Global warming – why trapping carbon may not work

[kristopher]

http://sedgemore.com/2009/07/global-warming-why-trapping-carbon-may-not-work/

While politicians talk of investing heavily in so-called ‘clean coal’ technologies, building a new generation of fossil fuel power plants, sequestering carbon dioxide and trapping the greenhouse gas deep underground, two Swedish scientists argue that this will have little effect on global warming.

Environmental engineers and renewable energy experts Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet have calculated total energy emissions from the late 19th century to the present day, and say that using the increase in average global air temperature as a measure of global warming does not account for observed climate change. We must also take into account the total energy contained in the ground, ice sheets and oceans in order to accurately model climate change.

According to Nordell and Gervet’s calculations, heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to only 6.6% of global warming. The rest is stored in the ground (31.5%), melting ice (33.4%) and sea water (28.5%). Net heat emissions between the years 1880 and 2000 correspond to almost three quarters of the heat accumulated during the period; the missing heat is due to the greenhouse effect, natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions, the researchers say.

“Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for carbon dioxide sequestration,” says Nordell. “The increasing carbon dioxide emissions merely show how most net heat is produced.”

The total energy argument also deals a heavy blow to the case for nuclear power. Nuclear fission may not produce carbon dioxide in the same way and at the same level as burning fossil fuels, but according to Nordell it produces heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates. Nuclear energy therefore contributes significantly to global warming...

http://sedgemore.com/2009/07/global-warming-why-trapping-carbon-may-not-work/

[excess_3]

1. this is crap. .nt

[joshcryer]

3. The OP won't let this go for some reason.

BTW you will be accused of allowing your preconceived notions to get in the way of rational thinking (by dismissing an unscientific paper so easily).

[excess_3]

4. thermal power plants tend to throw 60% of their heat output,

thermal power plants tend to throw 60% of their heat output,
out the window, it is just thermodynamics.

picking on nuke plants, for things discussed in the OP, is crap.
(Nukes are otherwise controversial, BTW.)

[joshcryer]

5. I don't even care about the whole nuke plant thing, to be honest.

I just dislike crap 'science.'

[kristopher]

7. Really?

Here are a couple of comments from the page that our friend Josh said had a simple mathematical proof that Nordell couldn't possible be correct:
According to EIA, the world energy consumption was 421 quadrillion BTU's in 2003. Based on conservation of energy laws, where did these Btu’s go? Answer: To Useful work (electricity, propulsion, motors, etc.); To Direct products (lubricants, asphalt, etc.); To Space heat, and To Waste heat.

My model assumes a source weighted average of 15% of this Total energy was transferred into the air directly. Any waste heat to water (e.g., power plant cooling) is assumed to NOT go directly into the this atmospheric model.

The troposphere is modeled to be 12000 meters high, have a humidity at 50%, and be well mixed.

A simple energy balance shows that 15% of 421 Quadrillion Btus into the above atmosphere will cause a 0.025 degree C temperature rise.

This is not negligible, especially if you think of the prior 100 years of contribution. Some amount was dissipated while some was energy was still contained in the atmosphere to be warmed more by the next year's waste sensible heat.

And

Why only 15%. Nearly all energy ends up as waste heat in the atmosphere. You drive a car only 6% of the energy goes to moving the mass of the vehicle (F=ma bit). 80% is waste heat from the engine 6% is tyre rolling resistance = hot tyres heats the atmosphere, 6% aerodynamic drag heats the atmosphere the rest is other frictions which make the transmission and other things get hot which ends up in the atmosphere. Oh and then you stop so the 6% that you actually used to accelerate the vehicle is lost as heat in the brakes which ends up in the atmosphere. Thus 100% of the fuel energy ends up as heat in the atmosphere!


And here is what Nordell (the author of the study) says about what he has done:
Before explaining global warming by extraterrestrial heat sources, the net heat emissions on Earth should be considered. Emissions such as heat dissipation from the global use of fossil fuels and nuclear power must contribute to global warming. It is a common opinion that the heat emitted by anthropogenic systems is insignificant because it is very small compared to solar energy input. However, this solar energy input does not cause any warming over the year as long as the planet is in thermal balance. Therefore, it is not relevant to compare the net heat emissions with the flux of energy from the sun. What really matters is the change in the energy balance and the occurring net heat emission must, to some extent, contribute to global warming.

