and that energy originating within the earth (ie that which warms the earth's interior, which is mainly by radio-active decay)?

If my addled memory serves me correctly, the thermal budget of the earth (incl atmosphere) is over-whelmingly dominated by the latter.

And how would you say the thermal budget of the earth changed over time? Although the earth's gross volume is fairly static (give or take meteorites and escaping dust & gas etc) it is surely cooling ("Global cooling") as the various radiometric isotopes decay to their stable isotopes. (This is not a faciteous query - would be interested to know your thoughts.)

Heh... this is what happens when people take scientific hypothesis as religion

Maybe ten people on the planet do.

This 'religion' thing is merely a FUD phrase to marginalize an entire group, painting everyone with a broad brush.

IOW, this 'scientific hypothesis as religion' idea is cr*p. Sorry to break it to you, but someone has to.

[plz ignore if post is parody - I might be parody challenged today]

Best,

D

Drifter: I'm afraid that your memory is not serving you well. Incoming solar is [342 W/m2](http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html), while the heat from the interior of the earth is [0.075 W/m2](http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.h…). So it doesn't dominate, solar energy is 5000 times as much.

Oh goody. Lambert's giving us more comic relief.

Tim Blair, my god man, isn't it obvious? Tim Lambert is saying the universe is in danger of global warming. Er, make that global cooling. No, um, OK, how about universal warming? Er, cooling. No, that doesn't work either. All right, universal climate changing.

Can we please consider the Rigellians for a change?

(Personally, I blame Chimpler Bushitler for this).

could you provide a breakdown of the amount of energy RE-radiated from the earth and that energy originating within the earth (ie that which warms the earth's interior, which is mainly by radio-active decay)?

This, BTW, is how the quibblers try to hijack an argument to sow FUD.

Our time is wasted chasing down such trivialities. And an entire industry has arisen based on the position that because working scientists refuse to be taken in by chasing down trivialities, this means they are hiding something in a big green doomsaying eco-conspiracy; this position is cr*p.

Best,

D

My favorite part of the Wikipedia link was this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variability

You see, the IPCC can extrapolate, from 20 years data, back to 1750 the intensity of solar radiation. Wow!

You see, if differences in intensity of the Sun were not visible or apparent to the naked eye, even if those variations occured over decades, solar radiation must have been constant over the recent centuries.

Hmmm, since it has been warming ever since about 1750, and was cooling prior to that, well, exactly what conclusions are supported by the twenty year satelite data? It would be much more informative if we had the data, not only of the warming since the '60s, but the cooling that went on from the '30s 'till then. Better yet, if we had the data from the warming that went from the start of the century to the thirties.

To dismiss solar variability as insignificant based on, at best, a partial sample is just not supportable. But that is what Wikipedia offers.

Having read one wikipedia article after never having heard of "radiative forcing" even once in your whole lives, you lot are suddenly experts!

I'll give you a free tip. Environmentalism's most important deal-breaker amongst normal people (ie, those not obsessed with their political leanings one way or the other) is that anyone can see that the earth is not getting noticeably hotter or that sea levels have risen. All this "but it will happen soon, you'll see!" is BS we've heard a million times before.

All this yelling makes you seem like a homeless nut having an argument with himself. None of you are even remotely qualified to start making scientific cases one way or the other. The only people who will see an Al Gore movie about the environment are Al Gore fans who agree with him about the environment.

Who cares? Not me. I'm just annoyed with your pseudo-scientific posturing. Give it up.

Tim Lambert:

Thanks, but my query was on energy RE-radiated (not incoming solar) Vs that internally generated. No probs if you're not aware.

Also querying your thoughts on the change in the earth's thermal budget over time - again, no probs if you're not on top of that (neither am I! except to observe that the earth as a whole must be cooling over geological time; and no, this is not a smart-alec jab at "global warming / climate change" of the past few decades).

Oh, and "D" who contributed: "This, BTW, is how the quibblers try to hijack an argument to sow FUD. Our time is wasted chasing down such trivialities." ...sorry you think that way - I thought my comments/queries were pretty exactly on the topic. And I actually directed my comment to Tim Lambert, not you; he kindly replied (although not to my actual query), so I think if he thought I was wasting his time he would have said so or ignored me.

What does FUD mean, anyway?

Drifter: Almost all of the incoming 342 W/m2 is reradiated. A small amount isn't -- that is what is warming up the Earth. The interior of the Earth is slowly cooling but the amount of heat coming from the interior of the Earth is so small, this has no noticable effect on the surface.

And I actually directed my comment to Tim Lambert, not you; he kindly replied ...

Had I been replying directly to you I would have used your name.

Rather, I was pointing out for the benefit of those who may still be with us that your phrase is how the quibblers and the "two" commenters immediately above "you" operate, in case there was any doubt anywhere (unlikely, but I like to use clear convenient examples sometimes to reinforce a point).

----------

You see, the IPCC can extrapolate, from 20 years data, back to 1750 the intensity of solar radiation.

To be...um...uncharacteristically blunt, you are doing yourself no favors with completely wrong statements like this. See, you don't want to argue from a position of ignorance.

Sorry. I'm a little chippy today.

Best,

D

Thanks, cheers.

Can't agree that the amount of heat coming from the earth's interior has no noticable effect on the surface. Thinking about volcanoes (incl mid ocean ridges) in particular (much heat+much CO2+ much H2O). Drawing a longer bow, the movement of heat through the earth's mantle & crust responsible for earthquakes - quite a noticable effect for some (OK D, I am straying now...)

The in-coming solar radiation accumulation I think is "skin deep" for the earth - ie the atmosphere over the globe. Everything else that is 'warm' in and on the actual earth is because of the internally generated heat PLUS the left-over heat from the earth's formation as well (I omitted that before).

So the earth's thermal budget is something like:

Incoming [solar + impactites + solar friction] - outgoing [radiated residual heat of formation + radiated radioactive decay + reflected + debris shed from earth] = K

K must be positive. What is delta K/Time?

Although this is straying now... but its interesting to consider, isn't it? Climatologists unfortunately ignore the earth as an inherently warm (but cooling) object.

Did you miss my ironical tone? Or do you agree with Wikipedia that the IPCC can extrapolate data back to 1750?

I guess that my quibble was with the hyperlink to the solarvariability page:

"minor contributions from solar variability and other factors"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPCC_Radiative_Forcings.gif

I don't think the link, which I cited above actually supports the claim quoted above. For instance it containst the statement: "The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional" and many graphs which indicate that solar activity has been increasing over the past century.

