Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1243  1244  1245  1246  1247  1248  1249  1250  1251  1252  1253  1254  1255  1256  1257  1258  Next

Comments 62501 to 62550:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Both would be equally convinced... but the competent would have the overwhelming weight of peer reviewed evidence on their side while the incompetent would cite inane drivel from blogs.
  2. German translation of The Debunking Handbook
    John, Is it the first Debunking Handbook translation? I haven't seen any translations on SkS so far, unless I missed them... Is it really true that "some mainstream press attention in Germany" triggered that translation? If so, irrellevant to the book itself, it would indicate the power of the press. Even an excellent, award winning website, hardly draws in anyone (relatively speaking) to its content. However, give some content a right bit of spin in tabloid press and readers & translations start multiplying.
  3. New research from last week 8/2012
    The Cohen et al boreal Winter finding seems to dovetail with some things I was reading about another very recent study by Liu and Curry which suggests that the decline in Arctic sea ice is causing changes in atmospheric circulation which carried cold Arctic air further down from the pole... resulting in some colder Winters and more snow in northern North America, Europe, and Asia. While Judith Curry says alot of completely ridiculous things, (e.g. 'no warming since XYZ' immediately after her own BEST study proved otherwise, again) I haven't noticed it impacting her actual published research much. Though I don't know if that is due to sanity amongst her co-authors or her applying a greater degree of rigor. In any case, if the 'decreased rate of warming' is really due only to colder Winter temperatures in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, with the rest of the world continuing to warm at an accelerated rate, then this may just be an issue of cold Arctic air being more widely spread around... which would also contribute to the very high Arctic warming which has been observed. That would imply that the apparent change is effectively 'illusory'... like blowing cold air over a lit stove burner and thus getting a surprisingly cool temperature reading despite the ongoing accumulation of heat.
  4. Mythbusting with fewer explosions
    I also was there glad that I could meet John (and sneak in his signature on the book) because I don't often go to Brisbane while Lane Cove is just round the corner (more precisely a bicycle ride) from my house in Denistone NSW. I realy like the initiative by Lane Cove Council to combine John's appearance with an example of a local family how shows you how much you can lower your footprint by doing simple things like installing PV panels, taking public transport and eating local food (best if it's your own grown veges). The exemplary family lowered their CO2 emissions from 18Mg to 7Mg a y-1. Good job John together with LCC. Theory of AGW and simple practice that it's possible to tackle it.
  5. Mythbusting with fewer explosions
    I was there. John covered three myths chosen by the audience. One was temperature record reliability. Another was claims that CO2 is too insignificant to effect the climate. And the final one was the warmth is good bit. He only had a short ptime to do each and I think did well by concentrationg on only a few aguments. The second part of the workshop was alocal family going through some of the things they have done to reduce their carbon footprint.
  6. Mythbusting with fewer explosions
    Hope the mythbusting event tonight is at the very least educational, John C. Look forward to hearing about it.
  7. DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
    What ubrew12 said.
  8. Dikran Marsupial at 21:27 PM on 28 February 2012
    Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Just as a reminder, YOGI was challenged to hang his/her hat on some particular issue, and chose a particular paper by Postma. Now it seems to me that YOGI needs to defend Postma's paper, where a fundamental error has been identified (on page 6 - thanks Tom and Riccardo for confirming my intuition), relating to the second law of thermodynamics: "No here's the clincher: imagine that you take a mirror which reflects infrared light, and you reflect some of the infrared light the blackbody is emitting back onto itself. What happens to the temperature of the blackbody? One might think that because the blackbody is now absorbing more light, even if it is its own infrared light, it should warm up. But in fact it does not warm up; its temperature remains exactly the same [because it is in radiative thermal equilibrium with the light source]" To remain at the same temperature, it would have to be radiating energy at the same rate that it is absorbed (Kirchoff's law). If you increase the amount absorbed using the mirror, the amount emitted must increase as well. However the Stefan-Boltzman law says that the rate at which a blackbody radiates energy is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature, so it can't increase emissions without an increase in temperature. Thus Postma is wrong on the fundamental application of the laws of thermodynamics. So YOGI, the challenge is for you to explain why Postma is correct and why his example doesn't violate Kirchoff's law or the Stefan-Boltzman law.
