I’m taking the weekend off, as I need to do some climate unrelated work, which is physical, and always good for the soul, and I need to spend time with my family, who often get neglected due to the amount of time I put into this blog.
Guest posters are welcome to post stories.
Feel free to discuss topics within site policy.
Sorry that was see owe to Rich who made the comment rather than Richard
tonyb
Ed, name me ONE program that was repealed on the basis of its failure; the thinking here is the dems will make this pig fly, come hell or high water. Look at the present admin re: the economy and any REAL metric which indicates abject failure, yet that is not the ‘popular’ thought in the populace (yet!) on account a admin-friendly, accommodating, lap-dog press …
.
Zaphod says: October 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm “Can anyone help? I’m an engineer, not a scientist. For 30 years I’ve relied on New Scientist to keep me in touch. I am seriously disappointed with NS in recent years.”
I did not see a retort, or suggestion even, to your request. I became disillusioned with lamestream media of that ilk with my experiences with Scientific American. My ad hoc solution is registration or whatever is required with academic paper/preprint repositories – arXive and SSRN for example – where I can browse topics of my interest. No editorials/editorial policy or competing financial interests.
Look into the Open Access movement.
No reciprocity at the molecular level at it relates to vibration and being excited by incoming EM rad and also re-radiating that same EM energy at the same wavelength on account molecule movement (vibrating, movement of the constituent atoms wrt to each other in the molecule)? That’s a new one on me …
Tuning forks can be made to both generate ‘waves’ as well as resonate in response to ‘waves’ coming in. We also see this same reciprocity in antennas and other resonant type circuits involving EM energy … what ‘mechanism’ would intrinsically make this one way?
.
bobl says:
October 20, 2013 at 6:03 am
The accumulation is occuring not because CO2 is higher, but because total CO2 emission rate from all sources is increasing. Plant and ocean responses to the CO2 are lagged, and the lagged response causes CO2 to overshoot the equilibrium level.
I suppose that you are reacting on my response to Janice Moore, as Janice only cited the film of Dr. Salby, to which I objected…
There was and is a lot of discussion about the origin of the increase in the atmosphere. Fact is that the biosphere (plants, bacteria, insects, animals,…) is a net sink for CO2, as can be deduced from the oxygen balance.
Thus there are only two relative fast main possible sources of the increase in the atmosphere: human emissions and the deep oceans. The oceans surface can be excluded, as that is limited in capacity (about 10% of the change in the atmosphere).
From the past we know that the long-term ratio between CO2 and temperature in equilibrium is about 8 ppmv/K. That means that with the increase in temperature over the past 50 years (since Mauna Loa and the South Pole started measuring CO2) of about 0.5 K, that is good for maximum 4 ppmv of the 70+ ppmv which is measured since 1960, now already 100+ ppmv above the historical equilibrium.
Humans emitted about 140 ppmv in the same time frame, more than enough to explain the increase. Moreover, the slightly quadratic increase in cumulative emissions makes that the increase in the atmosphere also is slightly quadratic as is the sink rate. Here the trends:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
and here the ratio of emissions and increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
and here the temperature and increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
It is quite clear to me what caused the increase in the atmosphere…
Theoretically it is possible that the oceans increased in circulation, dwarfing the increase in human emissions. But that means that the increase in circulation must mimick the increase in human emissions (a threefold since 1960) with exactly the same ratio and timing. But that violates about all known observations like residence time, 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratio, etc…
pat & the snipping doctor
He may be reducing the carbon footprint one (public) snip at a time but how much more is he increasing it with all his flying around? I hope he’s removed himself from the gene pool.
As a regular visitor to WUWT, I have often seen one or more of the Laws of Thermodynamics mentioned on occasion. I have read elsewhere in the past that the CAGW narrative violates one or more of these Laws. However, I do not recall if that issue was ever directly discussed here, and was wondering if the CAGW narrative does indeed violate one or more of the Laws. Please understand that I am a non-scientist, so please forgive my ignorance here if this issue was in fact covered in the past. Please, if you would, discuss this in terms that any lay person can understand.