This fits with indications of warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto.

The problem with bringing solar variability into the equations is that it cannot be blamed on the great Satan, nor can leftist solutions, hearding us into cities and taking away our cars, etc, be argued to apply.

Hmmmm.

Considering that a single quasar radiates 1,000 times more energy than the sun, why would the rest of the universe give a rat's a** about any energy radiated from the Earth? Which at best is a mere reflection of some portion of the sun's energy anyways?

There are several hundred *billion* yellow stars in the universe. Are you liberals trying to suggest that some alien living 45,000 lightyears away is going to look at a temperature gauge and complain about how it's getting hotter because of the energy radiating from the Earth is impacting his planet's environment?

And if that is the case then how can you possibly postulate that the Earth's gradual warming is due to humanity's industrialisation and *not* because the reflected energy radiating from some alien planet is impacting our environment?

Good lord you people are insane.

Oh yeah, and the link also contains the following comment as well:

"The variation[in solar output] is small (of the order of 1 W/m² or 0.1% of the total". So what does that make 1.5 W/m²? .15% of the total?

I just don't think the argument is very convincing.

Ed stole my thunder regarding the utter silliness of the "altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe" statement.

Considering the vastness of the universe, the billions of stars and other celestial bodies all radiating energy, and the incredibly minute amount of energy re-radiated by the earth, there is no conceivable way this could have any impact at all.

That is why the statement is so humorous to many people.

It is the kind of rhetorical excess that makes global warming nazis so easy to pick on. Or a simpleminded parrotting of something he read with no thought as to how it would sound. Coming on top of the Poison Ivy and Ragweed salvos from the green left, it is just laughable.

It reminds me of when Gore made himself up to look like Reagan in one of the debates. No sense of how he comes off to any but his most ardent fans. There he goes again.

Who is this teenaged boy sitting in his mommy's basement spamming comments? Go study for your GED, lad.

Best,

D

I cannot imagine any other desert being more deserty than Death Valley, except that huge penisula of Big Nothing in the Middle East, that big sandpit there, whatever it's called. -- Tim Blair.

Mass and volume are related, so I'll demonstrate Tim Blair's point using mass. From Wikipedia:

"The Sun ... is a main sequence G2 star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass. Its two largest orbiting bodies, Jupiter and Saturn, account for more than 90% of the remainder; the Oort Cloud might hold a substantial percentage, but as yet its existence is unconfirmed."

All the planets in the Solar System contain 0.14% of the total mass present. If the two largests planets contain 90% of that, the remaining 7 planets then contain ((1.0 - 0.9) * 0.0014) * 100 = 0.014% of the total mass of the Solar System.

The remaining 7 planets are NOT the same size, but for demonstration purposes, I'll use the average percent of mass for Earth, or .014/7 = .002% of the total mass in the Solar System.

There, the Sun is around 99.86/.002 = 49,930 times more massive than the Earth. Call it 50,000 times, eh?

Now, the Sun has a surface temperature of 5780 K (5507 C, or 9944 F). As the Sun is 50,000 times more massive, the Earth would have to be ENORMOUSLY hotter to, ummmmm, "out radiate" the Sun, especially given the loss of energy over distance. Assuming a linear relationship between mass and temperature (which I doubt that there is, but just for demonstration purposes), then the Earth would have to a surface temperature of at least 50,000 * 5507 = 275,350 C in order to impact the rest of the Universe at least as much as the Sun does. If, in fact, the Universe actually cares about that.

At that point, the Earth would be long past a plasma cloud.

Summary: The relative masses of the Sun and the Earth alone makes Tim Lambert's claim that "Energy arrives at the earth from the sun, but gets radiated out in all directions i.e. to the rest of the universe" a silly statement that merely highlights his ignorance of science.

To simplify JeffS' point, Today I spit into the Atlantic Ocean. TECHNICALLY, I altered the balance of water in the ocean, adding a few mls of frothy liquid. But in the grand scheme of things, it made absolutely no difference.

And that example is a gross understatement...

TomB, you might have a bigger impact if you urinated into the Great Lakes.

Dano,
At a loss for a comeback then? Happens to a lot of people who are so sure about what they know about everything that they have dropped the habit of thinking.

Wow, I had no idea that the geothermal heat flux was so important, all those liberal climatologists and their talk of solar constants and energy balance, they have blinded me with their vast conspiracy to hide the truth: the Earth is warmed from Hades.

This is what happens to a thread when a group of toddlers gets hold of a keyboard.

"CL, it wasn't stupid. It's explained in the Wikipedia link. Energy arrives at the earth from the sun, but gets radiated out in all directions i.e. to the rest of the universe."

OK, Tim, listen close -

We understand the concept. The problem is this - Al Gore said, "We are ... altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe." Now, he says this as if we should be concerned, yes? As if it is a problem, yes?

Now, the universe is very, very big. And our planet is very, very small. In fact, I dare say that an "altered energy balance" caused by climate change would not have a deleterious effect on even the moon.

Now do you see why Al Gore's comment, and your defense of it, are absurd? It's like me saying, "We as a nation need to lose weight, because we are altering the balance of gravity between each other." It's true, but it's also utter nonsense. Which is a summary of globalwarmacoolichanging in general - discrete scientific facts used to spout meaningless nonsense.

"TomB, you might have a bigger impact if you urinated into the Great Lakes."

Been there, done that.

Ever hear of Niagara Falls?

"Ever hear of Niagara Falls?"

NIAGARA FALLS!

Slowly I turned, step by step...

You have to admit, reading the hilarious comments left by Lambert's detractors does wonders for one's self-respect.

In fact, it may even have "altered the balance of persuasiveness between Lambert and the rest of the Universe."

JP,
Nobody is really questioning the work of climatologists as a whole. It is press reporting of the results that is questionable. Also, over-reliance on the UN and its IPCC, as a climate authority.

And the whole solar constant thing? Solar output is no longer believed to be constant.

"The amount of solar radiation received at the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere was once assumed to not change much (see solar constant) from an average value of 1366 W/m².[1] The variations in total solar output are so slight (as a percentage of total output) that they remained at or below the threshold of detectability until the satellite era, although the small fraction in ultra-violet wavelengths varies by a few percent. Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last two 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%[2][3] or about 1.3 W/m² peak-to-trough of the 11 year sunspot cycle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variability

I bolded the "are so slight" because it refers to a forcing of 1.3 W/m², whereas the effect that you guys are claiming portends the end of Mankind, is 1.5 W/m².