Another common idea is that the net heat emissions would be emitted to space. This is partly true only in some rare cases when net heat is emitted at a high temperature. In most cases, however, net heat emissions mean that low-temperature waste heat is dumped into sea water or the atmosphere or heat leakage from buildings is transferred to the surrounding air or ground. When this net heat is mixed with large recipients, it means that it very soon will be at the ambient temperature.
In the current study, accumulated and emitted heat were estimated and compared.

[joshcryer]

8. Yes, he says "magically certain absorbtion rates exist."

Yet it neglects the known CO2 forcing (ie, even if magical absorbtion rates existed, he would *still* have to explain CO2 forcing).

[kristopher]

12. Why does he have to address forcing?

He has explained his method, his data, and the results. Forcing is a second order consideration that needs to be addressed, but first the actual work that Nordell has done needs to be evaluated. Are you saying that we have not introduced the amount of heat into the planet's envelope that he has calculated?

Are you saying that this heat is not transferred into the environment as he states?

What, EXACTLY are you claiming is flawed in his work. As noted before, just saying it doesn't match the current models doesn't disprove his work if the work is internally consistent and valid, which it appears to be.

All you are doing is, in essence, saying that there is a discrepancy; and, since the new data doesn't explain that discrepancy then it must be wrong. That's absurd on its face.

Tell me where his WORK is wrong.

Nordell:
Before explaining global warming by extraterrestrial heat sources, the net heat emissions
on Earth should be considered. Emissions such as heat dissipation from the global use of
fossil fuels and nuclear power must contribute to global warming. It is a common opinion
that the heat emitted by anthropogenic systems is insignificant because it is very small
compared to solar energy input. However, this solar energy input does not cause any
warming over the year as long as the planet is in thermal balance. Therefore, it is not
relevant to compare the net heat emissions with the flux of energy from the sun. What
really matters is the change in the energy balance and the occurring net heat emission
must, to some extent, contribute to global warming.

Another common idea is that the net heat emissions would be emitted to space. This
is partly true only in some rare cases when net heat is emitted at a high temperature. In
most cases, however, net heat emissions mean that low-temperature waste heat is dumped
into sea water or the atmosphere or heat leakage from buildings is transferred to the
surrounding air or ground. When this net heat is mixed with large recipients, it means that
it very soon will be at the ambient temperature.

In the current study, accumulated and emitted heat were estimated and compared.

[joshcryer]

16. He cannot come to his numbers without accumulating heat.

And his numbers wouldn't work if CO2 forcing was given the multiplier that is has by the IPCC (in which case the temperature of the planet would be far higher than it is).

He has to change the foundation of CO2 forcing for his numbers to work. How hard is this to grasp?

[kristopher]

19. That isn't hard to grasp, it is just that it happens to be incorrect.

He doesn't have to do anything at all with CO2 forcing "for his numbers to work." If his numbers are valid, his numbers are valid. It does mean there is a problem somewhere, but that is the next step of the process - establishing where the problem is. If the analysis he has conducted can be replicated then it might very well be necessary to "change the foundation of CO2 forcing". Or it might be a problem related to lack of data where something like deep ocean currents are hiding the fact that BOTH analysis are correct and the amount of GW that has actually taken place is much greater than we now know.

So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that his cumulative tally of emitted heat is incorrect.

So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that his evaluation of the disposition of the emitted heat is incorrect.

So far, I've seen nothing to to indicate a mechanism that rids the planet of this 120 years worth of accumulated heat.

So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that his method or his data are flawed.

[joshcryer]

21. How is it going to change the foundation of CO2 forcing?

It has no experiment on which it can be based, and it would basically say "the laboratory physics are wrong." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see no such evidence except for a poorly matching correlation, which most certainly does not mean causation, especially in light of the evidence we already have with regards to GHG radiative forcing contributions.

[joshcryer]

22. From a paper in #20:

To sum up, if 0.02 W m
2 from thermal pollution will eventually warm Earth’s surface by 1.8 K, then anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing to date (2.4 W m
2) will eventually warm Earth’s surface by ~200 K.

He has to address this, he fails to do so. He has been challenged by other scientists in a peer reviewed process to address this, and he did not in the 2008 paper. He only showed that his numbers didn't match, thus, by his own admission, rejecting his theory from the field.