  9. DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
    Bob Carter does like to tout around a graph taken from Royer et al 2003 showing no correlation between CO2 and temperatures through the Phanerozoic but leaving out the changes in solar energy during the same time. As its mentioned in Royers paper one is left with less that charitable views on his reasons.
  10. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    The bulk of extra groundwater runs off in a matter of months. See, for example, figure 5 here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1996/4179/report.pdf
  11. Dikran Marsupial at 20:56 PM on 28 February 2012
    Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
    ELSA I gave you two challenges: "just what observations do you think AGW theory is based on. Note that the core of the theory was fully fleshed out by Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. Please tell me which observations he used that are non-repeatable. and Now, what is your evidence that AGW theory has been modified to explain the 40s-70s cool period? Point to a paper where this modification was published. You didn't answer either question. For the first question, I note the lack of a list of observations used by Plass (I rather doubt you even bothered to look up the paper). For the second question, I note the lack of a reference to a paper where the theory was modified, just a repetition of your previous unsupported assertions. Your write "In its crudest form the AGW theory (and I grant you this is a simplification) postulates that with rising CO2 the climate will warm.". That simply isn't true, as I pointed out here where I wrote "CO2 radiative forcing is only one of the forcings that govern long term climate, as it says, for instance in the IPCC WG1 report. Does AGW theory say that temperatures cannot fall while CO2 levels rise? No, it doesn't." In other words, CO2 will only cause climate to warm, all things being otherwise equal. Now I know you are not ignorant of this as you wrote "even if we could the other things that affect climate will have changed too.". Which means that your arguments are clearly disingenuous. So, you make assertions that you are unable or unwilling to substantiate, you are unable or unwilling to give direct answers to direct questions, you ignore responses to points that you have raised, you use the fact that there are other forcings when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't. If you are going to behave like that, why on Earth do you think you should be taken seriously. I think it is time for DNFTT.
  12. New research from last week 8/2012
    Ari, Once again thank you for your assiduous work in collating these papers and publishing them regularly. At least two look to be to be of more than "ordinary" importance Cohen et al on the "recent lapse in global warming". Olsen et al on a new climate sensitivity estimate.
  13. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Matthew L - "My problem with the missing heat being at the bottom of the ocean is that heat will expand the sea wherever it is hidden. Surely the sea would be expanding more quickly rather than less if both the temperature of the deep oceans was rising and the glaciers melting? I have seen the explanation of recent flooding due to La-Nina but am sceptical that this could account for such a large and sustained decline in the rate of sea level rise." It's doubtful that thermal expansion during the "noughties" was higher than the 1990's. Certainly James Hansen's work shows otherwise. Glacier melt seems to have reached a point where it has accelerated through the noughties, even as ocean warming was progressing at a slower rate than the 1990's, which suggests it has passed a 'tipping point' of sorts. A combination of slower ocean warming in the noughties, combined with strong La Ninas at the end of the decade (more rainfall over land - and lower sea levels) have contributed to the sea level trend over the last 5 years. But it's unlikely to last. The solar cycle will see more ocean warming for the next 3-5 years, and shift back to El Nino will see more short-term sea level rise.
  14. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Camburn. You seem to be assuming that increased rainfall over various regions will be returned to the oceans relatively quickly. If extra rainfall drains quickly across surface soils into fivulets, streams rivers etc yes. But you seem to be discounting two other factors. Increased water uptake by dry soils and sub-soils that doesn't drain away at all. And water uptake by the land but doesn't flow relatively quickly to the sea but starts to percolate down and recharge aquifers. Your presumption of relatively quick transfer of increased precipitation back to the oceans sounds rather simplistic.
  15. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    gallopingcamel #40, we should have a conversation on that WUWT article over there not here; but what I saw when I glanced at it just now were a few mathematical claims (which I have not yet verified but which conclusions seems inaccurate) made on what is recognized to be a simplified radiation model (that everyone knows doesn't include convection or high precision radiation absorption and so is used as a toy for introductory purposes) purporting to dispel the foundation of climate science. This makes no sense obviously (read between parenthesis above). Then they suggest a theory that appears to be curve fitting with little or no derivation from first principles. To recap: they attack the wrong model, probably making mathematical mistakes somewhere, and then put up a "theory" that is but a formula they hatched out by looking at data points. What kind of predictive capabilities can we expect from a formula based on curve fitting today's earth data points and no understanding of the dynamics of our changing planet? [That was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it: probably little better than what trend analysis predictions offers us on distant future stock market behavior. Next to nada.] I think this comment is off topic, but I couldn't help myself.
