Andrew Dessler tried again to get a debate. He was going to debate Tim Ball on BlogTakRadio, but alas, Ball couldn't get through.
He did get to talk to various callers. My favourite was one Robert Colmes who ordered Dessler to stop saying that there was a consensus because he (Colmes) didn't agree. Oh and Colmes denied that there was such a thing as global climate.
Update: Dessler posts on it.
More like this
Ross Olson of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association has sent me the results of the survey that was given at the debate. He is trying to spin it as supporting the claim that this kind of debate was "useful" — but I'm unimpressed.
About 500 people attended, 290 returned the survey. The survey…
I didn't watch the Republican debate last night, so I can't be sure that climate change got short shift, but seeing as I couldn't find more than a hint of the subject in this morning's coverage on the net -- and heard only a passing reference in a NPR report listing the "other" subjects addressed…
You know that famous scene in Annie Hall where a bore is going on and on about Marshall McLuhan's work and Allen produces McLuhan who tells the bore that he got McLuhan all wrong? Well, that's kind of what happened in my debate with Monckton. Based on what he had identified as his most important…
Like so many other skeptics, I just returned from TAM, which, despite all the conflict and drama surrounding it this year, actually turned out to be a highly enjoyable experience for myself and most people I talked to. As I've been doing the last few years, I joined up with Steve Novella and other…
The best way to get your point of view across is to have qa debate where only your side gets to speak> I gave up on listening because they couldn't get Mr. Ball on? So much of what I heard was just dogma. Science is not dogma therefore what I heard is not science. CO2 follows warming because CO2 is less soluble in warm water. When comparing the level of CO2 with what humans have generated there is a discrepancy of 30%. There is more CO2 than can be accounted for. Where is it coming from? Try the oceans.
What if you demanded a debate and nobody came? Part 2
I have a couple of years in PR work, radio and TV interviews and I think we need more scientists not only going public with colleagues, but with the public. I have a new program called, We can make you a famous scientist, and from what I have heard, there is a big demand from the public wanting to know more about science ASAP! Demand the debate and even if you don't get it, you get PR for your cause because people will hear about your demand!
Dave Briggs :~)
But did he call for a UN Tax on CO2 emissions? And what exactly would be done with all that sweaty money? How could they assure us that it wouldn't disappear into the vast and corrupt bureaucracy that is the UN?
There has to be a better idea than a global tax, should "we" decide that something has to be done about global warming.
Yeah, it's a hijack, but there's not much else to say about the debate.
kent, the most egregious error in your post is this:
kent posts:
[[CO2 follows warming because CO2 is less soluble in warm water. When comparing the level of CO2 with what humans have generated there is a discrepancy of 30%. There is more CO2 than can be accounted for. Where is it coming from? Try the oceans. ]]
Better yet, try: The oceans emit about 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year, and take in about 92 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year, so that at present they are a net sink for carbon dioxide, not a net source. Try: They've known this for years. Try: The information was publicly available, even on the web.
In short, try studying the subject before you pontificate about it.
With people like Kent around, you have to wonder why anyone bothers getting a PhD or becoming a working scientist.
We can just ask the all-knowing geniuses in the peanut gallery and give them their well-deserved Nobel after they answer our questions!
Barton, since, according to global warming enthusiasts the oceans are warming they are giving up more CO2 than absorbing. Many articles are saying that the oceans are absorbing less because they are warming.
dhog your assesment of myself and people like me is so typical of those who have trouble with reality. Remember reality bites and it bites hard.
I base my position on science not on fantasy. I recognise spin when I hear it, see it, and read it. When I hear Gore say that the warmest year was 1998 I point out that 48 hours after a Canadian pointed out to NASA that there was a spike in their data which started on January 1 2000 (Y2K ).
Which caused them to point out that 1934 was the warmest year. When I hear that 2007 was going to be the warmest year on record only to have it said that it was the 5th warmest then the 6th warmest then the 7th warmest then the 8th warmest since 1950 ( instead of for the last century) all this before the year was ened I have to ask if these are real scientists and why they keep moving the goal posts. Is it because by moving the posts they can keep getting the "evidence " they need?
There are very few points that "people like you" can come up with that have not been surplanted with the truth.
re kent: Oh, good effin' god!
kent, the continental US is not the world. Pay attention to this fact when evaluating the garbage the denialists throw around. Even just in the US, 1998 and 1934 were in a statistical tie, and are still in a statistical tie after the minor adjustment caused by fixing that error.
2007 is turning out to be the second warmest global year on record - the original prediction you refer to was that there was a 60% chance that 2007 would be the hottest. By GISS analysis, 2005 is the current hottest year, and 1998 in second. 2007 will end up between those two years. Where you come up with "5th warmest then the 6th warmest then the 7th warmest then the 8th warmest since 1950" is a true puzzle.
I'd say the entirety of your "I base my position on science not on fantasy" paragraph is based on fantasy.
kent latest cant
"absorbing less than before" does not mean "absorbing less than they emit". They are, as Barton pointed out, a sink at present. Less of a sink than 100 years ago, but still a sink.
And, of course, we know that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels due to isotope analysis, but that's probably beyond you ...
"according to global warming enthusiasts the oceans are warming"??? No, according to MEASUREMENTS the oceans are warming.
So ... thermometers are left-wing, now? Oh, wait, I get it, the Celsius scale and metric system are daughters of the radical French revolution, therefore temperature measurements are inherently biased towards that end of the political spectrum. Cool ... I hadn't realized it.
dhog... and others I will dig up some of my sources for you butf to be honest the surfacew of the oceans are warming therefore they are giving up more CO2 there is a discrepancy between what we have added to the atmosphere and what they are monitoring at Mona loa. Trying to bully me be cause I disagree with you is what bullies do. The Warming croud is just trying to scare little kids. I don't scare easily if you want to discuss thisngs then pick a point and I will respond. Got to go now but will be back.
Kent,
I thought that the atmospheric CO2 concentration represented a total increase less than you would expect from anthropogenic emmissions, were it all to have stayed in the atmosphere. Where has it all gone then? Which do you think is the most important part of the carbon cycle with respect to the long term implications of CO2 emmissions?
"there is a discrepancy between what we have added to the atmosphere and what they are monitoring at Mona loa."
Is she related to Mona Lisa? Her twin sister, perhaps?
Or maybe she was the one the Kinks sang about. "La la la la loooa".
For amusement, one might check out Lubo Motl's take on this event:
"Alarmist: Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M
Realist: Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg (retired)
Internet audio provider: Blogtalkradio (ask questions here and listen here)"
"Tim Ball had technical problems and couldn't participate."
Does anyone know any more, since it is possible that Motl's characterization is incomplete?
Tim Ball has extensive telephone experience. He was the first Canadian to use a telephone and has a PhD in Applied Communications, so the technical issues are clearly the UN's fault. Al Gore is the one who cannot dial properly because he has fat fingers.
Please, do! Do we have to wait for that Rush Limbaugh CD to show up in your xmas stocking?
True.
True, but as Barton and I have both pointed out they're still emitting LESS CO2 than they ABSORB.
What is so hard to understand about this?
That's because things in the world absorb CO2.
Like, those oceans we're talking about, among other things.
Duh. All this is information brought to you courtesy of those scientists studying the effects of CO2 emissions on the environment.
No, we point out you're wrong. Like saying "the earth is nearly round" if you say "the earth is flat" isn't simply disagreeing with you. It's educating you.
Kent, thanks for showing up. You're beautiful.
I only hope that Kent can boast that he somehow missed the whole educational system, K-12. I would hate to think that someone like him actually passed through an educational system.
What, everyone wants to pile on the weak arguments for CO2 stuff and nobody wants to talk about the tax?
Thanks for the post, Tim. I blogged a few thoughts on the experience here.
"I thought that the atmospheric CO2 concentration represented a total increase less than you would expect from anthropogenic emmissions, were it all to have stayed in the atmosphere."