But I guess that this doesn't matter because you called us toddlers and therefore won the debate..

If you guys really understood this stuff, you would have answers for all of these objections. It is pretty clear that you don't, since your favorite technique of argument seems to consist of name-calling.

We understand the concept. The problem is this - Al Gore said, "We are ... altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe." Now, he says this as if we should be concerned, yes? As if it is a problem, yes?

If you wander into a blizzard, the balance of energy between the inside of your body and the world outside is upset. You lose heat and die. This is a problem for you, not the World. Mentioning the world in the same sentence does not imply that the world is in trouble somehow. Okay?

So, jade, you're saying that if I described a person's death by freezing as "the balance of energy between his body and the rest of the world was altered", I would not sound like an idiot?

Damn you Dave, you beat me to it.

Although it would sound extremely ominous.

Earlier today I altered the balance of gravity between myself and the planet.

I did one hour on a stationary bike.

I'm doomed. I'd better eat a donut.

Dave, save the world......eat a banana split! With real chocolate sauce.

TomB, I hope you stay away from the Pacific Ocean after a beer party.....

It's probabaly worthwhile to point out exactly how dearly Al Gore holds the truth when it comes to global warming:

Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

IOW, it's OK to lie about GW in order to get people to "listen".

Nice, that.

HOT FUDGE, Jeff, HOT FUDGE!

Have I not made my thoughts about Hershey's quite clear?

TomB, it doesn't sound like he's advocating lying. He just wants to omit or marginalize contrary evidence and analysis. Y'know, like Quiggen's "The debate is over" declaration.

TomB: That little chestnut has already been debunked. The clear meaning of Gore's words is that you have to spend more time in the U.S. merely describing the facts of global warming...i.e., presenting the problem...rather than discussing the solutions (because Americans are still much more ignorant on this than in other parts of the world [at least the well-educated, industrialized world]). So, in other words, "over-representation" modifies "factual presentations". It does not modify "dangers", as is pretty obvious from the construction of the sentence and the context around it. [And, by the way, a fellow American who is currently living in the Netherlands was making just this point to me today...i.e., that there the discussion has moved on to what can be done about it rather than still arguing about whether AGW is happening.]

It is certainly amazing how the average IQ on this blog appeared to have dropped by a factor of 2 in less than 24 hours. I guess that is what [b]tim blair[/b] and his minions of "dittoheads" can do.

"I guess that is what [b]tim blair[/b] and his minions of "dittoheads" can do."

Oh, yeah, we're just one big hive mind over there. Never a disagreement.

You know what the real "Blair effect" on a leftist blog is? It generally ups the traffic by a factor of ten.

Hot fudge, right, Dave. Sorry!

I mean, if us Americans are still ignerrant about global warming (i.e., we question the validity of the facts and logic behind the arguments of the enviro-cultists, and ask for alternatives beyond cutting ourselves off at the economic knees), I suppose we can mistake Hershey's chocolate syrup for hot fudge. Or confuse the mass of the sun with the mass of the Earth. Who are we to argue with non-dittoheads, after all?

Along that line of thought....doesn't using hot fudge just add to the energy radiating from the Earth? Do banana splits disrupt the energy balance of the universe? Would not using chocolate syrup (at room temperature) be a noble enough sacrifice to save humanity from our self-inflicted and impending doom? Would this heroic deed redeem America in the eyes of the world, and raise our IQ by at least a factor of two?

Discuss.

So, in other words, "over-representation" modifies "factual presentations". It does not modify "dangers", as is pretty obvious from the construction of the sentence and the context around it.

Brilliant "debunking", Joel.

How could "over-representation" possibly modify the word "dangers", when it doesn't even appear in the sentence, or the paragraph, for that matter?

First of all, you cannot "debunk" a statement by giving an alternate opinion of what you think it means. You have merely given your opinion, FWIW.

Second, it must be nice when you can make up words in order to "debunk" stuff.

Dropping IQ indeed.

moptop said: "I bolded the 'are so slight' because it refers to a forcing of 1.3 W/m², whereas the effect that you guys are claiming portends the end of Mankind, is 1.5 W/m²."

This is a common and understandable confusion that I once made too but there was a RealClimate post that explained that there is a difference between those numbers quoted for solar radiation and the 1.5 W/m2 due to greenhouse gases. As I recall, the difference is basically that the solar one should be divided by a factor of 4...so the 1.3 W/m2 becomes ~0.3 W/m2.

I think the reason for this is that the solar output is measured in terms of how much solar radiation would fall on a square meter of surface on an imaginary sphere around the sun at the radius of the earth. From that point of view, the earth presents itself as having a projected area of pi.r^2. However, the number quoted for the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation budget for greenhouse gases is a number over the whole 4.pi.r^2 surface area of the earth (or, the top of the atmosphere around the earth, which is only a little different). This is where the factor of 4 comes from. [Sorry for my ignorance in how to hypertext format this correctly but hopefully you can decode the equations as I have written them.]

Ok, let's give this one to Tim Blair. It was a stupid comment by Tim Lambert, but it was a lot of fun.

heh ... you have to laugh haven't you? No point getting all tragic about it because it's not like things were any better even in biblical times, "empty vessels making the most sound" and all.

Anyway please don't blame Tim (or Dano, or me) for the happy sounds of the kids playing, gentle readers. They are our hope for the future after all, and every now and then they surely deserve to escape the playpen at Timmy B's (if only to poke out their tongues and light up a few farts over here :)

"(if only to poke out their tongues and light up a few farts over here :)"

Hey, if we don't light them the methane will accumulate and totally mess up the energy balance of the universe.

TomB: Yes, how silly of me. I guess my whole post is nonsense because I accidently typed "dangers" instead of "dangerous".

I hear they are still accepting memberships in "Nitpickers Anonymous".

You gnats understand the meaning of the word between?

moptop: As a followup on my previous post, here is a Wikipedia page that explains what I was trying to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

In particular, here is the relevant passage:

"The total flux of power entering the Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 174 petawatts. This consists of:
* solar radiation (99.978%, or nearly 174 petawatts; or about 340 W m-2)
o This is equal to the product of the solar constant, about 1366 watts per square metre, and the area of the Earth's disc as seen from the Sun, about 1.28 Ã 10^14 square metres, averaged over the Earth's surface, which is four times larger."