  16. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    Some important differences I have noticed between what I remember (or looked up) from feedback analysis and what I see in Roe2009: When system subblocks are analyzed, a transfer function is considered. Transfer functions may be the result of Fourier Transforms. These transfer functions will have dependencies on frequency. This frequency domain approach allows time domain convolusions (which are necessary calculations to understand system response to inputs) to be replaced with simple multiplication of the system functions. Further, the subblocks tend to be attached to each other through some sort of nonlinear mechanism that allows two signals from two or more subblocks to unite or to multiply with negligible coupling (eg, opamps for analog modules; standard digital circuits mechanisms; nonlinear nonmodeled mechanisms (possibly using electronics as control) between physical nonelectronic components)). This isolation is implicit in this modeling leveraging transfer functions. OK, so Roe2009 doesn't really apply these items just mentioned. The climate doesn't readily appear to have these nonlinear buffer zones that would allow subblock transfer functions to multiply as depicted on page 5, for example. I'm only on page 6, but I have seen no invocation of Fourier or other transforms to derive such transfer functions. Pictorially, there is no traditional "+" or "-" uniting the feedback path to the main one or to any other path, bringing doubt to this idea of isolation between subblocks. The 2xCO2 forcing appears to be a monotonically increasing function of some sort or at least an almost acyclical or perhaps very low frequency signal (relative to important system time constants.. I'm guessing). And of course, the principal negative feedback (S-B radiation/cooling) is not modeled as a feedback. In short, I don't question (or for that matter ascertain) the accuracy of the sensitivity analysis in Roe2009 from what I have seen so far (mostly through page 6 of 25), but it doesn't resemble at all the "feedback analysis" that I am familiar with from engineering, even though the language used in Roe2009 and many of the features of the analysis appear to mimic traditional feedback analysis. [At least based on my modest/low level of experience.] Interesting. I have much to think about and read. Any insight into this would be appreciated.
  17. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    Chris @35. Thanks for recommending Grant & Petty but you are a little late. In the same spirit may I recommend you read Rodrigo Caballero (University College, Dublin): http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf scaddenp @35, The N&K calculations I was referring to in #31 are based on physical laws from which the DALR can be derived. One of the quibbles I have with N&K is that their calculations do not make corrections for water vapor (moist adiabat). Even so, their analysis fits the facts very well for Earth, Venus and Titan: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/ In a nutshell, the main variables that determine planetary surface temperatures are TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), and surface pressure). There are plenty of smaller influences such as albedo, cloud cover, ocean currents etc. There are even some respected scientists who claim that CO2 affects the climate. For example, Richard Lindzen: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/#more-7386
  18. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    KR: Yes, portions of Greenland do, but according to Grace data, overall Ice mass on Greenland is continuing to delcine, so that contribution must be ignored, and rather the data demonstrates that even with the Northern Greenland gain, the over loss of ice mass is a steady contribution to SLR. The Amazon basin of Brazil was actually in a moisture deficit, as was Argentina and that area. As far as Columbia and Venezala, (the blue area of South America), that area is also well drained. I think the Grace data is now pretty good. There was a paper published not long ago of which I didn't save, and can't find the link, that showed some problems with the algorythems and one would hope those have been adjusted. Tom@74: Rainfall will affect lake levels, but for only a very short time period in most circumstances. Lake Eyre is an exception, and should not be extrapolated to other large water shed basins. The Upper Mississippi water shed, North Central Great Plains area, drains fast and hard.
  19. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Camburn - Agreed; without basic physics (or at least a willingness to learn), no progress will be made.
  20. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Camburn - The GRACE data (which I suspect still is in the ground-truth calibration phase) certainly shows North America as not a major influence. But Australia and Brazil have huge mass accumulations, as do portions of Greenland and northern Russian regions. Always important to look beyond the local neighborhood...
  21. Mythbusting with fewer explosions
    owl, yes that applies to the pollution mongers. But most people don't have a vested interest in damaging the world. Among them, there are some who are unreachable, but there's a large muddy middle that honestly thinks climate is unpredictable or the science is still in dispute. They've heard the myths, and think they are truth. Assuming you can get the message to them, it does matter whether you can make it stick.