Indeed; it's quite possible to calculate the total CO2 emissions of humanity since the beginning of the industrial age, and of course we know the change in atmospheric CO2 since then, and the difference tells us that about half the anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere, and about half is sunk. sinked. whatever.
IIRC, the IPCC scenario, to be conservative with respect to the percentage of CO2 emission placed in the anthropogenic category, assumes additional, currently unknown natural sources equal to the anthropogenic emissions, which therefore implies a net sink of 1.5 times human output. In comparison, the sometimes heard statement that "human CO2 output is an insignificant fraction of the total" implies, if we use the general .05 definition of significance, that there are unknown CO2 emissions > 19 times more than human emissions, and likewise uncharacterized sinks > 19.5 times human emissions; which is unlikely.
An additional response to Kent.
Anthropogenic CO2 has a specific isotope signature.
Recent natural CO2 in the atmosphere has a noticeably high proportion of isotopes in both the carbon and oxygen atoms.
Ancient CO2 released from deep in the Earth has a noticeably low proportion of isotopes of either atom.
Anthropogenic CO2 has relatively many oxygen isotopes, yet few carbon isotopes. It is this latter combination which has been shown to be on the rise, in a consistent manner with general CO2 increases.
Lubos had a picture of Dessler and one of Ball up before the debate. Eli in the belief that it is better to troll than be trolled upon commented:
Eli sometimes speaks directly to the scheduler in chief.
"Tim Ball has extensive telephone experience. He was the first Canadian to use a telephone and has a PhD in Applied Communications, so the technical issues are clearly the UN's fault. Al Gore is the one who cannot dial properly because he has fat fingers."
According to Dr D, Timmy 'got the time zone wrong'. If Timmy owned the first Canadian PhD in Geography rather than Climatology, the debate would have taken place as planned.
"...the vast and corrupt bureaucracy that is the UN?"
The entire budget of the UN probably wouldn't keep the Pentagon in toilet paper for a week.
Makes you wonder how they can afford all those black helicopters and the secret detention camps for when they take over the US.
"The Warming croud is just trying to scare little kids. I don't scare easily if you want to discuss thisngs then pick a point and I will respond."
People have already challenged you on several different points.
How about the isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Care to explain why it points to the carbon being added to the atmosphere having been sequestered away from biological action for millions of years?
JC thinks its pretty silly talking in the 3rd person, Rabbet. Jc thinks you ought to stop doing that as it makes you sound too much like Bannerman in Seinfeld. Anyway that just honest advice from Jc .. especially when it's a moniker.
A more considered response to Ben's post, so far as I know no-one (or no-one who deserves to be taken seriously) is proposing a global carbon tax be administered by the UN or that the money raised would go to the UN.
What has been proposed, mostly by libertarians, is that each government set the same tax on carbon emissions.
Because having worked themselves into hysteria about emissions trading (bad, evil, icky markets!)they now feel the need to propose ... something.
several years ago I compared the reduction in atmospheric oxygen with the increase in CO2 levels and found a discrepancy. I concluded that the extra CO2 must be coming from the oceans, ( since the surface waters were warming ). Don't know if I can find all that info again as my hard drive got smoked and I had not backed it up.
The real question though is this, Is anthropogenic CO2 warming the planet? The answer is, not enough to worry about. We know that in the past CO2 levels follow warming by several hundred years, which is what you would expect, since it takes some time to warm the deeper ocean waters, causing them to release more CO2.
Why do I feel that Anthropogenic CO2 is not a problem? This site will help to explain.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Scroll down and you will see a graph that shows the % of infrared absorption for CO2, H2O, O2/O3. Notice that in the three main windows of absorption for CO2 100% of the energy is being absorbed, None is escaping into space. If some was escaping into space then adding more CO2 could absorb it.
This site goes into more detail, check out the left hand side topics....
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
As for the rising ocean levels? It seems a 16 year study by Australia/NZ ? into rising ocean level around some pacific islands was discontinued when they found out the water wasn't rising and around one island it was dropping ( Island was being pushed out of the ocean? Remins me of the story of Venetia. They said the water level had risen by 20 CM but the city had sunk by 23 CM. Venise is sinking and the real problem is that a a world heritage site they are not allowed to do what they had always done.... jack up the buildings, put shims in and go about their bussiness.
Gouldiechops:
Your buddy, Paul Krug man was supposed to be the first person who proposed it. Like any broken clock that's right a twice a day, he got that right.
So please correct your distortion. I was Krug man who came up with it.
As for your genius idea of the UN collecting the carbon "axe" cash.... hell would need to freeze over first before those wasteful, greedy leftists got our money. In fact life would not be worth living.
A carbon tax is far superior to a cap and trade. You ought to think about things before you keyboard us with your ideas.
kent posts:
[[Barton, since, according to global warming enthusiasts the oceans are warming they are giving up more CO2 than absorbing. Many articles are saying that the oceans are absorbing less because they are warming.]]
There was indeed an error in my post -- I described values for carbon as values for carbon dioxide. The oceans take in 92 gigatons of carbon from the air every year and put out 90.
Kent, the fact that the oceans are warming doesn't mean they are giving off more CO2 than they take in. The system is not in equilibrium because we are loading the air with more and more CO2 every year. We're sure the extra CO2 is from fossil fuels because we've measured its isotope ratios. For example, CO2 from the oceans would have a normal complement of carbon-14. CO2 from fossil fuels does not, because it's old, so the 14C has decayed away.
[[When I hear Gore say that the warmest year was 1998 I point out that 48 hours after a Canadian pointed out to NASA that there was a spike in their data which started on January 1 2000 (Y2K ). Which caused them to point out that 1934 was the warmest year. When I hear that 2007 was going to be the warmest year on record only to have it said that it was the 5th warmest then the 6th warmest then the 7th warmest then the 8th warmest since 1950 ( instead of for the last century) all this before the year was ened I have to ask if these are real scientists and why they keep moving the goal posts. Is it because by moving the posts they can keep getting the "evidence " they need? ]]
Did you miss the fact that 2007 wasn't over yet, so they won't know its position in the readings exactly until it ends?
Kent,
Funny Ralph Keeling who is the one who measures the oxygen variation thinks that it is completely consistent with the increase in CO2 from anthroprogenic sources (there are isotope effects there also which show that the decrease in O2 over long times is from fossil fuel burning, search under Ralph Keeling).
BTW, Beer's law does not consider the emission from the CO2, nor is there anything about the spectral lines and more. What you pointed to is at the level of a not very sophisticated undergraduate student. You could start with Eli's series on spectroscopy, pressure broadening and all that full links at the bottom of the linked page.
kent posts:
[[I concluded that the extra CO2 must be coming from the oceans, ( since the surface waters were warming ). Don't know if I can find all that info again as my hard drive got smoked and I had not backed it up.]]
It isn't. They've measured the fluxes in and out. The ocean is presently a net sink for 2 gigatons of atmospheric carbon every year.
[[The real question though is this, Is anthropogenic CO2 warming the planet? The answer is, not enough to worry about.]]
Wrong answer.
[[ We know that in the past CO2 levels follow warming by several hundred years, which is what you would expect, since it takes some time to warm the deeper ocean waters, causing them to release more CO2.]]
Right, but that's not what's happening now. You can't say, "people have died of natural causes for thousands of years, so this guy with the 20 bullet holes in him can't have been killed by a human being."
[[Why do I feel that Anthropogenic CO2 is not a problem? This site will help to explain. http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Scroll down and you will see a graph that shows the % of infrared absorption for CO2, H2O, O2/O3. Notice that in the three main windows of absorption for CO2 100% of the energy is being absorbed, None is escaping into space. If some was escaping into space then adding more CO2 could absorb it. ]]
It's not just absorption in the lower layer that matters. Absorption in the upper layers matters as well. Even if the lowest layer of atmosphere is completely saturated to IR, since CO2 is a well-mixed gas throughout the troposphere, adding more will increase the absorption high up. The warmth from the uppermost layers will propagate all the way back down to the ground. This runs into diminishing returns eventually, but we are nowhere near that point. Even Venus isn't.
