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  1350  1351  1352  1353  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  Next

Comments 67851 to 67900:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1252, if you think it is possible to construct a model of the greenhouse effect using net energy flows only, by all means go ahead. For myself, I notice that the people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the green house effect require all of the laws of radiative physics plus a number of others beside. I am not so arrogant as to think that I can do better with less. As it stands, the proof, and indeed the only relevant proof that your truncated "net energy flow" only physics is not mysticism is the ability to predict from that truncated physics the effects of increasing green house gases, etc. Call me when you have your working model.
  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1252, TOP,
    ...why a gas is shown radiating energy in one direction, down, where it should be shown radiating upwards as well.
    What is this a reference to? What are you talking about?
  3. There is no consensus
    #493 (or 492 if 492 gets deleted), Jdey123, keep in mind the lower scenarios in the chart in your link are ones that start with the assumption that CO2 output will be greatly curtailed. The scenario with the lowest projected warming, B1, is labeled "global environmental sustainability" which is not currently happening. For each of those scenarios (A1, A2, B1, B2) there is a low to high range of temperature in the year 2100. My understanding is that the low end of the range represents the warming from CO2 and fast feedback which is basically increased vapor due to the CO2-caused temperature increase, but no other feedbacks. The high end of the range includes some "slow" feedbacks like permafrost melting and releasing CO2 and methane. Since that is already happening those are not necessarily slow anymore but there is considerable uncertainty about the future amounts. The darker line inside that range is the current best estimate. The amounts and types of uncertainty around that best estimate are difficult to depict in such a simple chart, and it is worth reading some of the details in the text. For your comments about this website, there are actually quite a few threads that address some of your bones of contention. For example making predictions for 5 years involves climate but also weather and is addressed here Even the difference between skepticism and denial was discussed here. I suggest you read the comments below the opening piece because you will probably find that all or most of your arguments have been offered and responded to there. If you disagree with the response then maybe you should add to that thread.
  4. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    #1 perseus, Good point. However, I think "vulnerability" takes factors other than ecological sensitivity into account. For example, Texas farmers have been dealing with periodic droughts for decades, and have alleviation strategies like shipping cattle north and getting Federal assistance. But to an Ethiopian farmer with a small plot of land, an equivalent drought means he cannot feed his family after his surplus is gone. The level of development does count, and vulnerability is made up of several complex strands.
  5. There is no consensus
    For the record, I don't have a political agenda. I would agree that it makes sense that mankind reduces pollution, not only just in case it'll lead to climate change but because if you live in a country that produces high levels of pollution, the immediate environment is terrible. I have never encountered such a debate as what we have on climate change that is so emotionally charged, however. This website is setup to try to debunk arguments put forward by all and sundry who've spotted holes in the warmist arguments, and there are lots of them. It will naturally attract people who agree and disagree with you. (-Snip-) I don't believe that warmists are a collective group, they represent a range of views of which the only concensus is that they believe that the earth will get warmer due to mankind. There is no concensus on how much warmer, which manmade pollutants are the primary cause of global warming etc.
    Response:

    [DB] "and there are lots of them."

    Unsupported assertions.  Be specific, put your objections on the appropriate threads (use the Search function; 4,700+ threads exist here).

    Your use of the terms "warmists" betrays ideology. Please study the Comments Policy & constructe future comments for better adherence to it.  Future ideological and/or inflammatory comments will simply be deleted and your posting privileges may be curtailed.

    Your use of the term "concensus" shows a lack of understanding of the scientific use of the term.

    Inflammatory snipped.

  6. There is no consensus
    Science is about trying to establish truth by coming up with theories and then demonstrating that new data meets the prediction that the theory made. Creating a site where only warmists are allowed to attack arguments that critics of the science (labelled as denialists) have pointed out is not science. 5 years, ago, warmists had even more alarmist scenarios that they claimed would happen to earth. The more alarmist of these have now been dropped leaving just those scenarios which could be credible left. So far, none of these scenarios have been proved, and if you're a scientist then that's what you should concentrate on rather than spouting propaganda.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Science is about trying to establish truth by coming up with theories and then demonstrating that new data meets the prediction that the theory made."