  22. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    I notice that Camburn stands firmly behind his opinion that rainfall will not effect lake levels. No more need be said.
  23. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    KR@71: Yep.....short term varience, as there has not been enough time to change the long term trend. As far as water accumulating on land tho...in North America is wouldn't persist for years. From Tom's post, Lake Eyre would seem to be an exception to normal water shed activity as it is below sea level. That would make a difficult drainage basis, and I wish the best for him and folks that live near there.
  24. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Tom@70: Your assumption was surface water. You used it all. I looked at what surface water was composed of....swamps...etc. I took the fluid water.....the water that would be considered non-stationary. I am fine with you not discussing this subject with me.
  25. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    If you are going to use soil temperatures to talk about temperature on the moon cf temperature on the earth, then make sure you talk about soil temperatures on earth. However, comparison is much more difficult since earth soils are mostly wet with the due effects on thermal properties. Deviner saw night range from 35-90K. Does that change the argument.
  26. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Camburn - Then what we are looking at with the short term data is simply a more accurate view of short term variance, not a long term trend. The GRACE data is very interesting, and certainly shows mass accumulations in numerous areas over the last few years. It will be interesting to see how that data evolves over time. But it certainly indicates water accumulations on land (due most likely to La Nina conditions) persisting for >year durations.
  27. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    KR@46: What YOGI is proposing will never be proven as he ignores basic physics.
  28. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Camburn @66, I specified 2% of surface water. I did the calculations, and did them correctly. For you to switch that to 2% of river water in your calculation is simply bait and switch. To do so without specifying that you had changed the quantity measured, as you did in post 61 is blatant trolling. Given that there is no reason to think that excess rainfall would all be stored in rivers, and not in lakes and swamps (for example), there is no plausible basis for your change in the measured quantity. Frankly, I think the only reason you changed from surface water to river water only (without mentioning that you did so) was to minimize the value thus calculated. I need only to point out that while it may be drying in parts of the US, in Qld is is flooding again for the third record setting flood in 24 months (although not as extensive as the previous two). Further, I need to point out that the US is a small part of the world as well. I used Qld only to illustrate the many types of processes that can, and do delay the return of rainfall to the ocean. Finally, you have clearly established to my mind that you are just trolling on this thread. Therefore I have no more interest in discussing this subject with you.
  29. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    KR@67: I agree with you 100%. What I do have confidence in, is that the present state of the measureing instruments is the best we have ever had. The time frame of these instruments started in approx 2003-2004. That is the trend we are dealing with, to detect with a much higher degree of accuracy than could have been done prior to this time. The long term trend established with the data that was available at the time has not changed in any statisically significant way.
  30. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    YOGI - You cannot divide the temperature by 8 to get an answer, as the SB equation is: Power = SB Constant * Emissivity * Area * Temp(K)^4 SB constant is 5.670373*10^-8 You need to consider the average incoming insolation, and work through the equation to get the temperature. Also - "But if I argue that daytime albedo is cancelled out by night time insulation of clouds etc, and disregard the atmospheric emissivity too..." - Then you are ignoring the details. You're more than welcome to make up your own math, your own physics - but everyone else is therefore more than justified to ignore it.
  31. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Tom: We are talking about the short term trend change in SLR. WE are not discussing the long term trend as scaddenp pointed out at 58. I am not ignoring the pictures...... I am very familiar with the Upper Mississippi water shed and the Red River Basin water shed of North America. The water that fell in 2010 is long gone. And while we are talking colors, it is very possible that the drought conditions in the Mid West and South Central canceled out the precipitation in the Upper MIssissippi water shed. Also, when looking at blue.....remember that the blue on Greenland is an increase.....it snowed a lot there and will stay on the ice cap for awhile. Overall, tho, Greenland has lost mass so that blue on Greenland would not be an increase in mass, but an increase in SLR. The question that is being discussed is why SLR has slowed in the past 10 years. And it has, skeptic or not, that is what the data is showing. Whether this slowing of the SLR trend persists is a seperate question all to itself.
  32. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Camburn - 5 years is a very short time period considering year-to-year variance, variance which has been seen over the entire ~150 year close observation period for sea level rise. Unless you can show some statistical significance for it, I would have to consider that 5 year time period far too short for trend analysis. And a 15 or even 10 year period (let alone longer ones) still shows considerable SLR.