[[As for the rising ocean levels? It seems a 16 year study by Australia/NZ ? into rising ocean level around some pacific islands was discontinued when they found out the water wasn't rising and around one island it was dropping ( Island was being pushed out of the ocean?]]
The rising sea level the IPCC is worried about is the mean over the entire globe. Some places are falling, some are rising, the mean is going up. Ocean isn't at the same level at all points. Local sea level is affected by local gravity, geolatitudinal rotation speed, and local currents, temperature, and salinity.
I didn't miss the fact that 2007 isn't over yet but those who were saying 2007 was going to be the warmest the 2nd warmest the 5th, 6th , 7th, 8th warmest sure did. Why would they be predicting the warmest year in January if they wern't trying to scare the little chilcren? In Canada we are expecting the coolest year in the last 15. Hudson bay is about two weeks ahead of last winter's freeze up.Ice cover in the Arctic has almost caught up with last year and the snow cover is ahead. If this continues until the sun comes up even more energy will be reflected back into space.
Talk about where CO2 absorbs energy is irrelevant if it is all absorbed within 10 meters of the surface. You can't put two liters of liquid into a one liter container. Once the energy available to CO2 is absorbed there is none left. To suggest that it keeps bouncing around and keeps on warming means that energy is created out of nothing. Which You will probably agree is not possible.
Barton wrote; "Even if the lowest layer of atmosphere is completely saturated to IR, since CO2 is a well-mixed gas throughout the troposphere, adding more will increase the absorption high up" *ss backwards.. we are not talking about saturating CO2 with IR in the lower atmosphere, we are talking about the extinction of the IR. It is all absorbed within the first 10 meters of the surface. My understanding is that Greenhouse gases absorb IR not as thermal energy but as vibrational energy. They don't re-radiate this energy but transfer it by colliding with Nitrogen and oxygen. The whole point is that there is only so much Blackbody radiation available.You can't get something from nothing.
ELI, I will go to your site as soon as I plow my driveway of the 10 cm of snow we just got. Just because something is not written at a doctoral level doesn't make it wrong. Possibly it just makes it understandible to the great unwashed.
I do believe that we are going through climate change but it is in the cooling direction and all the focus on CO2 is ignoring a much larger problem. Global cooling. How many people will die when food production drops? How will people react when their beachfront property is miles from the beach? What will happen when whole fishing villages are miles from the ocean. The Coral will bleach when the water levels drop and Europe is under permanent ice cover? I would bet the UN is going to get behind global cooling very soon.
Which, of course, isn't true.
Listen, Kent, you may think you're doing superman-scale science in that phone booth of yours, but don't reserve space on your bookself for that nobel prize yet.
Specify your time-frame and I'll gladly take you up on that bet. $1000?
(I'm sure you'll hear from all those smarty-pants here telling you you're being ridiculous, but ignore them. Take the bet!)
"A carbon tax is far superior to a cap and trade. You ought to think about things before you keyboard us with your ideas."
But where does the money go? What is done with it? Does it go to fund alternate energy technologies? How are the decisions made about who gets what? How are certain technologies deemed viable while others are not? Are the folks who are to receive funding for research to be held accountable in any way?
I've worked with a pork-funded company before, and it's pathetic. No accountability, nothing useful produced, but a heck of a lot of money put into someone's pocket. We quit working for them when we realized they were full of crap.
Kent,
So where did all that CO2 go if it's not in the atmosphere? Sorry its just that many people have responded to your points but you seem not to wish to discuss the issue they have with your first statement.
kent, on the apparently exceedingly unlikely assumption that you are actually interested in learning - do you know the actual mechanism by which CO2-forced warming happens, and the critical role of the lapse rate and the effective radiating altitude of the atmosphere? If you don't (and it certainly seems as of you don't) you should learn something about it before you embarrass yourself any further. If you do already know it, you are simply being dishonest already anyway, and no facts anyone presents will matter to you.
But, to respond directly to your...uuuhhh.. stuff.... are you arguing that all that surface-emitted heat gets trapped forever in the low atmosphere? That thermal re-radiation is not a factor in atmospheric heat movement? Or what precisely are you arguing - because it is damn certain that the heat that makes it into the first 10 meters, also makes it OUT of the first 10 meters.
Sorry Jody not quite sure what you are asking. Where did what CO2 go. While I would like to respond to every single comment I find it like dealing with a child that keeps on asking "why?" without ever axxepting the answer.
Look at the comment by dhogaza should I respond to that?
Dave, You do realize that by extending the time frame beyond your and my life time we would be force to put it into our wills. That said, what kind of dollars are we talking about. 1000 Zim dollars is not the same as US dollars. I don't like taking money from others so I only bet cups of coffee. Since warming peaked in 1998 and we have already started into the next cooling cycle I would suspect that by the year 2020 the UN will have changed it's point of view. Already a poll from the UK has 66% believing that CO2 warming is not a problem.
and kent, Ive asked yo before where you get this:
"2007 was going to be the warmest the 2nd warmest the 5th, 6th , 7th, 8th warmest sure did"
You didn't support it - yo simply repeated it.
The most recent analyses I've read say that 2007 is almost certain to be the second warmest year in the record. Using GISS numbers, it will almost certainly fall behind 2005 as the warmest, and 1998 as the third warmest, when 2007 is finished. Check out Tamino's Open 2007 was going to be the warmest the 2nd warmest the 5th, 6th , 7th, 8th warmest sure didind blog for the analysis.
And again, the prediction was that there was a 60% chance that 2007 would be the warmest - it was based on an El Nino being present in the early part of the year, and that El Nino faded rapidly, but we still end up, seemingly, with 207 at second warmest ever. Why do you leave off that probability part EVEN AFTER BEING INFORMED OF THAT PART in previous posts?
oh, good christ almighty!!!
kent says:
"Since warming peaked in 1998 and we have already started into the next cooling cycle"
kent, warming DID NOT PEAK. Even if you choose 1998 as the cherry-picked start point for the analysis, a line fit to the date between 1998 and today shows RISING TEMPERATURES. Temperatures are still rising since 1998. Again, Tamino over at Open Mind blog has a good recent analysis of this.
When you support your argument by stating "facts" that are simply not true, you show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Kent,
"My understanding is that Greenhouse gases absorb IR not as thermal energy but as vibrational energy. They don't re-radiate this energy but transfer it by colliding with Nitrogen and oxygen."
1.) Thermal energy is vibrational energy.
2.) CO2 molecules do re-emit IR.
3.) While it is true that some of this energy is dissipated by bumping into other molecules, it is just as likely that a CO2 molecule will spontaneously emit a photon of IR after being bumped.
I meant if we are emitting lots of CO2 and it can't all be accounted for in the atmosphere, and if you say the oceans are emitting CO2 as well, then where is it all ending up?
Lee Don't make assumptions about me and I won't make them about you.
I am not assuming that the IR radition stays in the lower atmosphere ( that would be silly) I am saying that it is absorbed there.
kent, to refresh your memory, you earlier said:
"Once the energy available to CO2 is absorbed there is none left. To suggest that it keeps bouncing around and keeps on warming means that energy is created out of nothing."
Now you say:
"I am not assuming that the IR radiation stays in the lower atmosphere ( that would be silly) I am saying that it is absorbed there."
Which is it? Is that energy being absorbed so there is "nothing left?" (basic thermodynamics problems with that, anyone?) Or is "the IR radiation" leaving the lower atmosphere as you just said?
BTW, lapse rate? Effective radiating altitude? Year 2007 prediction? 'Cooling' since 1998? You're ignoring a lot of specific responses to your statements.
But let me give you a hint on the first two - stratospheric cooling is not just a prediction of greenhouse-gas induced warming it is in fact a key part of the mechanism by which greenhouse gas induced warming occurs.