    Imprecise; science is about developing an explanation (a hypothesis) that best explains what we can see and measure.  Tests are then devised to either support or disprove the hypothesis.  Those hypothesis that withstand the test of time and much research are then called "theory".  One such is the theory of gravity.  Another is the theory anthropogenic global warming.  This link may help.

    "Creating a site where only warmists are allowed to attack arguments that critics of the science (labelled as denialists) have pointed out is not science."

    Two misconceptions here.  This site was created to debunk the logical fallacies of those who pretend to try to poke holes in the research by ignoring the evidence which contradicts their position.  The second misconception is that the term denialist refers to those who ignore evidence contrary to their position, no matter how damning.  If you prefer, substitute the term fake-skeptic on those occasions you encounter the term "denialist" on this website.  They are interchangeable.

    The remainder of your comment, unfortunately, devolves into ideology and misunderstandings of what science is, and isn't.  Please read the Comments Policy.

    [not DB] Use the Search box to search for "models are unreliable" without the quote marks.

  7. There is no consensus
    scaddenp. No serious scientist deletes posts that disagree with their viewpoint. This magazine labels these as political or even more ridiculously that they're off topic and removes them. We know how much greenhouse gas has been produced by mankind, so assuming that the growth rate continues on trend, then you should be able to predict with a good degree of confidence what the global mean temperature will be in a relatively short time period, 5 years say. If you can't do this, and say that there are too many factors - mankind and nature - that prevent any level of confidence being attributed to your predictions, then your predictions are practically useless. There is still no concensus amongst warmists as to which greenhouse gas is the main culprit. Is it CO2 or methane? Both of which, of course, have both manmade and natural sources.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "If you can't do this"

    Straw man argument.  Even removing exogenous factors such as volcanic effects and oceanic cycles, a trend of much more than a decade is typically needed for the underlying warming signal inherent in multiple metrics used to monitor global warming due to the noisy nature of the data.

    "There is still no concensus amongst warmists as to which greenhouse gas is the main culprit."

    100% incorrect.  You will need to actually educate yourself more on this topic to understand just how wrong this statement is.  This is the equivalent of saying that 2+2=a porcupine.

    Trolling comments struck out.  Future comments of this nature will be simply deleted.  FYI.

    [not DB] Use the Search box to look for "methane" without the quote marks. Then search for "Scientists can't even predict weather."