[kristopher]

24. So he is supposed to figure out why the OTHER theory is wrong

Instead of prove that his work is valid?

I was right earlier, you are as dumb as a stump and dishonest to boot.

[joshcryer]

25. No, you are just grasping at straws so badly that it is a joke.

[joshcryer]

27. Just so we're clear, his theory cannot be valid if it does not consider known theory.

You should come to defense of the solar radiance people in the future, they would love you for not requiring them to actually have established their views. After all, if the upper atmosphere isn't warming it's clearly demonstrating a different process at work that we don't yet know.

ie, the theory of GHG trapping doesn't have to be addressed because it's some OTHER theory.

[kristopher]

29. That is idiotic - again par for the course.

The first step is to validate or falsify his research. Then, if it is true, the source of the discrepancy is explored. Your reasoning makes every new piece of information (which is what this is, it isn't an "alternative theory" of global warming) contingent upon explaining all the ramification the new data has on all affected existing theories.

[joshcryer]

31. So you think that solar radiance = global warming is a perfectly valid theory?

It only requires that applicable theories be addressed, not "all affected existing theories."

In this case CO2 forcing is considered applicable data, and he fails to respond to the objection.

Similarly to solar radiance detractors, might I add.

[kristopher]

33. I'm not going off on a tangent.

I like to do something that clearly is meaningless to you - I actually read the material. I'm not going to invest my time getting up to speed on a red herring. Nordell's work is valid. The check on his work is provided by him if you don't believe it, you are free to show where his mistake lies. Whether or not there is a mistake in current assumptions behind the models we use is not material to the validity of what he has done.

Every argument you've used is invalid. All of them. At this point, you're just being a jerk.

[joshcryer]

35. It must be nice.

I wish I could delude myself so effectively as you.

[joshcryer]

39. LOL, I read the original paper again, Nordell even talks about "solar irradiance."

Amusing how I overlooked it or just forgot he mentioned it as a competing view.

[joshcryer]

2. "...they are surely indulging in hyperbole."

From your link...

Also, here's a simple mathematical proof that waste heat cannot be causing any significant amount of global warming: http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html

William Connolley goes on to write about the "updated" paper here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/08/the_wilder_shores.php

[kristopher]

6. There you go "misrepresenting" again.

The links have no "proofs" what-so-ever. All I see is more character attacks, not rebuttal of the method, data or calculations put forth in Appendix A of Nordell's paper. All you have to do to prove your point is to go to this section and isolate for us where his error is. So far, not one person has done this. Everyone has said he just can't be right because other methods oriented around CO2 forcing give results that disagree, but that DOES NOT disprove what Nordell has done.

If you have a valid criticism specific to his work please present it.

BTW let me ask you a question. Are you a supporter nuclear power as the best answer to our climate change problem?

[joshcryer]

9. Oh, so this is about "nuclear power"? That might explain why you are so insistant on backing crap...

...'science.'

I consider nuclear power a third or maybe even fourth level power option for the future, and have gotten into arguments with NNadir about its economics in the past. I posted a thread about the exponential growth of solar cells for crying out loud. I disagree with this paper simply because it's asinine.

So the average global forcing is... 13.2e12/(4*1.3e14) = 0.025 W/m2. Compared to which, the well mixed GHG's are about 2 W/m2 TAR spm fig 3. So waste heat is about 1/80th of the GHG forcing. Which is clearly small globally, and probably so locally too.

Simple math, kristopher.

[joshcryer]

10. You have to understand (and I say this because clearly you don't):

Greenhouse gas forcing is verified independently in lab tests. It exists regardless. Nordell has done nothing here to advance the science because he fails to explain why magically CO2s radiative forcing has absolutely no relevance to his data.

[kristopher]

11. And you fail to understand or address

the fact that Nordell numbers are independent of forcing.

Explain, specifically, why forcing is relevant to his method or his data.

I don't believe you've read the paper.

[joshcryer]

13. The paper says that global warming due to CO2 and other factors* accounts for (roughly) 25%.

*other factors not related to thermal pollution.

He says that thermal pollution accounts for (roughly) 75%. (I deleted the paper so I don't have the *exact* percentages, but they're close to that.)

Do you disagree that the paper says this?