All it takes is one fucking troll to ruin a thread.
I've got an idea: why not only respond to Kent IF he specifically responds to the issues raised with his first statement, without adding extraneous or tangential points. Otherwise it can be generally considered that the initial posting was indeed a load of rubbish. Otherwise it's back to the main thread.
Two good things about Kent,
He makes Lance look like a genius.
The John Daly, Steve Milloy style crapology makes me feel years younger. Like it's 2001 again.
kent, where on the planet do you take "the next cooling cycle" from? No cooling has started (to the contrary, see above), and the beginning of the next ice age is scheduled to happen 50,000 years from now. Then it'll continue to cool till the next glacial maximum, which is scheduled to happen 100,000 years from now. Then it will warm again, and a few thousand years later we'll have the next interglacial. This can be calculated because the MilankoviÄ cycles are known. If you don't know what these are, look them up; they are all over teh intarwebz (often under the French spelling with -tch instead of -Ä).
In fact, with our current CO2 output, we are probably preventing the next ice age from happening.
LeeS I left off the 60% probability because 60% is a majority. If you go here ( site below..sciencedaily )you will notice all kinds of numbers for years. One says 1998 was the warmest one says 2005. some talk about the UK some talk about the US. I was just trying to show how erratic all the expert prognosticators are. They predicated 2007 as the (possible) warmest on Le Nino but missed La Nina
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070105080024.htm
We keep on hearing about the warmth of 2007 but the numbers are not adding up. They are still trying to convince us that 2007 is going to be close to the warmest while the world is experiencing nothing close to this.
LeeS I have been trying to figure out your "which is it" but you are again making assumptions that make no sense.
Jody I did not suggest that the CO2 we are emmitting was not accounted for, I was suggesting that there was more in the atmosphere than we have emitted. Hope that clarifies.
Chad, mind your language please
"As for your genius idea of the UN collecting the carbon "axe" cash.... "
My genius idea?
I never advocated anything of the sort and in fact described it as an idea "no-one who deserves to be taken seriously" would support.
I notice too that as usual you don't bother to provide a source to support your assertion about Krugman.
Some of the CO2 increase is due to land use. i.e. deforestation. Some is due to cement production. This is above and beyond fossil fuel emissions.
The temperature analyses differ because they are done differently. However, of NASA, Hadley/CRU, RSS and UAH, all but one show warming of 0.17 to 0.18 degrees per decade since 1979. The "odd man out" is UAH, which shows about 0.14 degrees per decade.
The analysis with the highest trend since 1998 is RSS, which also has the lowest (slightly negative, actually) trend since 1998. What does it mean? Nothing. The anomalies are right in line with where they are "supposed" to be given the last 30 years of warming and natural variability.
"A carbon tax is far superior to a cap and trade. You ought to think about things before you keyboard us with your ideas."
You ought to consider supporting your assertions with actual arguments some time.
"Is too"; "You're a socialist" and "everyone who disagrees with me are morons and commies" aren't valid arguments, just so you know.
kent, let me ask you a serious question - do you have even the faintest clue what the hell you are talking about??
"I left off the 60% probability because 60% is a majority" Probabilities don't have 'majorities.'
"One says 1998 was the warmest one says 2005"
HadCRU adn GISS have soem slight differences in detail, but both show nearly identical patterns of temps and nearly identical trends, and both show nearly identical patterns and trends with the satellite surface temp records. They all three show marked, consistent continued warming - and I don't believe you understand what any of those three are, how they are derived, how they differ, and what they show. You certainly have made repeated claims of things which those three records show to be simply false.
"some talk about the UK some talk about the US"
And all "talk about" the globe. Given that we're talking about global temperatures, that is you should pay attention to. Kinda basic, no?
"They are still trying to convince us that 2007 is going to be close to the warmest while the world is experiencing nothing close to this"
The 11 hottest years ever have occurred over the last 13 years. The pattern of warming is striking and continuing. The world certainly is experiencing something "close to this."
"I have been trying to figure out your "which is it" but you are again making assumptions that make no sense."
I'm simply asking yo what yo think happens to that IR radiation energy in the lower atmosphere, after it all gets absorbed (you claim) in 'first 10 meters."? A question cant get much simpler than that. My 'which is it" language was simply pointing out that you are making utterly incompatible statements, (and at odds with basic thermo) as I ask that simple question.
Let me ask you one more question. Given that you demonstrably know little to nothing of the basics of this science, what on earth makes you feel qualified to come in here and lecture people who DO know the basics, and more, that they are all wrong and you are right?
Kent: "The real question though...."
Actually the real question for me Kent is why after having claimed you were prepared to debate any aspect of the science you've twice (or is it three times) ignored questions about the atmospheric c14/c16 ration and have continued to raise other issues.
Personally, I'm not going to discuss this issue with you further until you address that issue.
Then we'll pick another area of the science and discuss it, okay?
LeeS; I have a very good idea of what I am talking about but I question your honesty. The story about the hottest 11 years ever were in the last 13 years was interesting for the data they conveniently left out. They ignored everything before 1950. This of course left out the hot period in the thirties. Why would an honest person do this?
My statements were not incompatible your misunderstanding of them was and is the problem. Do you have any comprehension of thermodynamics at all? I don't find that you understand the subject at all.
Ian Gould... With so many attacking me I have to select what I respond to. The reason I have not responded to you c14 c16 is that from my point of view it does not matter where the CO2 comes from. What matters is, is anthropogenic CO2 the cause of global warming/climate change? Does C14 carbon dioxide absorb more energy than the C12 variety? I have not come to my position lightly. I have spent more time than I should have reading about the subjects that relate to climate change and I find nothing that supports the position that CO2 is a threat to life on this planet.
I hope this will allow you to discuss more science. Might I suggest talking about earth's collapsing magnetic field and the effect it will have on life as we know it.
The real question is not "when is Kent going to take a course in radiative transfer?" but rather "When/Should we stop engaging in these kind of pointless arguments?"
Of course it's annoying when people who plainly don't understand the science lecture those of us that do, and we respond because we're irritated. It's a mistake I think to assume that in doing so we have actually achieved anything. As Kent has so ably demonstrated there's a population of people who simply don't care to really understand the science so long as they have a sufficient grasp of the 'language' of it to wrap their arguments in a veneer of plausibility.
We're doing it wrong you see. These kind of debates are only really possible if you're using the maths, since words are a poor substitute. And that's best done on the back of napkins over beers at the pub. So in summary; if there's no beer, you're doing it wrong. No wonder these 'debates' are so circular.
"The story about the hottest 11 years ever were in the last 13 years was interesting for the data they conveniently left out. They ignored everything before 1950."
kent, that is simply false. YoU are makiNG untrue statements, and you are making them repeatedly. The HadCRU surface temp record runs from 1856 to the present, the GISS record from 1880. I don't know where you got that statement that they simply left off the older pat of the record, but, again, it is false, and YOU ARE SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE.
And you question my honesty?
I note your are assiduously avoiding any actual response to question about heat dynamics, the lapse rate, and the effective radiating altitude, and of what happens to the energy of the IR you say is all ab sorbed in the first 10 meters.
I conclude from your repeated false statements, and from your avoiding response to real challenges, that I have been foolish in giving you any benefit of doubt, and that you are simply a troll.
David Marjanuvic
I looked into Milankovic and ended up at this site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Upon doing so I found a graph of temperature over the last 400,000 years. If you look to the left you will see that we are in an era that looks very much like the "Hot spikes" from past warm periods. This would indicate that we are near a tipping point of cooling.
I have seen many graphs that look like this one and warm periods are short and cold periods are very very long.
NASA /GISS Has revised it's warmest year list and 1998 is now considered the second warmest year. Since then the years have been cooler.( 5th warmest 7th warmest still cooler than the second warmest.) Some sources say that the temp has leveled off, some say it is cooling down. If this year is colder than 1998 then all eyes are going to be on what 2008 gives us and that starts real soon.