  8. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    #12 If you read the first link I provided in #3 you will see a photo of the mountainside with the Chacaltaya glacier and snow almost completely gone. There's then this unequivocal quote... “Here you have precipitation only part of the year,” said French glaciologist Patrick Ginot as he stood at 16,500 feet next to Zongo glacier last year. “But it’s stored on the glacier and then melting throughout the year, and so you have water throughout the year. If you lose the glacier, you have no more storage.”
  9. There is no consensus
    Jdey123 - I dont know whether your post will remain since you seem to be disregarding the comment policy which will not continue. This site is about providing what the science says in response to skeptical arguments. If you want to learn that then stay around. I'm short of time, but lets sort some basics. What model tells you what climate (30 averages of weather) do, given a particular emission scenario. They obviously cannot predict what humans will do - that is for politicians to decide. Its like firing a cannonball. If you choose this angle, then you get this trajectory. However, the force from the gunpowder is subject to uncertainty so the exact landing spot has uncertainty too. The uncertainty is qualified - and shown on the IPCC predictions. It seems to me that you believe that the modellers make claims that no published science in fact makes. You could learn what the models actually do and what they predict. Then you can discuss sensibly what models can and cannot do. Until you do that, your argement makes no sense. You are attacking a strawman - a common tactic. Please go to the "Models are unreliable" thread, and take from there after you have learnt a bit.
  10. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    correction: that's the climate type on the link (which is dictating what sort of vegetation thrives).
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1250 Tom No mysticism. No difficulty explaining the RGHG. 23&npsp;W/m2 added to the atmosphere due to long wave radiation from the surface raises the heat content of the atmosphere. It is far more mystical to me why a gas is shown radiating energy in one direction, down, where it should be shown radiating upwards as well.
  12. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP - SoD means not "Subject of Discussion", but a reference to The Science of Doom, a physics oriented website that I'm certain you have been given links to. In particular, I would like to refer you to On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), a discussion of thermodynamics related to the misconceptions you have demonstrated here. I'm sorry if that was not clear - please follow the links.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1248, if you simplify to that level you cannot explain why the greenhouse effect works. Consequently you also cannot make predictions of how it will react when perturbed. Scientists do not operate with story book level explanations, and no amount of creative misinterpretation by the G&T's of the world is sufficient reason to retreat back into mysticism as you are suggesting.
  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1247: 1) Not only could, but clearly did. Their interpretation, as illustrated by figure 32 (page 78) is plainly absurd. 2) You have provided no explanation as to why you are relying on G&T as a source despite their obvious misinterpretations and equivocations. The only abbreviation of SoD that is relevant is "Science of Doom" an online science blog, and G&T are certainly not the Science of Doom. Nor is the fact that SoD discusses and eviscerates G&T justification for using it as a source. Quite the contrary. Finally, you have merely asserted that fridges do not violate the 2nd law, which they do not. Never-the-less, if I place water at 2 degrees C into my working freezer, it will fall in temperature to -2 degrees C, freezing in the process. In the meantime the excess heat released by my ice cubes will be lost from the heat exchange at the back of the fridge to the 30 degree C ambient atmosphere.
  15. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1246 Tom Why not simplify even more? Using Trenberth as a reference point and taking the surface of the earth as the boundary within which we are accounting for heat: 396-333 = 63 W/m2 radiative heat across boundary. Of that 63 W/m2, 40 W/m2 goes directly to space and 23 W/m2 increases the heat content of the atmosphere from ground radiation. No confusion about heat flowing from cold to hot, no confusion at all by doing this simplification. And no chance for the 2nd law naysayers to squawk. It then makes it easier to put into perspective the effect of RGHG.
  16. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    ahaynes @15 - I'm not sure what timeframe your reference about Lindzen defending his iris theory is from. However in an article in SEED magazine, An MIT climatologist's quixotic struggle against global warming science Lindzen's attitude was interesting: In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. “That was an old view,” Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. “I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this.”
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1243 Tom 1) I suppose G&T could have misinterpreted Stichel. 2) Why I am using G&T as a source? It is the SoD! Nowhere in a refrigerator or air conditioner do you find heat flowing from hot to cold. The cooling coils inside are always colder than the inside box and the radiator on the outside is always hotter than the outside air. The fact that work is being added by the compressor to change the working fluids volume is not a heat flow.
  18. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    Living on the 80% zone, I'd imagine this is for the loss of winter cold. Multimodel mean estimates at A1FI (was this the BAU?) of the zonal shifts in vegetation (where plants would prefer to be) http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/shifts.htm of course the CMIP5 studies are being done now so the picture may change quite a bit (for the projected precipitation changes f.e.) And of course multimodel ensemble is towards the conservative side for the inclusion/exclusion of the Arctic T estimates in the calibration period. Can't really imagine 80% of the trees around here changing to some other species over that time, but have considered planting the most southern species currently present in nearby areas.