So, what we are talking about are then variations from the peak-to-trough in the solar cycle of about 0.3 W/m^2. Furthermore, I believe the evidence is that any long-term (i.e., order of decades to centuries) trend in the sun's output is even less than these 11-year cyclical variations. This is why the forcing due to solar variations are considered small compared to that produced by the anthropogenic buildup of greenhouse gases.

Of course, there is also lots of independent evidence that most of the recent warming is due to greenhouse gases and not solar variations. One example is the fact that the stratosphere has actually been cooling...something that is predicted if the warming is due to greenhouse gases (the analogy being that if I put a heavier blanket on me on night, the temperature on the outside of the blanket will actually be cooler than with a lighter blanket because less of my body heat will get out of the blanket). By contrast, if the heating were due to increases in solar output, the stratosphere should warm too.

The 1.5 W/m^2 refers to the current imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation. When the Earth is in equilibrium the amounts of incoming and outgoing radiation match. When the system is absorbing more energy then it is emitting the Earth surface, atmosphere and ocean warm. Current thinking is that most of the 1.5 W/m2 is going into heating the oceans (and there is quite a bit of data which supports this).

Having worked on a cattle ranch as a young lad, which propelled me into fighting for an office job, I am familar with the fact the much of the Earth's methane emissions are provided by our cloven-hoofed friends before they become strip steaks.

However, I do believe this site is attempting to match the methane output of a "few good Texas feedlots". That is A LOT of brain farting.

Drifter needs a clue. The amount of heat from volcanos is very small compared to the solar input. For one thing, the sun heats the entire surface of the earth and volcanoes and vents are cover only a small area. If you want a quick way of thinking about this, why is it colder in the winter. Volcanos , as far as I know, don't go to Fiji for January.

I spend a significant part of my life underground and can't help but notice that as I drive deeper down our mine's decline the ambient temperature rises very quickly.

We are currently mining at 1500 metres and the rock surface is around 46 C, whilst the surface temperature of the ground this morning was -4 C.

In fact 10 metres down the decline the rock surface was 20 C.

So if the core temperature is so insignificant, how come the rock gets so warm after travelling only a tiny fraction of the distance to the mantle?

If the planet wasn't nicely snuggly because of the `hottie' at the centre, Earth would be a ball of ice!

>When the system is absorbing more energy then it is emitting the Earth surface, atmosphere and ocean warm.

When I was taking physics, a "system" was by definition isolated -- a system cannot "absorb" or "emit" energy.

The figure of 1.5 watts per square meter I understand. What I don't get is this: 1.5 watts per square meter per what? Per universe? I think that is what Gore and Lambert are saying, and why it is so trivial.

Nice job jobbed here, guys.

King Gold notes that it gets warmer as he goes down into a deep mine, and inquires whether this shows that the interior generation of heat contributes to the surface temperature.

First, the actual flow of energy to the surface has been measured and it is low compared to solar heating. Second, while the core is very hot, the FLOW of heat to the surface is low because, well, rock is a damn poor heat conductor. Third, about 2/3 of the surface of the earth is covered by deep water and the temperature profile of the oceans declines with increasing depth http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/temp.html&edu=high

If core heating were contributing significantly to the energy balance of the surface, then the temperature of the oceans would warm as one approached the bottom. It does not. On the other hand, one can clearly see that the oceans are heated from the top (e.g. the sun).

Finally, around here, temperature decreases in the first few meters as you go down into the earth. That does not fit with the idea that a significant amount of surface heating comes from the thermal energy of the core.

King Aureous, you're seeing two somewhat differing effects as you drive down the mine shaft. For the first few meters you're putting insulating earth between you and the surface weather; the temperature of the earth a few meters down is relatively constant year round because of that insulation, and the 20C that you observe is likely to be close to the mean annual temperature at your location (ie about midway between the winter and summer average temps, yes?)

Go deeper still and you do begin to feel heat from the core, but all of Eli's comments just above are on the money and instructive!

I believe that I have stumbled onto some potential answers to the causes of AGW.

I think that the primary cause is due to the 'moral high ground', pro-AGW crowd thinking the sun shines out of their collective arses. Since the middle of the 70s these people have been coming out of their shells somewhat and mooning people a bit more regularly thus increasing the amount of solar energy we're exposed to. Please do your bit for the environment and keep your pants on. Ta.

It's also extremely likely that the pro-AGWers ears are burning because we're all talking about them. This increase in energy output must surely have a measurable effect - perhaps as part of the Urban Heat Island Effect? If we could harness all of that energy then we'd be in business.

Finally, I believe that the melting of the polar ice caps on Mars is caused by the heat being reflected off of Tim Lambert's head. Being equally follicly challenged, I am doing my environmental bit by wearing a cap when I go outside.

Joel Shore,

Thank you for the serious answer. I have posted a reply on Blair's site. If you wish to continue the discussion there, I will be happy to keep an open mind on the matter. I am sure you will have a better chance of reaching people who don't already agree with you there.

The rest of you Wikipedia lovers. Visit this chart in their discussion on Solar Variablity and see if you can spot the outright fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-number.png

Some of the visitors here from Blairsville seem to believe that Global Warming means that the Earth is radiating more energy. This is wrong. The Earth is radiating less energy than it was and since incoming energy hasn't changed much this is what is warming the earth: the imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy. Which is what Gore said.

Joel, to get from TSI to radiative forcing you have to multiply by the Earth's albedo as well as allow for the geometry. Footnote 2 from [TAR 6.11](http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm#6111):

>Geometric factors affect the conversion from change in TSI to radiative forcing. It is necessary to divide by a factor of 4, representing the ratio of the area of the Earth's disc projected towards the Sun to the total surface area of the Earth, and to multiply by a factor of 0.69, to take account of the Earth's albedo of 31%. Thus a variation of 0.5 Wm-2 in TSI represents a variation in global average instantaneous (i.e. neglecting stratospheric adjustment) radiative forcing of about 0.09 Wm-2.

moptop: it is silly for you to assert fraud when you see a flawed graph. I've left a message to the creator of the graph, asking him to fix it up.

'"since the volume of the earth and sun has nothing to do with the radiation of energy from the earth"
'I hope that you don't design heat sinks for a living.'
No, but I've winged it on several occasions. If the equation contains a volume term instead of a surface area term, then I can get rid of those annoyingly bulky fins on all the heatsinks in my PC and amplifiers and just melt them down into nice compact spheres? You try it first.
(Hint for advanced students; note that all the measurements are per square meter, never per cubic meter; e.g. 1.5 W/m2.)