LeeS Here is the part of the article which ... you can read it for yourself. In reading many other pieces with the same headline I notice the date 1850. In one other they talk about 1971. This is where I got the 1950 bit from.
If you scroll down you will find the revised NASA listing.
So many of the GISS sites have errors greater than 2 degrees C. Some as great as 5 degrees C. Over one third of the continental USA sites have been photographed and it is startling what they have nearby But people think they are accurate.
All 11 Hottest Years Were in Last 13 - UK Met Office
UK: December 14, 2007
LONDON - The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 13 years, with 2007 set to be the seventh hottest since 1950, according to provisional global data from the UK's Met Office and the University of East Anglia.
The pictures and graphs that go with this didn't download but if you are interested, go to the site
Watts Up With That?
This blog deals with puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, recent news events and attempts to provide answers.« How not to measure temperature, part 28 - Eureka! | Main | Climate Audit and surfacestations.org are down »
1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA
Here's a story of scientific investigation and discovery I'm proud to have had a small part in.
Regular readers may remember that I posted about a climate station in Detroit Lakes MN last week, surveyed by volunteer Don Kostuch, and cross posted it to the website http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1828#comments that had two air conditioner units right next to it. It looked like an obvious cause and effect because in 1999 on May 5th, it was determined that the a/c units were moved off the roof of the radio station where this station resides and moved them to the ground where the temperature sensor is close by.
Detroit Lakes, MN surveyed by Don Kostuch - Don has single handedly done almost the entire state of Minnesota!
However, some folks on the blogosphere just went, well, a little ballistic over that assertion. It was a good thing too, because their very loud and somewhat uncivil complaints led to an examination of this idea: if its not the a/c units, what then did cause the temperature jump at that time?
Steve McIntyre, of Toronto operates www.climateaudit.org and began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the "corrected" data. He had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data..
Here is one of his first posts where he begins to understand what is happening. "This imparts an upward discontinuity of a deg C in wintertime and 0.8 deg C annually. I checked the monthly data and determined that the discontinuity occurred on January 2000 - and, to that extent, appears to be a Y2K problem. I presume that this is a programming error."
He further refines his argument showing the distribution of the error, and the problems with the USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem.
He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Steve McIntyre posted this data from NASA's newly published data set from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) These numbers represent deviation from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations throughout the USA.
According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85
Here's the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.
Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
I salute the
kent,
The US is not the world. Anthony Watts work has CONFIRMED the GISS numbers (not that he or Climate Audit will let that show in their dishonest rhetoric), and you continue to change the subject rather than respond to the issues. Troll.
Kent,
So you did not suggest that CO2 was unaccounted for when you said in #1:
'There is more CO2 than can be accounted for'.
So to summarise, your argument now is that anthropogenic emissions are not important because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than humans have emitted?
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SelfApptdExp.htm
Kent, JC, Lance et al please read the link.
Ian, fantastic piece! Its just as Dhogaza said - just about everyone in the 'peanut gallery' whose views conflict with the mainstream on a variety of complex scientific topics think they are real experts. Spending years at universities studying the subjects at hand is not a pre-requisite in their book; perusing a few contrarian web sites is enough to confer on them wisdom unforseen by those in the fields doing the actual research.
I had some exchanges with what I would call anti-environmentalists a few years back on the effects of biodiversity loss, acid rain and other anthropogenic processes. You'd never believe (but then again, you might) the kinds of crap they were spewing out which reflected the fact that they had no expertise whatsoever in the fields they were dismissing. Yet, in their own minds, they knew it all. As Charles Darwin once said, 'Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge'. A writer on Deltoid once attached a published article (I will see if I can find it) titled 'Incompentent but unaware of it'. The paper was based on studies in which a series of subjects evaluated their own cognitive abilities in a series of tests. The authors found that the less the test subjects knew about the topics at hand, the more they overestimated what they thought they knew about them. The pattern was very clear. The article you have attached here repeats that theme.
Poor Kent
You expect respect when you continuously post OUTRIGHT LIES like:
I don't feel like posting a laundry list of your lies, especially since others are commenting on them above, but shit, man, if this were a court of law you'd be facing perjury charges.
Jeff: I still await your response to my request to you previously here: what is the current level of biodiversity in the Botanical Gardens of Helsinki/Amsterdam vis a vis Singapore's or Melbourne's or Cape Town's (at any time over the last year)without airconditioning or heating at any time at any of them? Just the counts please, none of your usual fact-free bluster. So only the numbers, no words, aseblief.
What kind of idiot assumes that the number of species bought by a zoo is of any relevance whatsoever?
TimC,
Dhogaza has answered your question. What the heck are you going on about? What do you mean by 'biodiversity'? Its a loaded word: do you mean species, sub-species. genetically distinct populations, functional groups (guilds) etc? Moreover, what is the relevance between a managed botanical garden in a temperate country and a natural ecosystem in a tropical country? Given that 'managed' botanical gardens usually lack many critical groups or trophic levels (e.g. in the fourth), what do you mean?
Lastly, I wouldn't even be able to describe the species richness in an ecologically depauperated heavily populated place like Singapore because its likely that very few of the insects, let along the even smaller invertebrates, have been formally described. The avifauna is well known, however, and studies have shown how much Singapore is like a global microcosm for extinction, as many of the species have disappeared from there and many others are hanging on by the end of the bills, so to speak.
"Ian, fantastic piece! Its just as Dhogaza said - just about everyone in the 'peanut gallery' whose views conflict with the mainstream on a variety of complex scientific topics think they are real experts. Spending years at universities studying the subjects at hand is not a pre-requisite in their book; perusing a few contrarian web sites is enough to confer on them wisdom unforseen by those in the fields doing the actual research."
In the interests of full disclosure I should acknowledge that I frequently comment on areas outside my area of technical competence (such as it is).
However I generally say as much and accept correction from people who ARE more qualified in the relevant areas.
So, for example, I'm not going to argue with Tim C. regarding agricultural extension work in Subsaharan Africa; I'm not going to argue with Ben regarding the relative merits of different types of handgun and I'm not going to argue with JC regarding the technicalities of trading on the money markets.
Okay. This speaks to me. I know that Nicola Scafetta and B. J. West are not from Texas but would you consider them as AGW skeptics or not? Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the northern hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600 answers a lot. Well, the IPCC consensus is that most of the global warming of the second half of the 20th century is from burning fossil fuels and some of the regional warmings from deforestation and urbanization. Correct me if I am wrong. So this study confirms that the lower end of the IPCC physical facts are correct. BUT I can't quite figure out how the anthropogenic portion should go up from 0.3 C to 2.1-7.0 C within 100 years. As a skeptic layman, I wonder - after reading some of the study - all scientists around the climate issue should still believe in such a positive feedback of another doubling of CO2 in the athmosphere. Can anyone enlighten me on this one?
Oh, for a perfect example, if your head can stand it, read this thread.
The problem isn't really one of credentials. It is one of knowledge. They don't believe that experts in climate science, evolutionary biology, etc have much knowledge. Science is "easy", can be boiled down to a few contrarian sound bites. Biology is just "stamp collecting". Climate science is just a fancy term for "weather forecasting", and what do you need to know to be a "meteorologist" on TV?
This is why they believe you can learn an entire field of study by reading a few articles, websites, etc.
A further implication, of course, is that scientists are ninnies, intellectual lightweights, which is why they don't have the insights that lead to the understanding that (insert your genius crank's favorite theory here) undermines everything they've been taught - "indoctrinated on" - in university.
etc etc etc.
We know that many people post who have opinions grounded in air, and just 'know' that all the climate scientists are fools and frauds. Every once in a while, a new name gets added to the usual suspects.
Back to the topic, please?
Tim Ball has not, to my knowledge, ever engaged in a live debate with an actual expert. I my be wrong, but he seems to present to audiences without a response, or in soundbites like TGGW.