If you agree that the paper says this, then how do you reconcile that current temperature increases have been more than accounted for by CO2 forcing, a very real phenomena? Where does Nordell show that CO2 forcing is not relevant? He doesn't. He just dismisses it as a significant contributing factor.

Now, what shocks me here is that when *other* global warming deniers make *similar* claims that *neglect and ignore* CO2 forcing, we are *usually* quick to jump on them and tell them they are wrong.

It seems that simply because this author is using his numbers to "prove" that "nuclear is not a solution," he is "acceptable."

And again, I read what I wrote about nuclear and it came out kinda discombobulated. I am essentially "against" nuclear. I am pro civilization though and if it came down to it we should use it as a last resort. But I see renewables as being far more likely to provide our energy needs.

[kristopher]

14. Thank you.

Yes the numbers are correct (74/26).

Can you now explain his argument so that I know you understand what his thinking is?

[joshcryer]

15. His thinking is simple, that thermal pollution accounts for 76% of observed temperature increase.

A third or thereabouts in each the ground, sea, and ice melt through absorption and emission. He believes the Earth is in a state of balanced energy equilibrium and that our energy utilization and waste heat account for the warming increasing temperature trend.

To come to this conclusion you have to either forget CO2 forcing or you must show how CO2 forcing is inaccurate. Nordell has done the former, wouldn't you agree?

If not, where does he address CO2 forcing?

[kristopher]

18. Two questions

Where did the heat go? He has done a reasonable job of documenting the heat emitted since 1880 and he states his numbers are all conservative estimates (and I believe it); so, you need to explain where an amount of heat equal to AT LEAST 76% of observed GW has gone. Was the earth not in equilibrium prior to 1880?

Second, how do you explain the ice core data that tells us that in prior periods of warming that CO2 was a lagging indicator? The observed cycles show us there is first an unexplained warming, then CO2 rise, then more warming from forcing and cascade effects. The trouble is we are facing a situation that is different from past episodes in that the CO2 emissions are integral to the thermal emissions. This means that we know even less about the interplay of the two factors in the present than we do from the observed record.

The point of the second question is that in spite of the fact that we've studied AGW more than about any thing else in history, we still have vast fundamental gaps in our understanding.

You can't dismiss contradictory data just because it is contradictory. You MUST explain WHY the data or conclusion or method is flawed. Why are you so set on refusing to accept this basic tenet of the scientific method?

[joshcryer]

20. The heat escapes by simple and well known mechanisms:

http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!covey%20et-al%20gpc%20vol%2047%20p72-73.pdf

http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!gumbel-rodhe%20gpc%20vol%2047%20p75-76.pdf

In 2003 Nordell writes that, ""

http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!nordell%20gpc%20vol%2047%20issue%201-%20p74.pdf

My idea should be rejected if the accumulated heat does not match available heat (avail. heat), i.e. the total net heat generation minus the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) emitted to space during the same period.

Given that the best approximation he can come up with only fulfills 75% of the equation, I consider it rejected. If *only* because it completely ignores GHG radiative forcing (which you still seem to think doesn't matter).

[kristopher]

23. Did you not read the paper?

Or is it that you don't you have a sense of shame related to lying?**

The very next line of Nordell's reply to Covey reads: "My preliminary estimates show good agreement between accumulated and available net heat. Readers are encouraged to do similar estimations."

Now you HAVE NOT even attempted to verify his work with the formula he provided in-between those two lines. It was right there and instead of pursuing an honest dialog, you opt to just blatantly lie. What, did you think no one would bother to read the damned thing?

The aggregate number that equals 76% of the observed GW is the number that you are challenged to confirm. And if that number is correct then he claims his work is valid.

Response to Covey:
I fully understand that my global warming explanation (Nordell, 2003) contradicts work performed during the last decades. However, my idea has some qualities that make it easy to verify or reject. My theory suggests that heat dissipation from the global use of non-renewable energy sources has resulted in global warming, i.e. the heating of air, ground and water. By adding the energy required to cause this heating of air, land and ground, we get the total amount of accumulated heat (acc. heat) between 1880 and 2000.

<Insert formula>

My idea should be rejected if the accumulated heat does not match available heat (avail. heat), i.e. the total net heat generation minus the net outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) emitted to space during the same period.
The accumulated net heat in air, ground and water is given by:

<insert formula>

My preliminary estimates show good agreement between accumulated and available net heat. Readers are encouraged to do similar estimations.