"... could you provide a breakdown of the amount of energy RE-radiated from the earth and that energy originating within the earth (ie that which warms the earth's interior, which is mainly by radio-active decay)?
"If my addled memory serves me correctly, the thermal budget of the earth (incl atmosphere) is over-whelmingly dominated by the latter."

If that were the case, wouldn't the ground be hotter than the sunshine?

"Who cares? Not me. I'm just annoyed with your pseudo-scientific posturing."

Well, there's a good indicator of scientific veracity. Einstein's hair bugs me. So I'm going with the straight Newton ticket.

"Climatologists unfortunately ignore the earth as an inherently warm (but cooling) object."

Is there some reason to think that the earth's insulation is breaking down? Otherwise, why would the internal core temperature suddenly start warming up the surface more after 3 billion years?

"Considering the vastness of the universe, the billions of stars and other celestial bodies all radiating energy, and the incredibly minute amount of energy re-radiated by the earth, there is no conceivable way this could have any impact at all."

?? Have you guys written off the earth now and are trying to argue that there is no Anthropogenic Universal Warming? ??? At last, something we can agree on.

"Summary: The relative masses of the Sun and the Earth alone makes Tim Lambert's claim that "Energy arrives at the earth from the sun, but gets radiated out in all directions i.e. to the rest of the universe" a silly statement that merely highlights his ignorance of science. "

Isn't there ANYBODY on the What-AGW? side who EVER took a physics class?

"We understand the concept. The problem is this - Al Gore said, "We are ... altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe." Now, he says this as if we should be concerned, yes? As if it is a problem, yes?
"Now, the universe is very, very big. And our planet is very, very small. In fact, I dare say that an "altered energy balance" caused by climate change would not have a deleterious effect on even the moon.
"Now do you see why Al Gore's comment, and your defense of it, are absurd?"

You really are! You guys really are trying to make this into a debate about Universal Warming. Geezus Christ. And you guys have the nerve to complain about the debating style of those who happen to know what they're talking about?

"So, jade, you're saying that if I described a person's death by freezing as "the balance of energy between his body and the rest of the world was altered", I would not sound like an idiot? "

Dude, that ship has long since sailed.

'"I guess that is what [b]tim blair[/b] and his minions of "dittoheads" can do."
'Oh, yeah, we're just one big hive mind over there. Never a disagreement. '

Oh, we never thought that. "There is no warming" "There is warming but it's not manmade" "It's the sun" "It's the earth's core". "It's not significant" "It's too expensive to fight"

The one position you guys never seem to take is: Burning carbon produces CO2. We are burning more carbon. We are producing more CO2. The atmosphere has more CO2. CO2 prevents the earth from radiating heat. The earth is getting warmer.

What exactly is it about this all that seems so improbable? Conversely, what part of this chain do you find faulty? Are we not producing CO2? Is the CO2 level not rising? Are you guys still sticking with the "no temp change" idea? Is CO2 no longer absorbing IR? Do you have anything other than handwaving science?

"I spend a significant part of my life underground and can't help but notice that as I drive deeper down our mine's decline the ambient temperature rises very quickly."

Funny, I would suggest that as evidence that the inner heat of the planet is NOT reaching the surface at any great rate. And I still do not see anyone explaining why all of a sudden it started to leak out in 1980. Oil drilling?

"When I was taking physics, a "system" was by definition isolated -- a system cannot "absorb" or "emit" energy. "

Is it too late to get a refund on your tuition? At very least, you should attempt to warn incoming students.

I am breathing, thereby altering the balance of Oxygen and CO2 between my body and the rest of the planet. For the love of God, someone please shoot me before the oceans boil away.

"I understand. What I don't get is this: 1.5 watts per square meter per what? "

Times Earth's surface area.

Radiation theory: an object radiates a certain amount of energy. Conservation of energy tells us that if we put the object in a sphere and capture all the energy, it has to be the same total whether the sphere is right over the object's surface, or a billion light years away.

Surface area of the sphere around the object is proportional to radius squared. If the total energy is constant, and the surface area of the sphere is increasing by radius squared, therefore the energy per unit area must decrease by radius squared. I.e., the inverse square law.

Everybody should be more or less in agreement with this from everyday life. Everybody knows you can stand far away from something too hot to stand near. If you want to get hotter you get closer, if you want to get cooler you back away. This just gives you the precise formula.

Now: Obviously, fraction of sun's radiated energy absorbed by earth = fraction of total surface area of the sphere with radius equal to earth's orbit, which is taken up by the surface area of the earth facing the sun. (times corrections for nonideal black box behavior; albedo, etc.). If the earth's surface area is 1% of the total surface area of the sphere around the sun at that point, it will capture 1% of the total energy. If it were 50% it would capture 50% of the sun's energy. If it were 100% it would capture 100% of the sun's energy. Should be obvious. For extra interest, see Dyson Sphere.

"Hmm. Is the entire rest of the universe static?"

Well, the background radiation of the universe is 2.7 degrees Kelvin; you could add that to the Earth's energy balance if you want to be precise but it won't make much of a difference.

All kidding aside, I think this has been very instructive in terms of Deliberate Failure to Understand. Not on everybody's part with everything, of course; black body radiation theory is not something we are born with. But the general theme of taking Gore's reference to the energy balance between the earth and the rest of the universe to mean that he has somehow, all of a sudden, with no previous warning, become concerned over the fate of the rest of the universe and not the earth; well the generous position is to postulate that it's playing stupid, rather than really being that stupid. Of course, any frequent Usenet reader will recognize what has become a popular form of "argument" among the wilfully ignorant right; deliberate stupidity. The same kind of crap that won Bush the election, in no small part. Projected federal income less than projected federal expenditures? "Fuzzy math".

I don't know at what point that became accepted as a viable form of argument, but homie don't play that game.

>I don't know at what point that became accepted as a viable form of argument, but homie don't play that game.

Actually, that's all you do. Or do you think that

>Is it too late to get a refund on your tuition? At very least, you should attempt to warn incoming students.

redefines the term "system?"

If a system was defined as isolated, those folks who make a living engineering suspension systems for cars are fooling a lot of people.

"Isn't there ANYBODY on the What-AGW? side who EVER took a physics class?"