  33. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    KR at 11:18 AM on 28 February, 2012 That is interesting as 171.9C * 0.7 (albedo) / 8 = 15.04C. But if I argue that daytime albedo is cancelled out by night time insulation of clouds etc, and disregard the atmospheric emissivity too, then 120.5C / 8 = 15.0625C. Or if I include Earth`s surface emissivity: 15.06C * 0.98 = 14.76125C.
  34. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Tom: Australia is a wonderful country, but the small amount of water stored in Lake Eyre doesn't amount to much on a global scale. The flooding on the Mississippi water shed in 2011 has all reached the oceans as the lake levels of the dams are actually lower now than early spring of last year. Also, the water in the Red River Basin has been gone for months. That aside, the 0.3% of global water in the surface pool does not all go to the oceans. It would have to do so to achieve the 6mm dip and recovery that you showed. Where I got the 0.05mm from was as follows: 2.55 rate of sea level rise. Rivers have approx 2% of the 0.3%. Assuming that all the rivers ran dry, take the 2.55mm x 2% (which would still be too large, but I was trying to show how small the contribution is)....you get 0.051mm. We have a finite water budget on earth. The link I provided shows the distrubtion of that water presently.
  35. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Camburn @63:
    "A number of climate not-so-skeptics have been exploiting global sea level data in their latest attempt to hide the incline. Skeptical Science readers will be very familiar with the tactics the "skeptics" use to make this argument: Cherrypick a very small amount of data during which the short-term noise has dampened the long-term incline Ignore the long-term trend Refuse to examine the reasons behind the short-term change"
    Dana Nuccitelli And here are the colours Camburn persists in turning a blind eye to:
  36. Mythbusting with fewer explosions
    Just as Neville Chamberlain could not grasp the reality of warmongers on the loose, it should not be assumed that the pro-pollutionists are honest skeptics. In the sales game, one of the first priorities is to "qualify the prospect". Buyer? Tire-kicker? Attention-seeker? Gossip-gatherer? There's little value in debunking a mythtake if the opposite side has no interest in the truth.
  37. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
    Upper Midwest...ND. I visit SkS, Pielke Sr., WUWT, Judith Curry, Nevin Arctic Page.
  38. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Camburn @61: If the Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, they would raise sea level by nearly 60 meters (60,000 millimeters). If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, it would raise sea level by 6.5 meters (6,500 millimeters). (I choose not to use the 80 meter estimate from the later source in order to be conservative.) From your source, surface water represents 0.3% of all freshwater, while Icecaps and Glaciers represent 68.7%. That means there is only 0.44% as much water in surface water as there are in Icecaps and Glaciers. Rounding down, we therefore have that the contribution of 2% of surface water to sea level would be 0.02 x 0.004 x 66000 millimeters or 5.28 mm. I have no idea where you got your 0.051 mm figure from. For comparison, here is the Jason 2 data for sea level rise: (AVISO You will notice the approximately 6 mm dip and recovery that dominates that later part of the graph. Clearly a 2% increase in surface water would be enough to explain all, or nearly all of that dip. Not only are you wrong about the magnitude of the effect, you are wrong about the rapid recovery. Much of the water from the January 2011 Queensland floods, for example, still remain happily below sea level at Lake Eyre. It took several months to get there because of ht low gradient, and because of that low gradient, most of the rest of that water that was not captured in Qld's many dams has only recently reached the sea at the mouth of the Murray river. Much of the water will also have replenished surface aquifers, soil moisture content or been stored in newly refreshed plant life. The notion that rainfall immediately runs of to the sea is simply bizarre, and as a farmer you should know that. However, as noted, and although it took about two years, the sea level has recovered, and most of that water has now returned to the sea. There remains therefore only your strange contention that so large a dip in sea level (in the short term) could have no effect on short term trends. The contention once considered is clearly seen to be false.
  39. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    KR: The average SLR between 2005 and 2010 is 1.3mm/year. Page 8 of the following link. From the following paper: An excellent analysis of where we are concerning current SLR I have not read a good reconstruction of historic sea level on a global level. The contents of the above link show the difficulty in using a few sites to try and reconstruct sea level rise rates etc. The above also discusses the difficulty using satillites, and hopefully, most of these issues have been resolved with the improvements of combining data sources to achieve a clearer picture. We know that the ice mass loss of Greenland, and potentially Antarctica, has not slowed down. With the above in mind, it shows that something has slowed down the rate of rise of SL. ARGO data shows us that, at least in the upper boundary of the ocean, OHC has not increased. That assumption is also demonstrated in the observed balance of radiation presented in a paper presented on this site.