**I was raised with a very high regard for basic decency towards others; and at the top of the list of things that demonstrates both respect for others and personal character is a prohibition against lying. The reasons that lead a person to tell lies is a pretty fair benchmark by which to judge the fiber an individual - the more trivial the motive that pushes someone to resort to telling a lie, the more worthless as a human being is that individual.

[joshcryer]

26. Why would I have to verify the work? He did it for me in his 2008 paper.

Are you really having this hard of a time following what is going on? He makes a claim in 2003, it does not stand up to his own scrutiny. He also fails to explain how his theory doesn't defy the known laws of physics.

BTW, it has been well established that you consider me "more worthless" of a human being. I don't even know why you feel compelled to remind me except that you are getting deseprate.

[joshcryer]

28. BTW, I cannot access or find his reply to J. GumbelT and H. Rodhe.

I would be interested in what he has to say about their claim that he is defying known laws of physics.

This is in contradiction to Stefan-Boltzmann’s law. The Earth’s surface emits thermal radiation continuously in accordance with its temperature. It is against the laws of physics to split up the thermal emission from the surface into a btemporary outgoing fluxQ that compensates incoming radiation and a bconstant background heat flowQ that transports geothermal heat and heat pollution towards space. Rather, the surface is emitting according to its temperature at any given moment and this temperature is essentially unaffected by heat pollution.

[joshcryer]

30. Here we go:

http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!nordell%20gpc%20vol%2047%20issue%201-%20p77-78.pdf

Not very compelling.

[kristopher]

34. To a bonehead.

[joshcryer]

36. He doesn't address specific questions made by the challengers.

Thus I give his argument very little weight. I'm sorry that you have much lower expectations (and would presumably defend solar radiance detractors on similar grounds; not).

[kristopher]

37. And again we don't need to rely on how much "weight" you give his response

That's the nice thing about science. It is what it is. Whether you want to act like an ass or not, the underlying facts will be the same. While you may not be satisfied with his response, it is clear that many other, much more highly qualified people ARE satisfied with it, thus the reception his paper received at the conference and from the journal that published it.

To me, that is critical recognition of his work by peer qualified to judge it.

I want to thank you for the dialog. In the beginning I considered the paper interesting, but considerably less well received than it actually is. The obvious ignorance behind your criticism motivated me to research I almost certainly would not otherwise have done and I feel confident that it also exposed a number of lurkers to evidence regarding the validity of the papers that is considerably more authoritative than your blogs and bloviation.

I'll be interested in seeing how this unfolds and will be sure to keep everyone apprised.

[joshcryer]

38. How what unfolds? The initial report was written in 2001, it took two years to be accepted by a...

...journal. Then, it took about 5 years for another paper to come out. In that time period it gained absolutely no traction, and no one gives it much serious contemplation because it is based on law defying concepts, is too simplistic to address the full view we have, and is far more inadequate at explaining the warming trend (it would be interesting to build an accurate predictive model based on assumptions which can only answer 75% of an equation).

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

Climate change is primarily caused by greenhouse gasses. Not waste heat. I'll be happy to address this if in some alternative future Nordell's opinion holds more weight than, say, Ferenc M. Miskolczi, who claims that GHGs have ZERO effect on global warming, and indeed, like anyone who rejects GHGs, has a fundamental problem understanding simple, proven, infrared absorption and radiative tables. Until then he remains a crackpot just like Miskolczi.

[kristopher]

40. Climate change is primarily caused by greenhouse gasses. ???

Really?

Then explain the ice core data where CO2 significantly lags temperature rise.

[joshcryer]

41. Oh god.

Please don't tell me you don't understand the difference between planetary wobble and industrial pollution.

[kristopher]

42. Think about it for a minute, grasshopper...

What other possible explanation is there besides ignorance on my part?

[joshcryer]

43. I would think you would have researched this stuff.

Here's a video explaining it clearer than I would: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8

(Especially since I am known to have "poor English" and would probably not explain it right anyway.)

[kristopher]

44. Just as I expected. Instead of revisiting your assumption...

Instead of revisiting your assumption, you ignore the heads up and plow ahead with your fallacy.