Also, I recall reading elsewhere about the Law of Diminishing Returns (LoDR) as regards CO2. Is this one of the Thermodynamic Laws? The LoDR, as I understand it, states that CO2’s effect diminishes as a greenhouse gas as the level of it in the atmosphere increases and that, at 400 PPM, CO2 has already done most of its “damage” (if in fact it does any at all). So CO2 as a greenhouse gas should be a non-issue because of the LoDR among other reasons. Correct?
Many thanks in advance to everyone who can enlighten me on these subjects. Greatly appreciated!
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Yes, we know you are convinced of an anthropogenic cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. But that does not allow that you should make exaggerations of your case such as you do in your post at October 20, 2013 at 6:52 am where you write
There are several possibilities, including but not only that “the oceans increased in circulation”, which do not violate any observations. Indeed, it is only hours since I corrected your assertion concerning the isotope ratios on another WUWT thread: the changes in those ratios don’t “mimick the increase in human emissions” but are wrong by a factor of 3.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/life-in-a-climate-cataclysm-box/#comment-1453209
Richard
CD (@ur momisuglyCD153) says:
October 20, 2013 at 7:18 am
As a regular visitor to WUWT, I have often seen one or more of the Laws of Thermodynamics mentioned on occasion.
@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly
I think it fair to say that there is no a proiri reason why CAGW violates the laws of thermodynamics. Some of the reasons people have hypothesised as to WHY CAGW occurs, may violate such laws. The law of diminishing returns is not part of the laws of thermodynamics. It is more formally called the Beer/Lambert Law.
LoDR is from economics theory. “Diminishing returns” might describe an inverse second power function, as in R^-2 radiation attenuation with distance. Or a Pareto Distribution, and he, Pareto was an Italian economist from the early Twentieth Century.
Um (sigh).
Spot on!
Here’s a warning for the warmista community from the scientific consensus world of the food police and shows just how wrong the so called “experts” can be.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden-becomes-first-western-nation-to-reject-low-fat-diet-dogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/
For years I have battled weight gain using the popular advice of low fat/high carb without success – until I read a book by Gary Taub backing the Swedish model above.
Result – blood sugar down, weight down , drugs down , energy up, levels of scientific consensus scepticism well up.
Your turn next AGW believers
CD (@CD153) says:
October 20, 2013 at 7:18 am
>>>>>>
I recall some of the non-scientific rhetoric on the Warmist side (about 10 years ago) that included such phrases as “CO2 is warming the planet”. Some were actually representing atmospheric CO2 as a heat source, as if it could radiate heat from within itself (with no loss of mass or other source of energy). The counter argument was that would violate the 2nd Law. (Very briefly, the 2nd Law implies that we can not get something for nothing.) The 2nd Law has been verified for so long a time, and in so many ways, that it is a fundamental, undisputed Law of Physics (Thermodynamics).
So, I agree completely with Jim Cripwell (above), just expanding slightly to hopefully add, not detract.
richardscourtney says: October 20, 2013 at 5:34 am.
Please explain why you think your argument is a falsification of the climate null hypothesis.
********************
Richard….I’m sorry about the unclear attempt at sarcasm late in the evening ——, “DOH!”, an American reference to the cartoon character Homer Simpson. In fact my point is it’s plainly not possible to FAIL TO REJECT the null hypothesis.
Mark Bofill says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm
the paleo argument for high climate sensitivity?
============
the ice age cycle of interglacials argues strongly that CO2 sensitivity is low. Here are the factors to consider:
1. warming increases CO2
2. cooling decreases CO2
3. earth’s orbit has only small variability
4. ocean cores show the interglacials co-incide with the earth’s orbit.
The problem is that the variability in the earth’s orbit is not enough to cause the interglacials. Milankovitch was rejected as a result, until the ocean cores proved him right. Google 100k year problem.
So, what this means is that something must amplify the orbital irregularities. CO2 is cited as a possible candidate. As solar energy increases due to orbital mechanics, more CO2 is released, amplifying the warming. Voila, we have an interglacial.