Pity, it would be good for the audience to hear how he responds when confronted by an expert. (And despite asking 2 or 3 times, Ball never responded to my question about evidence that would change his mind - he failed the first question on Dutch's site).
Or it might answer nothing, if the results in the paper are wrong. And some leading climate scientists, at least, think the paper is total junk.
First thing to be careful of ... while consensus in science can be wrong, when it's backed by the published work of literally thousands of scientists, it is going to be a rare case indeed if a single paper overturns all that work.
So *never* assume that a single paper like this "explains a lot" in the sense of overturning the results of decades of research.
If you want a response by a well-known climate scientist, read this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenologica…
It seems fairly clear that the paper's bogus.
Again, you're assuming that this paper's not junk.
"BUT I can't quite figure out how the anthropogenic portion should go up from 0.3 C to 2.1-7.0 C within 100 years."
As another skeptical layman: human fossil fuel consumption has been growing at exponential rates since about 1750.
You also have to figure in the lag time associated with additional carbon dioxide, it takes several decades for the full effect of an increase in carbon dioxide to manifest itself.
You know it's the damnedest think, despite doing google searches on "Paul Krugman, carbon tax" and ""Paul Krugman, global carbon tax"; searching his "Conscience of a Liberal" blog; searching his home page; searching the Pkarchives website and even reading his entry on the site of the Carbon Tax Centre, I can't find where Paul Krugman ever advocated the UN collecting a global carbon tax.
I did find this:
"Any Econ 101 textbook can tell you the answer. If carbon dioxide is deemed to inflict damage on the environment, then the efficient way to resolve the problem is to provide market incentives to burn less carbon. The most straightforward policy would be an across-the-board carbon tax that . . .
I can't see any point in finishing that sentence. Never mind that even free-market economists favor "effluent taxes"; never mind that we're not talking about an overall tax increase, that any new tax on carbon could and should be offset by tax cuts elsewhere. In America's current political universe there are too many people who believe that the only good tax is a dead tax for any such proposal to be accepted. Such people aren't a majority, but they do control at least one house of Congress, and it just isn't going to happen.
In other words, the ultimate reason that the climate talks failed, that global warming will go unchecked, is the power of America's vitriolic anti- tax right."
Wherein he talks about the desirability of a carbon tax in the United states.
At this point it seems to me JC has the following options:
1. show where Krugman advocated a global carbon tax;
2. admit he was mistaken;
3. bluster and bullshit as usual.
Personally, my money's on 3.
kent posts:
[[It is all absorbed within the first 10 meters of the surface.]]
The figure isn't correct, but that isn't what matters. Even if it does absorb all the energy, that layer radiates energy itself. If the upper levels absorb more, due to having more carbon dioxide, then they will heat up and radiate more. Some of their radiation will go down to that lowest layer. Which will absorb it. And then heat up. And then radiate more. And some of that radiation will go down and heat the ground.
Absorption of radiation from the ground isn't the only parameter that is important here. Absorption at all levels counts, and even when the lowest layer is saturated, absorption higher up can still heat all the other layers.
[[ My understanding is that Greenhouse gases absorb IR not as thermal energy but as vibrational energy. They don't re-radiate this energy but transfer it by colliding with Nitrogen and oxygen.]]
They do reradiate it, but you're right that most of it gets transferred by collisions. But that extra energy of collision speeds up, on balance, the N2 and O2 collided with, as shown by the science of statistical mechanics. And faster molecular motion is higher temperature. So the layer doing the absorbing will heat up. And it will radiate heat from the greenhouse gases it contains.
[[ The whole point is that there is only so much Blackbody radiation available.You can't get something from nothing. ]]
No. Energy is conserved, but flux and temperature are not. You're not getting something for nothing with the greenhouse effect. The energy isn't multiplied, but it is held in the system longer, and at a higher temperature.
Think of a bathtub with a hole in it, being fed water from a faucet. If the intake and the loss rate are balanced, the net level of water in the tub will stay the same. But there are several levels at which it can be balanced. You can have more or less "wetness" in the tub even if the water is passing through it at the same rate.
Kent,
I have a suggestion. Why don't you actually go to the GISTEMP website and see for yourself what they say. Even in the article that you posted, it talks about the lower 48 US states, and yet you still don't make the connection.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.2005vs1999.lrg.gif
It has been pointed out repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere that:
1) The lower 48 US states is less than 2% of the world's surface. Globally, 2005 is the hottest year in NASA's analysis. It is hotter than 1998. It is hotter than 1934. The 1930s do not come anywhere near to the warmth of today.
2) NASA never said that 1998 was warmer than 1934 in the lower 48 states.
3) 1934 and 1998 have swapped and continue to swap places because they are statistically tied, and slight adjustments to correct for the UHI change their calculated temperature anomally by a few thousandths of a degree.
4) Because of the uncertainty, it will require an anomally greater than 0.1 degree warmer than 1934 to break that record.
Here is the Hadley Center analysis:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Clearly, it goes earlier than 1950.
Please make note of these facts.
And, yes, I apparently cannot spell "anomaly."
Barton; Yes energy is conserved. When the earth radiates energy it cools down. A very small % of this energy ( about 4-8%) gets transfered by CO2 into atmospheric temperature. Very little of this energy gets re-radiated. It gets transfered through kinetic impacts to our main atmospheric gases. Holding the energy in the atmosphere for a longer period should not raise the temperature, it should simply maintain it.
Where we seem to be butting heads is around these two different points of view. Is there more energy than the current level of CO2 can absorbe or is there more CO2 than is required to absorb this energy. I feel there is more than enough CO2 to absorb this energy. I came to this conclusion not when I saw the math but when I saw graphs generated by the NIMBUS group of satellites. If there is no energy at the frequencies that CO2 absorbes energy entering space then it must be being absorbed. It really doesn't matter where it is being absorbed just that it is. I subscribe to the theory of KISS ( keep it simple silly)
As for bowing down at the alter of Experts? I don't submit. I think for myself. The experts said that ulcers were caused by stress but how wrong they were. The problem with most experts is that most of their Knowledge is out of date and it is hard to unlearn something that you have spent years learning, there is also the problem of academic arrogance. Even smart people can be stupid sometimes and even idiots can be brilliant, so just because someone is an expert dosn't mean they know what they are talking about and visa versa.
Kent, so what you are saying here is that thousands of climate scientists, many with years of pedigree in their field of research, know less than you do, or else you've nailed something that they've all missed.
Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw.
You're also suggesting that scientists such as myself don't think for ourselves? Moreover, where did you dig up this vacuous nugget, that 'all the experts' said that ulcers were caused by stress? You've hit the rock bottom here intellectually and no amount of pontificating is going to dig you out of this hole. I don't think its a case of you 'thinking for yourself', its a case of 'ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge' as Darwin said more than a century ago.
Jeff since you are a scientist maybe you could direct me to a site that shows there is more energy ( at the frequencies that CO2 absorbs IR radiation) than is being absorbed. I have tried for years with no luck. Being hooked up with the academic community it should take you just a few clicks of your mouse.
Since it is such a simple question I would have thought it would be the first question a real scientist would have asked. Why? Because it would prove once and for all whether CO2 is a problem or not.
When you say that thousands of climate scientists agree, I suspect you are referring to the Intergovermental panel. Please note we are dealing with bureaucrates here not scientists.The number that support the IPCC has gone from thousands to a few hundred in the space of less than a decade. Even the IPCC has been droping it's estimates with every report. Given that the latest one is from May 2005 one must wonder just how much the next one will reduce their estimates of death and destruction?
kent:
You've been sucked in to one of the 50 year old arguments about CO2 absorption that failed to recognize that the absorption bands of CO2 actually widen slightly as its concentration is increased. Read http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm and you'll find out that the scientists argued about this until 50 years ago. BTW, it was experts who found out what the actual cause of ulcers was, not ignorant idiots.
kent, kent, kent...
"Very little of this energy gets re-radiated. It gets transfered through kinetic impacts to our main atmospheric gases. "
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT ENERGY?!