The point of the reference to the lag is related to 1) the fact that our understanding of the causes is weighted much more heavily in favor of extrapolation over observation than other areas in the record, and 2) all of the explanations posit large effects over time from from very small inputs.

As I noted the current situation is much different than that represented by the ice core data in that the thermal input is linked with an alternate source of CO2 inputs. Therefore the current situation presents distinct challenges that limit the applicability of that data.

Given that, what it does tell us is that saying the "primary cause" of GW is nothing more than a rhetorical convenience that has no place in a serious discussion.

[joshcryer]

45. Ah, you're trying to represent me as saying "all climate change is caused by CO2."

Am I correct? I'm sure the context is clear here and anyone reading this would know I wasn't making such absurd statements.

[joshcryer]

46. *sigh* I keep deluding myself that you're trying to have constructive debate.

But it seems that all you want to do is disprove CO2 on some convoluted level.

[kristopher]

48. Bullshit.

[kristopher]

47. Yes you are saying that.

Your focus on the phrase is another attempt to accomplish by sleaze that which you clearly can't accomplish by directly addressing Nordell on his work.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

50. Again, "Really???"

Climate change is primarily caused by greenhouse gasses. Not waste heat.

Your words, post #38.

[joshcryer]

52. Context kristopher.

You're just being a douche now. The link preceding it clearly references the scientific opinion on (recent) climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Now, you can say that I was talking about *all* climate change, but you know that's fucking dishonest as fuck of you.

[joshcryer]

51. Here's where your inadequacy lies, padawan:

You think that because I reject Nordell's "thermal pollution" explanation, that I somehow am incapable of accepting alternate climate forcing mechanisms. It is simply the opposite of that. I accept *established* and *scientifically validated* mechanisms. Planetary wobble is scientifically demonstrated. CO2 is a greenhouse gas is scientifically demonstrated. "Thermal pollution causes global warming" isn't.

[kristopher]

53. Yet you can find no fault with the science of heat flow used by Nordell?

The Laws of Thermodynamics are pretty well established, aren't they? Is there science within the analysis that is speculative? I didn't see it if there is.

How do you account for the heat we've generated? Your problem (as I understand it from your somewhat disjointed remarks) with the paper is that if it is accurate then you see it as invalidating our understanding of GHG forcing, right?

Since you admit the internal validity of his work how can you deny that (and I'll use my own phrasing here) you strongly resist accepting alternate climate forcing mechanisms? Isn't that why you are rushing to condemn his paper instead of looking for alternative explanations? I think you are heavily invested emotionally in squashing climate skeptics, and I applaud the efforts that develop that emotional investment.

[joshcryer]

54. I addressed this in post 20.

The fact that you find Nordell's response acceptable shows that you lack a critical eye. He is only restating his equation and isn't addressing the objections.

If someone believed solar irradiance was a factor, and we showed those people various conclusions that went against it, and all they did was restate their equations, without explaining why our objections are wrong, then we're in the same boat, and I'm sure *you* would not find such a response adequate.

Nordell is internally consistent in that he has found a 74% correlation between waste heat and global warming. It has no predictive power, and indeed, the likely outcome is that as CO2 emissions increase, the temperature variance between waste heat and global temperature will be larger.

BTW, you should not applaud me for these kinds of efforts. You should instead embark on some introspection and realize that you are not using a critical eye (I don't know if you understand his OLR equation, but I mostly do, and I don't see how it can account for all forces related to known global warming), and it is this sort of behavior that leads to denial penetration, people looking at data, assuming it is correct, and moving on.

I still find it highly unlikely you would respond similarly to those who believe variations in solar output are responsible for global warming.

[kristopher]

55. Variations in insolation ARE responsible for GW

At least, that is the specific you pointed to regarding the contributing factors explaining the ice core data. Of do you not consider wobble to be an expression of variation in insolation?

The issue with irradiance isn't whether it has an effect but whether it has had an effect in the time frame of modern GW.

Using this as yet one more example, I'd urge you be be worried less about my reading with a "critical eye" and your own problem with extremely sloppy logic. It truly is abysmal.

[joshcryer]

56. ...

Solar irradiance supporter: "The sun is the cause for global warming, here are my equations, look solar output matches the trends pretty well!"
Me: "The upper atmosphere isn't warming, accordingly I find it unlikely that your equations reflect reality, and that instead warming is an internal force due to greenhouse gasses."
Solar irradiance supporter: "Here are my equations again. You don't get it."