As I was reading this thread I came to the conclusion that a copy of the thread should be sent to every School board, city. State and Federal (if the Feds have any input into education) in the US. This would show the terrible state of science education in the US. Never have I see such a litany of junk science, it even outdoes Steve Milloy's junk science site.

Ian Forrester

"As I was reading this thread I came to the conclusion that a copy of the thread should be sent to every School board, city. State and Federal (if the Feds have any input into education) in the US. This would show the terrible state of science education in the US."

You mean the people who mandate equal time for creationism and or ID? I fear I'm beginning to understand why previous eras of rationalism cyclically fell back into dark ages.

Some people (I won't call them scientists) on this thread are making a big deal out of the difference between the 1.5 watts/sq cm and 1.3 watts per sq cm. it is hardly surprising that those posters are so confused since their knowledge of physics is essentially zero. Not all solar radiation is able to heat the atmosphere, in fact most of the radiation coming into the earth is in the UV/visible range and as it comes through the atmosphere, very little is intercepted (except for a small portion of certain UV wavelengths which is filtered by the ozone layer. If the earth surface was a perfect mirror this radiation would be reflected back out to space (in all directions, not just back at the sun) and earth would be a very cold place.

However, the surface is not a perfect mirror and absorbs a lot of the radiation and re-emits it a longer wavelength (in the infrared part of the spectrum). Now certain wavelengths of IR light can react with some of the molecules in the atmosphere, in particular water, carbon dioxide and methane are strong IR absorbers. When these molecules absorb IR they become "excited" and increase their energy levels and vibrate at higher amplitudes i.e. have a higher energy content. We, on earth, can detect these increases in energy as increased temperatures. This is how global warming results. Thus the difference between 1.3 and 1.5 may seem very small in relation to the total incoming irradiation, it is a large part of a very narrow band of irradiation which is removed. So one cannot just measure total energy but must look at the very specific wavelengths involved to get an accurate picture of why AGW is occurring, since as we add more of the greenhouse gases, they can react with a higher percentage of these specific wavelengths causing more of the incoming radiation to remain in the earth's influence.

Ian Forrester

I'd say the last couple of days on this site has certainly provided Imam tim and his spleenies with a very practical introduction to the concept of entropy.

It is certainly amazing how the average IQ on this blog appeared to have dropped by a factor of 2 in less than 24 hours. I guess that is what [b]tim blair[/b] and his minions of "dittoheads" can do.

Hilarious, except the dittoheads here are all climate ninnies like Gore, who when stomped logically can only complain that those who disagree aren't smart enough to get it.

Gore's an embarrassment to Global Warming, Inc. because he shoots himself in the foot often, as in this statement. The implication is clear: We're ruining the universe too. My favorite is when he acts all surprised that glaciers move.

And to prove my point and right on cue, one last tail ender arguing with a complete lack of logic that his team's the logic stompers, yay!, etc.

ooops...I inadvertnetly referred to watts/sq cm rather than watts/sq m in my post above.

mea culpa

Tim Lambert: Thanks for the correction in regards to the earth's albedo. Indeed, the solar contribution gets knocked down even more by that.

Ian Forrester: Before you get too deep in your complicated explanations, note that the factor of 1.3 W/m2 quoted as a difference in forcing due to peak-trough variations in the 11-year solar cycle is simply incorrect for simpler reasons as Tim Lambert and I have been discussing. It has to be divided by a factor of 4 (to account for the difference in the total surface area of the earth and the cross-section area that the sunlight hits) and, as Tim points out, it then has to be multiplied by 0.69 to account for the fact that the earth's albedo is 31% (i.e., 31% of the incoming sunlight gets reflected).

As Robert pointed out somewhere above, thermodynamics divides the universe into a system and its surroundings. Where it gets interesting is the boundary between the two. Several types of systems are defined. There are systems which can exchange mass and energy with the surroundings (open), those that can exchange energy but not mass (closed) and finally those which can exchange neither (isolated). Obviously someone missed two out of three classes. For practical purposes the earth is a closed system, not isolated.

Obviously someone missed two out of three classes.

Ian missed clouds, which both reflect and absorb a fair bit of the incoming solar and the outgoing thermal.

Could it be true?

Have the 2 or 3 dipsh*ts wearing the Cheeto-stained shorts finally stopped spamming comments?

'bout GD time.

Best,

D

Sheesh, talk about obfuscation. What difference could it possibly make to the state of the universe how much or little of the solar radiation that strikes the earth is radiated back to space? The percentage of solar radiation that strikes the earth in the first place is approximately 0.00000005% of the total. Whether all of this is absorbed or reflected doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The total percentage of solar radiation that strikes all 9 planets is about 0.0000005%, or in other words, about 99.9999995% of all solar radiation escapes directly to space.

I hope this answers Tim's original question, which some of the "scientists" here went to extraordinary lengths to duck. By the way, "area" is the correct term -- the relevant number is the ratio of the area of a great-circle cross-section of the earth to the surface area of a sphere with a radius of 1 Astronomical Unit.

"But the general theme of taking Gore's reference to the energy balance between the earth and the rest of the universe to mean that he has somehow, all of a sudden, with no previous warning, become concerned over the fate of the rest of the universe"

Gee, whatever gave us that idea?

"We are ... altering the ***BALANCE*** of energy ***BETWEEN*** our planet and the ***REST OF THE UNIVERSE***."

Now, generally, z, when one uses words like "balance" and "between", it indicates, you know, a bi-lateral relationship. So basically what you're saying is, "Why can't these idiots just ignore what Gore said and assume what he meant, which is not what he said."

Well, of course. How silly of us.

BTW, z, I'm 40 years old. I've heard time and again about 100% certain doomsday scenarios that never come to pass. So excuse me if I don't jump on the bandwagon for this one.

"The one position you guys never seem to take is: Burning carbon produces CO2. We are burning more carbon. We are producing more CO2. The atmosphere has more CO2. CO2 prevents the earth from radiating heat. The earth is getting warmer. What exactly is it about this all that seems so improbable?"

How about the part where you don't say how much extra CO2 comes from humans compared to natural CO2? How about the part where you don't say that the Earth has periodically warmed and cooled without humans? How about the part where the MWP, which was warmer than today, was hugely beneficial to humanity? How about the part where you tell us first that we'll freeze, then that we'll burn, then that we'll freeze and then burn, and you're 100% certain each time? How about the part where you tell us that polar bears are drowning, for God's sake? How about the part where you trot out a "hockey stick graph" that DELIBERATELY OMITS the MWP and Little Ice Age? How about the part where you cobble up computer models that you hubristically say will accurately model the biosphere, then end up continually "adjusting" them as they continually fail?