"I feel there is more than enough CO2 to absorb this energy."
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT ENERGY?!
"If there is no energy at the frequencies that CO2 absorbes energy entering space then it must be being absorbed. It really doesn't matter where it is being absorbed just that it is."
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT ENERGY?!
Energy absorbed can not be dismissed. Energy transferred from CO2 to other gasses can not be dismissed. It does not go away, it still is there. You keep implying that once the energy is absorbed, you can dismiss if from further thought. Why?
And once again, kent - do you know why stratospheric cooling is a signature of greenhouse gas induced warming? If not, why do you feel qualified to dismiss the work of a hell of a lot of people who DO know the basics of the science, when you clearly do not?
Chris... fifty years ago .. are we talking about sputnik? The NIMBUS series was in the 70s. As for ulcers it was not experts that figured it out it was an Australian doctor who was ridiculed for ten years by the ingnorant idiots. It was only when he infected himself and cured himself that the idiots finally listened. Trouble is some of those idiots still belive in what the experts told them. Thanks for the site though. Will check it out sometime today.... The real world beckons.
"Tim Ball has not, to my knowledge, ever engaged in a live debate with an actual expert. I my be wrong, but he seems to present to audiences without a response, or in soundbites like TGGW."
If you watch Tim Ball's talk, 'Kyoto No No - Tim Ball on Global Cooling'
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_av.php?IssueID=12&SubCategoryID=2
you will hear right at the beginning a call for written questions for Ball. No live, off-the-cuff, Q&A session, it would seem.
"I can't see any point in finishing that sentence. Never mind that even free-market economists favor "effluent taxes"; never mind that we're not talking about an overall tax increase, that any new tax on carbon could and should be offset by tax cuts elsewhere."
Now there's an interesting idea. One I'd consider should I ever be convinced that AGW is a problem.
The 1998/1934 thing is absolutely perfect for denialists to mislead people.
With the words in the brackets, their bullshit is revealed. Remove those key words and you get instant kent, coming to throw down the gaunlet, sure of his knowledge that thousands of nerds are playing tricks to weasel science tax money out of Republicans. BTW, good luck with that, nerds. It sounds kinda crazy but it just might work!
It's real easy to ask a question so stupid it can't be answered. Kent is an expert:
Did you all notice Dr Dave at first? (caller)
He never said, but i assume it's this one:
http://www.davemason.com/weblog/truthblog.html
And I would say the blog rather speaks for itself. WTF he could have a doctorate in is another question, since he's not even a particularly good JHS student in terms of grasp of science or other issues.
Again, thank God for Deltoid. I don't have to be as restrained as I usually am elsewhere. I actually think we should put it to the test though. Is Kent REALLY stupider than Lance? or Jc?
I think that should be a running side-comment thread. Put up your candidate for most clueless troll. Give examples. Justify your choice. See if others agree. It's the scientific way :)
PS Kent is really clueless, I admit. but it could just be Kent's turn to shine. Does "nanny_govt_sucks" or something similar post here? that one's a gem. Anyhoozel, for starters I would say Kent, Lance, Jc, ben, nanny have all distinguished themselves at different times, and frankly, they've lost all value - even of introducing new trollpoints. Nearly all postings are recycled and scripted now. So I dunno, why not *use* the actual amusing cluelessness, archive it, refine it, and re-post the gist for the amusement of others. Haven't we earned a laugh break? Plus it's like hamster racing or something.
Since 20% of ulcers are NOT caused by bacterial infection, it's probably a good thing that some of these idiots still believe in what the experts tell them, right?
You're engaged in a strange argument, though. It seems to be that since occasionally consensus science is overturned (partially, in the case of ulcers), consensus science is always wrong.
That dog won't hunt.
No, he's talking about physics, observation and theory. The >50 year old view that you subscribe to represents the "experts view of what causes ulcers", the fact that this view "...failed to recognize that the absorption bands of CO2 actually widen slightly as its concentration is increased" represents the "ulcers are caused by bacteria" overturning of the old point of view.
In other words, you're 50 years out of date. You might want to adjust your thinking appropriately before dusting off that empty spot on your library bookshelf reserved for your Nobel.
That's a really good explanation, Eli.
So Kent how are you going on the carbon isotope ratios?
"Even the IPCC has been droping it's estimates with every report. Given that the latest one is from May 2005 ..."
False. Doubly false in fact.
But back to the isotopes.
Eli;
So we agree for the most part about how CO2 works in the atmosphere. You assume that adding more CO2 adds more energy to the atmosphere. The question I was asking Jeff relates directly to this assumption.If we know what is available we can calculate how much CO2 is require to absorb it all. Research grants should be accessible.
Global warming is all about shifting the balance point. To prove CO2 will shift this point simply requires that there be more energy.
Now we have 400 scientists disputing the man made global warming position http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conten…
Well if James Imhofe says it, it must be true.
Now back to the carbon ratios.
Does Kent at #95 realise he is probably breaking the laws of the universe?
Isn't it great how by signimg your name to a denialaist petition you automatically become a "prominent" scientist - even if you never got past Associate Professor at a third-rate university and have been retired (sorry "Emeritus")for the past decade.
Funny, when I think "prominent scientists" I think of the likes of Steven Hawkings; EO Wilson; Craig Venter even.
Can anyone honestly say they've heard of any of the scientists on this list other than in relation to climate science denialism?
"IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990..."
How expert do you have to be to demand that every instance of the word anthropogenic be replaced with "human-induced"?
I'll respodn for Kent to give him more tiem to work on the carbon isotopes:
"But Guthrie, the atmosphere isn't getting HOTTER, its molecules are just moving faster."
so,kent really is as stupid as he seemed.
"You assume that adding more CO2 adds more energy to the atmosphere."
Kent
Kent's posts have negative information content.
- Question: Does increasing the CO2 mixing ratio increase the energy in the atmosphere? Answer: Yes
- Question: How does this happen? Answer: The rate at which energy enters the atmosphere from radiation from the earth's surface increases. At lower greenhouse gas mixing ratios, a portion of this energy would radiate to space.
- Question: How does the atmosphere react? Answer: This increases the temperature which increases the rate at which energy leaves the atmosphere until a new equilibrium at the higher temperature is reached.
- Question: Anything else? Answer: Why yes, the surface and oceans are heated by the higher IR radiation levels from the atmosphere so there is a feedback.
- Question: What limits the process? Answer: The solar intensity at the Earth's distance from the sun is not high enough to boil water out of the Earth's atmosphere. The heat of vaporization of the water acts as a coolant (think of this as Earth sweat) so that the Earth will not become a second Venus.
- Question: How do you boil water out of an atmosphere? Answer: You transport water high enough that it dissociates forming (eventually) hydrogen atom, ions or molecules. These easily reach escape velocity.
- Question: How much CO2 do you need to absorb all the energy? Answer: Kent you are such a thermoslut. If you absorbed all the energy there would be none radiating to space and the temperature of the earth would increase without end. Even Venus' glows in the dark (ie it radiates), just that it has to reach oven hot to get rid of the same amount of energy as it absorbs from the sun.
kent:
No, I'm talking about an argument that was finished 50 years ago that you have been sucked into believing still exists. BTW, that argument lasted a lot longer than the argument about the cause of stomach ulcers.
I'm sorry, Barry Marshall was a research fellow, gastroenterologist and professor of medicine. That makes him an expert in anyone's book.
I'm sorry (again). I thought you said they were ridiculed by the experts. Let us know when you've made up your mind.
Good luck with reducing your ignorance.
Eli;
what a hoot
Question: Does increasing the CO2 mixing ratio increase the energy in the atmosphere? Answer: Yes
The answer you give must be based on the Assumpion that there is more energy available. To turn it from an Assumption into a truth one needs to be able to say there is this much energy and this much is being captured. The differnce is what is left for more warming.