---

This is equivalent to what Nordell did to Covey and Gumbel.

It seems you have decided I meant something else by my statements about irradiance, I'm well aware that "solar irradiance supporters" believe it has affected global warming. That's the point. If they used the same strategy you would have none of that.

[kristopher]

57. You are making another false characterization

Look, we understand you just don't have the candlepower to process this but try real hard.

To understand complex problems like the energy balance of Earth, we should not look at the details without having a more large-scale understanding of the problem. My approach (Nordell, 2003) is therefore axiomatic.

Over longer time scales (years), the Earth is a net heat source in space to which it emits its heat. Consequently, the periodic heating and cooling that occur during much shorter time scales are of no interest for this long-term energy balance. These periodic energy flows are zero sum events that add no heat to the planet, which also answers most of the comments made by Gumbel and Rodhe (G&R). One example, which G&R say that the author "does not seem to appreciate", is that the radiative fluxes at the surface, at any given location and time, do not necessarily balance out. The author understands this, but in my much longer time scale, they do balance out.

By considering the long-term energy balance of the planet (Fig. 1), the net heat of the planet (e.g., geothermal heat flow) must be emitted. Earth’s thermal equilibrium is maintained by this net outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR). The driving force of the net OLR is the difference between the Earth’s surface temperature and the effective temperature of its atmosphere.

Before global warming, the major net heat source was the geothermal heat flow. Calculations based on my approach, and preglobal warming temperature data, should therefore result in a net OLR equal to the geothermal heat flow.

Performed net OLR calculations were simplified by using one land temperature and one sea surface temperature for each month. The resulting global net OLR for 1880 temperature data was slightly lower than the estimated geothermal heat flow. However, by dividing land and sea surface in several areas of colder and higher temperatures, a more accurate and greater net OLR (geothermal heat flow) would be obtained. The increasing global temperature since 1880 must result in an increasing net OLR (i.e., greater than the geothermal heat flow). This required a new heat source. The only new heat source identified was from heat dissipation of the global use of non-renewable energy sources (thermal pollution) Calculations based on the global temperatures in 1999 showed that in addition to the geothermal heat flow, one third of the thermal pollution was also emitted to space (i.e., two thirds was not emitted). This remaining heat must contribute to global warming. Further, calculations showed that the global mean temperature had to increase by another 1.8 8C before all net heat was emitted.

I agree with Gumbel and Rodhe that, my writing: During the day, short wave radiation heats the ground surface, which is later cooled off by the same amount of outgoing long-wave radiation, is inaccurate. It is more confusing than enlightening, and I should rather have said that: during a global mean day, the global mean temperature is constant.

About my simplistic assumptions of "an atmospheric consisting of completely absorbing layers, vertically constant net radiative heat flux, and the complete neglect of non-radiative energy transport," I would like to give the following comments.

With my approach and year long time scale:
- there must be a "vertical constant net radiative heat flux" equal to the net OLR
- there can be no mass convection in the vertical direction (unless mass leaves our planet)
- no energy convection occurs due to the small temperature gradient.

It is true that my model does not consider "any spectral dependence of atmospheric radiative properties" and assumes "an atmosphere consisting of completely absorbing layers."

The layers do not have to be completely absorbing, but based on the assumptions that they are, and that the net OLR is known, performed calculations give the effective radiation through the atmosphere independent of its radiative properties.

I cannot find any errors in my mathematical derivations.

Reply to the comment of J. Gumbel and H. Rodhe on
Thermal pollution causes global warming, by B. Nordell
Global and Planetary Change 47 (2005) 77 – 78

[joshcryer]

58. Hahaha, that doesn't invalidate my statement.

In fact, the more relevant response is to Covey et al. :)

Nice try. (Pasting walls of text does not an argument make.)

[kristopher]

59. JoshLiar...

[joshcryer]

60. Well? Did he addres Covey or just post his equation?

Or are you just calling me a liar because you are pathological?

The response you posted, btw, was basically backpeddling and admission that he was using wrong terminology, ultimately he did just restate his basic position and equations.

[kristopher]

61. JoshLiar...

[joshcryer]

62. Heheh

Keep it up. :)

Makes me look better in this discussion.