The problem now is simple, how do we return to an ice age. With the increased CO2 warming the planet, the small decrease in solar energy due to orbital mechanics cannot overcome the effects to CO2 in sustaining the interglacial.
This means that CO2 amplification of warming is contradicted by the paleo record, which means that there cannot be any significant permanent warming from increased CO2. At best, the response must be transient. Increased CO2 could warm temps for awhile, but this must change something in the climate system that restores temps.
Otherwise, the increased CO2 that accompanies interglacial warming would prevent future ice ages. Since the paleo record contradicts this, CO2 sensitivity must either be low or be transient.
Richard D:
Thankyou for your clarification in your post addressed to me at October 20, 2013 at 7:56 am.
Lack of a sarc tag in your post induced me to think you were attempting a warmunist argument. I apologise for my misunderstanding.
Richard
See – owe to Rich says:
October 20, 2013 at 2:48 am
Is there a natural ocean “lapse rate” down to a constant 4K at some depth where the densest waters reside, and if so would the depth at which 4K is reached
==========
isn’t 4K the temp of liquid helium at atmospheric pressure? 🙂
An interesting article on the northwest passage:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/baffinland-ceo-says-no-to-shipping-ore-through-northwest-passage/article14915542/#dashboard/follows/
Doug Huffman says:
October 20, 2013 at 7:34 am
“LoDR is from economics theory. “Diminishing returns” might describe an inverse second power function, as in R^-2 radiation attenuation with distance. Or a Pareto Distribution, and he, Pareto was an Italian economist from the early Twentieth Century.”
*************
Doug, I think the blog where I read that said he borrowed the LoDR concept from economics because he thought the behavior of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was similar in concept to the LoDR.
Does that make sense…..or no?
I thought the Senate was a ‘cooling saucer’ (where legislation and ideas are discussed) where things are slowed down on purpose (FOR that expressed purposes of discussion et al). That’s what the ‘press’ taught me a few years back anyway (heard that on numerous networks, not just one BTW so it was more than just, say, Fox) …
What I would like to know is, why is the leader of the Senate endowed with such power that he may limit what is brought to the floor for debate for votes … doesn’t that “completely break democracy” too?
And why isn’t the Senate properly fulfilling their role with the consideration and subsequent passage of a budget? WUWT the passing of successive CRs (continuing resolutions)?
.
Zaphod says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Can anyone help?
I’m an engineer, not a scientist. For 30 years I’ve relied on New Scientist to keep me in touch.
I did not renew my sub to NS and will not renew Sci Am when the time comes. Both are lost causes as are the BBC and media in general – scientifically illiterate and will print/broadcast any old crap as long as it is sensational, cheap (ten year old out of date repeats) and doom laden.
Just use Google to search for published papers on subjects that interest you and use your common sense/education to filter out the crackpot ones (they are usually pretty obvious).
CD (@CD153):
In your post at October 20, 2013 at 7:18 am you asked about the Thermodynamic Laws and Jim Cripwell answered that at October 20, 2013 at 7:30 am. I think this link will provide you with a useful introduction to what the Three Laws say if you want to spend time studying it
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/thermodynamics–2/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/
The reason I write is because your post also said and asked
I think this link is what you want.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
David Archibald provides a clear explanation of the ‘logarithmic effect’ which he presents as a series of graphs together with explanation of what each shows.
Please get back if this is not sufficient.
Richard
Was that the same Bush who began to look into (call it exploratory investigations) of ‘home financing’ (vis-a-vis the “Community Reinvestment Act”) by banks and institutions a few years before the MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) fiasco that seems to be the root of the bank bailouts and our present economic malaise? BUT was shot down by several prominent dems in pursuing that action and subsequently did not follow up on said exploratory investigations?
That guy?
.
Yeah. I think we have a 4K / 4C (does not) = 1.0 math error going here .. 8<)
geran says:
October 20, 2013 at 5:04 am
this is an OPEN thread, duh….
Yeah, sure, you and everyone are allowed to make fools of themselves.