  40. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
    Lloyd Smith From Mid-America USA: In addition to "SkepticalScience", I follow RealClimate, Nasa GISS and Earth Observatory Notes from the field, NSIDC and Neven's Arctic blog. I also keep up with freshwater issues on Pacific Institutes website and publications.
  41. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 28 February, 2012 "Okay, 35-44K for minimum temperature because the moon is heated and does have thermal mass. Doesn't exactly change the argument. Average temp would be 217K. Your assumption is still wrong." From the NASA data, it looks like you are wrong at every step.
    Response:

    [DB] "From the NASA data, it looks like you are wrong at every step."

    This is insufficient in a science-based forum and amounts to you being argumentative for form's sake.  If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to do the maths (show your work) or to provide supportive links with an appropriate measure of explanatory context as to what you understand the link to show and why it is pertinent to the discussion.

  42. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Camburn - "...about the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the OHC has declined at this time." Actually, since the rate of change of SLR is still positive, still higher than the ~1.3mm/yr pre-industrial level, the strongest statement that could be made is that OHC, while rising, is not rising as fast as it has in the recent past. I will note that decadal variances in sea level rise are quite obvious in the last 150 years while showing accelerating sea level rise:
  43. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Tom Curtis "In crater floors in polar regions that drops to about 40 K because of heat transfer by conduction." Its because they never get any sunlight.
  44. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Tom Curtis "Your supposition that the average subsurface temperature was 40 degrees greater than the average surface temperature is not supported by your linked site, and is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics." Subsurface Temperatures Heat flow measurements made during the Apollo 15 and 17 missions (Langseth et al. 1973) revealed that the top 1-2 cm of lunar regolith has extremely low thermal conductivity. The mean temperature measured 35cm below the surface of the Apollo sites was 40-45K warmer than the surface. At a depth of 80cm the day/night temperature variation experienced at the surface was imperceptible. This implies that habitations in the lunar subsurface exist that are not subject to the harsh temperature extremes prevalent on the surface. http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml You should have read on further....
  45. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Tom: That 2% would have long been back in the oceans. And 2% amounts to .051mm, a very small amount of short duration. Even considered as noise, such a small change would be vitrually undetectable. On a short term noisy timeline, the rate of change of SLR has slowed. One can't derive any long term conclusions as to why, or if this trend change will continue. Using the information available, about the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the OHC has declined at this time. The only other conclusion would be that the ocean bottom has developed a new hole somewhere that we do not as of yet have knowledge of happening.
  46. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    YOGI @35, your source gives the equatorial mean temperature at 207 K. It specifies the relationship of surface to subsurface temperatures taken at two different sites at times which where far from the zenith hour for the Sun (as shown by the shadows). As such the sub surface temperatures would represent something close to the average for their respective latitudes, but surface temperatures may have been well below that average. Your supposition that the average subsurface temperature was 40 degrees greater than the average surface temperature is not supported by your linked site, and is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.
  47. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    35cm deep gives a lot of thermal mass. Hardly comparable to measurement of GMST. IR hitting the ocean - change of topic again? Your point? By any chance is it misunderstandings with dealt with here?
  48. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    "[DB] Your two moderated comments were merely repetitions of unsupported assertions you made earlier.." Want do you require ? evidence that near Earth space temperature measurements give 121C maximum?, i.e. the same as Lunar daytime maximum. Or evidence of peak daytime temperature measurements on Earth being much less ?
  49. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    YOGI - What do you think happens to back-radiation impinging on the ocean surface? Rather than presenting red-herrings and open questions, what assertions are you making about the behavior of the climate? You have thrown, quite frankly, a lot of open-ended questions about. Unless and until you bring forth a testable assertion, or a question relevant to the topic (i.e., with some explanation of how it supports/undermines a particular hypothesis), you are (IMO) just generating static.
  50. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    So what happens to all the IR back-radiation the hits the ocean surface ?

Prev  1243  1244  1245  1246  1247  1248  1249  1250  1251  1252  1253  1254  1255  1256  1257  1258  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us