[kristopher]

64. JoshLiar

That, of course, is the meaning you take away from displaying in public the fact that you are a chronic liar?

From nutz to nutzier...

[joshcryer]

65. No, you haven't established that I am a liar, and indeed, if you were to ask a third party...

...to review the dialogue between the two of us at most my comments could be construed as colloquial language and misunderstandings (see: that time you accused me of believing "all climate change is related to CO2" and the other time you accused me of claiming Nordell said something when I was merely saying what his implication would be, in a colloquial manner).

Basically, this discussion has been going on for two days, we've hashed out our sides of the argument several times.

And ultimately you have shown a disregard for science.

[joshcryer]

63. Going to answer the question?

[kristopher]

66. JoshLiar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=207597&mesg_id=208171

[joshcryer]

67. Aren't you embarrassed to be behaving this way?

Did he or did he not respond to Coveny with a mere equation?

[kristopher]

68. JoshLiar...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=207597&mesg_id=208171

[joshcryer]

69. Nope.

[kristopher]

32. OK

Discussion
Reply to the comment of J. Gumbel and H. Rodhe on
Thermal pollution causes global warming, by B. Nordell
Global and Planetary Change 47 (2005) 77 – 78
www.elsevier.com/locate/gloplacha

To understand complex problems like the energy balance of Earth, we should not look at the details without having a more large-scale understanding of the problem. My approach (Nordell, 2003) is therefore axiomatic.

Over longer time scales (years), the Earth is a net heat source in space to which it emits its heat. Consequently, the periodic heating and cooling that occur during much shorter time scales are of no interest for this long-term energy balance. These periodic energy flows are zero sum events that add no heat to the planet, which also answers most of the comments made by Gumbel and Rodhe (G&R). One example, which G&R say that the author "does not seem to appreciate", is that the radiative fluxes at the surface, at any given location and time, do not necessarily balance out. The author understands this, but in my much longer time scale, they do balance out.

By considering the long-term energy balance of the planet (Fig. 1), the net heat of the planet (e.g., geothermal heat flow) must be emitted. Earth’s thermal equilibrium is maintained by this net outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR). The driving force of the net OLR is the difference between the Earth’s surface temperature and the effective temperature of its atmosphere.

Before global warming, the major net heat source was the geothermal heat flow. Calculations based on my approach, and preglobal warming temperature data, should therefore result in a net OLR equal to the geothermal heat flow.

Performed net OLR calculations were simplified by using one land temperature and one sea surface temperature for each month. The resulting global net OLR for 1880 temperature data was slightly lower than the estimated geothermal heat flow. However, by dividing land and sea surface in several areas of colder and higher temperatures, a more accurate and greater net OLR (geothermal heat flow) would be obtained. The increasing global temperature since 1880 must result in an increasing net OLR (i.e., greater than the geothermal heat flow). This required a new heat source. The only new heat source identified was from heat dissipation of the global use of non-renewable energy sources (thermal pollution) Calculations based on the global temperatures in 1999 showed that in addition to the geothermal heat flow, one third of the thermal pollution was also emitted to space (i.e., two thirds was not emitted). This remaining heat must contribute to global warming. Further, calculations showed that the global mean temperature had to increase by another 1.8 8C before all net heat was emitted.

I agree with Gumbel and Rodhe that, my writing: During the day, short wave radiation heats the ground surface, which is later cooled off by the same amount of outgoing long-wave radiation, is inaccurate. It is more confusing than enlightening, and I should rather have said that: during a global mean day, the global mean temperature is constant.

About my simplistic assumptions of "an atmospheric consisting of completely absorbing layers, vertically constant net radiative heat flux, and the complete neglect of non-radiative energy transport," I would like to give the following comments.

With my approach and year long time scale:
- there must be a "vertical constant net radiative heat flux" equal to the net OLR
- there can be no mass convection in the vertical direction (unless mass leaves our planet)
- no energy convection occurs due to the small temperature gradient.

It is true that my model does not consider "any spectral dependence of atmospheric radiative properties" and assumes "an atmosphere consisting of completely absorbing layers."

The layers do not have to be completely absorbing, but based on the assumptions that they are, and that the net OLR is known, performed calculations give the effective radiation through the atmosphere independent of its radiative properties.

I cannot find any errors in my mathematical derivations.

[joshcryer]

17. BBL