What's improbable is that you people are so absurdly attached to a doomsday scenario that you're incapable of thinking logically or acknowledging historical facts.

You want my opinion? The climate changes. Always has. Hopefully it's getting warmer, because an Ice Age would be a disaster. If we're warming the planet and preventing that, then thank God for that.

Oh, almost forgot:

"Burning carbon produces CO2. We are burning more carbon. We are producing more CO2. The atmosphere has more CO2. CO2 prevents the earth from radiating heat. The earth is getting warmer."

This is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Look it up.

Re: '"Burning carbon produces CO2. We are burning more carbon. We are producing more CO2. The atmosphere has more CO2. CO2 prevents the earth from radiating heat. The earth is getting warmer."

This is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Look it up.'

Nope. It's a correlation/causation.

Here it is said another way:

As more and more CO2 is released into the atmosphere through human activities (increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere), the atmosphere warms, which is due to CO2 being a greenhouse gas (i.e. it retains heat while other gases do not).

z

No, my question was 1.5 watts per square meter per what?

Not times what. My question has to do with what is the relative size of the quantity you are talking about, not its absolute size. Which gets back to that whole spit-in-the-ocean point someone made earlier.

Dave S

What is your point? The statement attributed to Gore "We are ... altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe" is a statement of fact. The sky is also blue, pigs cannot fly and no amount of table thumping will change that. From your comments it is apparent you need to read some paleoclimatology, begin with Lamb (1985) and work your way through the to recent literature. Junk science talking points are not generally considered grounded in reality.

Dear Dave, the universe may neither care nor notice, but those of us on Earth are affected. You, of course, commute from Mars and don't give a fig.

"Nope. It's a correlation/causation."

LOL. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a logical fallacy meaning "after the fact, therefore because of the fact." Or, as the phrase is translated by logicians, "Correlation does not imply causation." Thanks for proving my point.

BTW, nice job avoiding my points, guys.

"You, of course, commute from Mars and don't give a fig."

Apparently you haven't heard that Mars is experiencing global warming. It's true. Must be our fault, huh? All the CO2 is whipping through space and altering the balance.

Actually Dave, considering that solar output is decreasing as we move towards the minimum, it ain;t the sun. And yes Dave, there are direct satellite measurements of the decrease in solar output.

Oh yes, Dave, you had a point or you thought you had a point?

Re: 'LOL. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a logical fallacy meaning "after the fact, therefore because of the fact." Or, as the phrase is translated by logicians, "Correlation does not imply causation." Thanks for proving my point.'

What point? I know the "PHEPH" fallacy, but it does not apply here. This is science and it is proven that CO2 is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas which, in increased concentrations in the atmosphere, causes an increase in atmospheric temperature. Simple physics/chemistry will tell you this.

Dave, if you do not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then crawl back under the rock you came out from.

"Dave, if you do not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas"

Why do you people have such difficulty with basic reading comprehension? The issue isn't whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's whether human CO2 output is a *significant addition* to natural CO2 fluctuations.

"then crawl back under the rock you came out from."

Why? The company here is a hell of a lot more intelligent.

"Oh yes, Dave, you had a point or you thought you had a point?"

Yes. Just go a few posts up. Read them. Respond to them. There's a good boy.

Or you could just make a lame snark.

"Actually Dave, considering that solar output is decreasing as we move towards the minimum, it ain;t the sun. And yes Dave, there are direct satellite measurements of the decrease in solar output."

Wrong, and wrong:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/suns_direct_role_in_global_warming_may_b…

I'll summarize it for you - "We wouldn't dare say that people aren't causing global warming. Unfortunately, we have to report that the sun's been throwing off more heat for the past 100 years, and appears to be responsible for 10 to 30% of warming. Oh, and we'll be changing our global climate change models (again) to reflect this. Sorry."

You people keep throwing me softballs and ducking my heaters. This is getting boring. Take the last word. Buh-bye.

Re: "The issue isn't whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's whether human CO2 output is a significant addition to natural CO2 fluctuations."

The answer is yes, seeing as the CO2 concentration was ~280 ppm around 1850 and ~380 ppm today. As well, the rate of temperature increase we have seen over the last century is the highest that the planet has seen for thousands if not millions of years.

By process of elimination (similar to that of DNA testing of potential suspects in a criminal investigation), human activity is the last remaining suspect on the list. Therefore, it is reasonable and correct to conclude that human activity is the prime suspect in causing global warming.

Dave S says:

>How about the part where you don't say how much extra CO2 comes from humans compared to natural CO2?

We've increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 30%.

>How about the part where you don't say that the Earth has periodically warmed and cooled without humans?

If the current warming is natural, there must be some unknown factor AND there must be another unknown factor preventing the extra CO2 from producing warming. Taht doesn't seem very likely.

>How about the part where the MWP, which was warmer than today, was hugely beneficial to humanity?

Most scientists think that the MWP was not warmer than today.

>How about the part where you tell us first that we'll freeze, then that we'll burn, then that we'll freeze and then burn, and you're 100% certain each time?

You're making this up. The media totuted cooling in the 70s but there was never any scientific consensus behind like there is today is support of AGW.

> How about the part where you tell us that polar bears are drowning, for God's sake?

Wall Street Journal: [It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.](http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47…)

>How about the part where you trot out a "hockey stick graph" that DELIBERATELY OMITS the MWP and Little Ice Age?

[Read the study](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann1998/frames.htm). Now tell us how they DELIBERATELY omitted the MWP and LIA.

>How about the part where you cobble up computer models that you hubristically say will accurately model the biosphere, then end up continually "adjusting" them as they continually fail?

Hmmm, seems we just [covered that here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/pat_michaels_fraud_pure_and_si…). Back in 1988 Hansen's computer model did a very good job of predicting temperature trends to date. Global WArming Denialists dealt with this inconvenient fact by lying about Hansen's model said.