Question: How does this happen? Answer: The rate at which energy enters the atmosphere from radiation from the earth's surface increases. At lower greenhouse gas mixing ratios, a portion of this energy would radiate to space.
The rate at which earth's Blackbody radition is delivered would vary through a 24 hour period independant of CO2 levels. I agree that energy would escape into space but where is it?
Question: How does the atmosphere react? Answer: This increases the temperature which increases the rate at which energy leaves the atmosphere until a new equilibrium at the higher temperature is reached.
based on the initial Assumption of plenty of IR radiation punching through the atmosphere never to be seen again.
Question: Anything else? Answer: Why yes, the surface and oceans are heated by the higher IR radiation levels from the atmosphere so there is a feedback
Sounds good to me.
Question: What limits the process? Answer: The solar intensity at the Earth's distance from the sun is not high enough to boil water out of the Earth's atmosphere. The heat of vaporization of the water acts as a coolant (think of this as Earth sweat) so that the Earth will not become a second Venus.
Bit off the wall on this one Eli. Warming the oceans creates more moisure, more clouds, which refect incoming visible light spaceward.
Question: How much CO2 do you need to absorb all the energy? Answer: Kent you are such a thermoslut. If you absorbed all the energy there would be none radiating to space and the temperature of the earth would increase without end. Even Venus' glows in the dark (ie it radiates), just that it has to reach oven hot to get rid of the same amount of energy as it absorbs from the sun.
Question: How much CO2 do you need to absorb all the energy? Answer: Kent you are such a thermoslut. If you absorbed all the energy there would be none radiating to space and the temperature of the earth would increase without end. Even Venus' glows in the dark (ie it radiates), just that it has to reach oven hot to get rid of the same amount of energy as it absorbs from the sun.
Eli, you missed again. From what I have read, and I am no expert but CO2 can only absorb something like 8% of earth's blackbody radition. Only certain frequencies are capable of ringing CO2's bell. The Nimbus satellites indicated very little of that energy is excaping, except at the poles, something to do with the blackbody radition being outside CO2's reach.
kent, you are making an abject fool of yourself.
"The answer you give must be based on the Assumpion that there is more energy available. To turn it from an Assumption into a truth one needs to be able to say there is this much energy and this much is being captured. The difference is what is left for more warming."
One more time, what exactly do you imagine happens to the energy that is 'captured?'
BTW, kent, Eli IS an expert on CO2 and IR radiation. You might pay attention to what he says.
"This increases the temperature which increases the rate at which energy leaves the atmosphere until a new equilibrium at the higher temperature is reached."
Except that in the current case, the level of carbon dioxide is continuing to rise.
Oh and Kent don't forget the carbon isotope ratio question.
Wow, kent is like a living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Does my enjoyment of such an intellectual thrashing constitute schadenfreude?
kent writes:
[[Is there more energy than the current level of CO2 can absorbe or is there more CO2 than is required to absorb this energy. I feel there is more than enough CO2 to absorb this energy. I came to this conclusion not when I saw the math but when I saw graphs generated by the NIMBUS group of satellites. If there is no energy at the frequencies that CO2 absorbes energy entering space then it must be being absorbed. It really doesn't matter where it is being absorbed just that it is.]]
Do you think the absorbed energy disappears? It doesn't. When a gas absorbs energy it heats up.
kent posts:
[[Jeff since you are a scientist maybe you could direct me to a site that shows there is more energy ( at the frequencies that CO2 absorbs IR radiation) than is being absorbed. I have tried for years with no luck. Being hooked up with the academic community it should take you just a few clicks of your mouse.
Since it is such a simple question I would have thought it would be the first question a real scientist would have asked. Why? Because it would prove once and for all whether CO2 is a problem or not.]]
Kent, the question doesn't make any sense! "Is there more energy than is being absorbed?" More energy where? Measured how? If you haven't gotten an answer the most likely reason is because nobody can figure out what you're talking about.
Ian
I haven't forgotten the isotopes, It will have to wait till after Christmas, but I don't see how different isotopes of Carbon will effect absortion of IR. It will explain where the CO2 is coming from but not how much energy is available to warm the atmosphere.
Barton;
You can't make any sense out of my Question? It is about a fifth grade question. How much blackbody radition is there that CO2 can absorb and how much is left over?
I will be leaving now but I maybe back. Have gone to play with the adults now. At least they hit above their weight class. It has been fun and have picked up a few pointers. Merry christmas and happy newyears. Oh yah, don't bellieve all the gloom and doom you read, it will only depress you.
Kent, you might like to explain why CO2 absorbs blackbody radiation.
kent posts:
[[Barton; You can't make any sense out of my Question? It is about a fifth grade question. How much blackbody radition is there that CO2 can absorb and how much is left over?]]
How much blackbody radiation where? On Earth? In the atmosphere? In the whole solar system? Until you define what you're talking about a bit more clearly, the question can't be answered.
kent is right about one thing:
"It is about a fifth grade question."
kent's question does in fact betray that kent has about a 5th grade understanding of the science.
kent seems to believe that radiation, ie, energy flux, is a conserved quantity. He is, of course, wrong.
"...but I don't see how different isotopes of Carbon will effect absortion of IR. It will explain where the CO2 is coming from but not how much energy is available to warm the atmosphere."
THey're separate questions Kent.
Early on you suggested that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to carbon dioxide being released from the oceans not from burning fossil fuels.
The carbon isotope ratios show pretty conclusively that that is not the case.
"Talk about where CO2 absorbs energy is irrelevant if it is all absorbed within 10 meters of the surface.... we are not talking about saturating CO2 with IR in the lower atmosphere, we are talking about the extinction of the IR. It is all absorbed within the first 10 meters of the surface." etc.
You do realize, I hope, that if this were true, it would mean the earth radiates no IR at all. Has anybody remarked upon this quite unusual and unexpected finding? Given that satellite measurements of the earth's IR emissions are now common fodder in these discussions?
"This is why they believe you can learn an entire field of study by reading a few articles, websites, etc."
And yet, as the old joke goes, they would certainly be upset if somebody came to where they worked and told them they were holding the dicks wrong.
"I came to this conclusion not when I saw the math but when I saw graphs generated by the NIMBUS group of satellites. If there is no energy at the frequencies that CO2 absorbes energy entering space then it must be being absorbed."
Oh. Well, then you might want to peruse these diagrams, both courtesy Hans Erren, ironically,
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhvsmodtran.gif
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/spectra.gif
because I just don't see how they show that "there is no energy at the frequencies that CO2 absorbes energy entering space."
At risk of giving Kevin more rop to hang himself, I think he got the 10 metres of atmosphere has IR trapped in it from here:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
"The problem isn't really one of credentials. It is one of knowledge. They don't believe that experts in climate science, evolutionary biology, etc have much knowledge. Science is "easy", can be boiled down to a few contrarian sound bites. Biology is just "stamp collecting". Climate science is just a fancy term for "weather forecasting", and what do you need to know to be a "meteorologist" on TV?"
The corollary, of course, is that what they do believe in is much better established, to the point of irrefutable proof; the evil designs of socialists to destroy the US economy, the evil designs of ecologists to destroy the human population, the evil designs of Iraq to destroy the US, etc. etc.
"Here is the part of the article which ... you can read it for yourself. In reading many other pieces with the same headline I notice the date 1850. In one other they talk about 1971. This is where I got the 1950 bit from. "
It's not that this realization doesn't shake your certainty in your logic which dismays us. It's that this realization doesn't shake your certainty that we are just being oppositional in not ourselves being convinced by your logic, which dismays us.
"BUT I can't quite figure out how the anthropogenic portion should go up from 0.3 C to 2.1-7.0 C within 100 years. "
Well, this graphic explains it quite clearly, IMHO.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/12/16/weekinreview/20071216_EMI…
"BUT I can't quite figure out how the anthropogenic portion should go up from 0.3 C to 2.1-7.0 C within 100 years. "
Well, this graphic explains it quite clearly, IMHO.
Damn underlines.