"Apparently you haven't heard that Mars is experiencing global warming. It's true. Must be our fault, huh?" It is ironic that the very same people who refused for so long to believe the overwhelming evidence that the earth was undergoing global warming are suddenly willing to embrace the idea that Mars is on the basis of just a few measurements that are in no way global in extent. See this post at RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on…

Furthermore, the denialists in general now concede that there has not been any recent increased trend in solar irradiance or at least one of sufficient magnitude to directly explain warming here on earth. All the mechanisms recently proposed somehow have solar effects being enhanced or causing something exotic such as variations in intergalactic cosmic rays which then modulate cloud nucleation. Such hypotheses (besides not seeming to agree with the data here on earth) would not even be operative in the much different and thinner atmosphere on Mars.

"The issue isn't whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's whether human CO2 output is a significant addition to natural CO2 fluctuations." This statement shows just how ignorant you are of the science. Not believing that we are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the start of industrialization puts you out of the denialist camp and into the loony-bin camp. Even the "Greening Earth Society" types accept this which is a fact beyond doubt. First of all, there is the strong circumstantial evidence that CO2 levels have risen over the past 200 years to levels not seen in at least 700,000 years (as ice core data shows) and probably not 20 million years. Then, there is the fact that the amount of increase just coincidently happens to correspond to the amount of CO2 we have released through burning fossil fuels. [Actually, the data show that about 1/2 of what we release remains in the atmosphere and half is uptaked by the oceans, biosphere, etc.] Finally, if that isn't enough evidence, they can actually look at the changing isotopic distribution of the carbon in the CO2 (due to the fact that the carbon in fossil fuels is depleted in Carbon 14, I believe).

"altering the BALANCE of energy BETWEEN our planet and the REST OF THE UNIVERSE."

Well, if you want to split hairs, having the universe as a heat sink for the earth would be different from having 2 grams of hydrogen as a heat sink for the universe. Being hit with a firehose at 15 psi would be different from being squired with a syringe at 15 psi. Being bumped by kitten running at 10 mph would be different from being bumped by an elephant running at 10 mph. Arguing the semantic validity of one phrase in one sentence of one presentation by one person regarding global warming would be different from arguing the semantic validity of one phrase in the Talmud.

"Burning carbon produces CO2. We are burning more carbon. We are producing more CO2. The atmosphere has more CO2. CO2 prevents the earth from radiating heat. The earth is getting warmer."
"This is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Look it up. "

Uh, which part do you believe is mere coincidence? The part where burning carbon is followed by an increase in CO2? the part where putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is followed by increased CO2 in the atmosphere? The part where more infrared-absorbing CO2 is followed by more IR being absorbed? The part where absorbing more IR is followed by a rise in the temperature?

This is called "Occam's Razor". Look it up.

"Apparently you haven't heard that Mars is experiencing global warming. It's true."

Ah, we are treated to a seminar on Martian climate as well as Terran climate.

"Dust storms are common during perihelion, when the planet receives 40 percent more sunlight than during aphelion (when Mars is farthest from the Sun). This annual variation in sunlight results in a 20°C increase in temperature during perihelion. The increased temperature causes continental-scale dust storms at the planet's surface. The dust is swept aloft to altitudes of tens of kilometers, where it spreads globally, absorbs light from the Sun, and heats the entire atmosphere by about another 15°-28°C. Mars also has a distinctive aphelion climate. The cold atmospheric conditions during aphelion stimulate the formation of planetwide belts of water ice clouds surrounding the planet at altitudes of 3 to 10 km. Surface dust raised by low dust storms is confined to low altitudes (about 10 km) and is eventually swept to the ground by the water ice clouds. The clouds further reduce
atmospheric temperatures by forming around the dust. Without sunlight, the dust freezes and falls to the ground. This strong competition between dust heating and cloud cooling drives sweeping annual and short-term regional changes in Mars's climate. (NASA/JPL) "
http://www.whfreeman.com/ENVIRONMENTALGEOLOGY/EXMOD36/F3614.HTM

Of course, we can always say that there's something else, a Great Mysterious Thing, which is not only preventing the effect of perihelion on Mars, but is also preventing the effect of increased CO2 on earth; and is separately causing Mars to warm, and causing Earth to warm. Intelligent Climate Design, we can call it.

"it's whether human CO2 output is a significant addition to natural CO2 fluctuations."

Indeed. And the evidence on which you base your belief that a a 13% increase in 150 years, followed by another 19.4% increase in 45 years, is not significant is.....?

"the sun's been throwing off more heat for the past 100 years, and appears to be responsible for 10 to 30% of warming."

Forgive my difficulty with basic reading comprehension, oh wise quadridecennial, but if you are now postulating that 70-90% of global warming IS NOT solar in origin, why are we arguing?

"Well, if you want to split hairs, having the universe as a heat sink for the earth would be different from having 2 grams of hydrogen as a heat sink for the universe. "

Oops, I meant heat sink for the earth in both places.

Wow, this thread has taught me that there is something worse than people who don't understand science (especially physics) -- people who think they understand science, but don't.

This was far, far back, but to the commenter who said "system" is by definition isolated: that certainly wasn't the case in my thermodynamics class. That was a simplifying assumption, but not true by definition.

And Jebus, I am amazed at how many people seem to think the statement that we're upsetting earth's energy balance with the universe was meant to imply that this creates a problem with the universe. Taken in context (wow, imagine that!) this clearly is meant to be seen as a problem for us. I can't tell if all the thread-hijackers here are being deliberately disingenous, or just never bothered to take that statement in context.

Thanks for resurrecting some semblance of sanity, z.

"Thanks for resurrecting some semblance of sanity, z."

Um, sentences I thought nobody would ever address to me?

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

I can't tell if all the thread-hijackers here are being deliberately disingenous, or just never bothered to take that statement in context.

Deliberately disingenuous.

Best,

D

Davis, something I said about the Jim Jones character these guys follow applies to them as well. Dave & co are really bad students who ask questions that display their ignorance. To ask a relevant question you have to have a large clue. Bad questions based on false assumptions and poor to no understanding of the subject have no answer. They suck information out of the room as people who are aware of the situation struggle to understand the depth of stupidity of the questioners. Unfortunately those not familiar with the fakers or the subject, focus on the ignorant certainty and braggadocio that our aggressive fools display.

Behavior such as that validates ad hominem arguments. Anyone who has watched them operate and knows their limitations and methods can easily dismiss their feeble arguments without wasting time. I will differentiate between these people and others who have posted in this thread, perhaps with the wrong interpretation, but who have accepted the explanations offered. And also thanks to Joel, who has the patience of a saint, and also z, who though less patient has offered good information, once.