  19. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1244, it certainly is easier to say that: 1) Adding CO2 to the atmosphere reduces the net rate at which energy flows from the surface to the atmosphere, which 2) Cools the atmosphere, resulting in a reduction in the rate at which which energy flows from the surface and atmosphere to space, and 3) The additional CO2 also (and independently) reduces the rate at which energy flows from the surface and atmosphere to space; which 4) Results in the surface warming because the net rate at which energy leaves the surface has reduced while the rate at which energy enters the surface from the sun has remained the same; and that consequently 5) The increasing surface temperature (from 3) increases the net rate at which energy enters the atmosphere, thereby warming the atmosphere, and 6) therefore increases the energy leaving both the surface and atmosphere to space until the original balance of energy leaving for space is restored, with 7) both the surface and atmosphere being warmer in the final equilibrium condition than in the former equilibrium condition. There you have the entire greenhouse effect in a nutshell with no mention of back radiation, and no heat flowing from colder to warmer regions. It should be noted that the reduction in heat flow from surface to atmosphere is primarily through a reduction in convection the balance of which is restored in days, and further that the cooling that results in the atmosphere is concurrent with warming from preceding additions of CO2 in the atmosphere, so that given noisy data the signal of that initial cooling is undetectable. However, as soon as somebody asks, "How do you know? I must introduce the physics of radiation, and hence upward long wave radiation, and downward long wave radiation and all the other complexities you want us to avoid. If you want an account for children, then we can ignore back radiation. If not, we cannot.
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP#1244: "they are heated or receive heat of evaporation or fusion to be lifted up ... So by analogy why treat the "cold" back radiation any differently." You're kidding, right? Because there is no 'analogy.' Latent heat and convection are not radiative. Analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1241 muon I know. I added them up. Other than a little rounding the math is fine. Not saying anything about the math. I meant to say me and Trenberth. @1242 Sphaerica Follow it just fine. @1243 Tom In #3 you sort of get my point in 1239. Both sinking cold air and rain, snow or ice all have heat content when they reach the earth. It's just that they are at a lower temperature so when the cycle begins again they are heated or receive heat of evaporation or fusion to be lifted up in the atmosphere. So by analogy why treat the "cold" back radiation any differently. Why not just say that the net upward radiative heat flow to the atmosphere is 23 W/m2? It makes it a lot easier to put in perspective the effect of RGHG (Radiative GreenHouse Gases).
  22. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    10 Steve Case: Yes, that's true. Total precipitation is expected to increase. But as temperatures rise, regions currently near 0C will go above 0C, so see less snow. Also, the Hadley cells are expected to expand, meaning an extension of the try zones above and below the equator. So it depends on where you are!
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1231, Stichel's definition is a perfectly acceptable definition of the greenhouse effect, if somewhat abbreviated. However: 1) If you look at G&T's more detailed discussion of Stichel's definition, you can see that they have interpreted him as saying that the greenhouse effect takes heat from the stratosphere and moves it to the surface, thus warming the surface. Stichel did not say this, and this is just one of many bizarre misinterpretations by G&T. As an aside I will note two examples of their misinterpretation. In the definition by the German Meteorological Society (3.3.8, pp 40-1) it says:
    "in the infrared range of the spec- trum the radiation emitted form the ground is absorbed to a large extent by the atmosphere ... and, depending on the temperature, re-radiated in all directions."
    (My emphasis) to which G&T respond:
    "The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is rather obscure."
    (My emphasis) Well certainly it is obscure since it exists only in their interpretation, and is in direct contradiction to the claims of the German Meteorological Society. Later, in their response to Rahmstorf's definition (3.3.14 pp 43-4) G&T say:
    "Obviously, reflection is confused with emission."
    Perhaps, but the confusion is entirely on their part as Rahmstorf never mentions reflection. Indeed, G&T have again directly contradicted their source, for Rahmstorf he talks about:
    "... the portion of the long-wave radiation ... which is radiated by the molecules partly downward and partly upward."
    (My emphasis) Such blatant distortions of the views of those they criticize must make the work of a critique very easy, but also completely worthless. Returning to G&T's misinterpretation of Stichel, obviously a transfer of heat from the cold stratosphere (average temperature around -10 degrees C) to the warm surface would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It would also be completely insufficient as an source of the surfaces warming because of the relative heat capacity of the ocean and the stratosphere. It is also completely irrelevant to any sane discussion of the atmospheric green house effect as nobody proposes that as a mechanism of that effect. 2) The back radiation is a flow of thermal energy from a cold to a warm source. However, using a strict definition as, for example, is used by Philippe Chantreau's excellent comment @1229, and sometimes by G&T, it is not a flow of heat. Using that strict definition, "heat flow" is the net transfer of thermal energy between two points. That means (loosely*) that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states only that the net transfer of thermal energy between two points must be from the a hotter to a colder source. Because the 2nd law only talks about the net transfer way of thermal energy, it in not way prohibits transfers of thermal energy from the atmosphere to the surface. Further, as you can see from the energy balance diagram, the net thermal transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere. I note in passing that G&T only sometimes use the strict definition of heat. Indeed they frequently use that definition to justify the assertion that heat can never flow from a colder to a warmer location. However, in criticizing Rahmstorf's discussion of the 2nd law (section 3.9.3, page 78), saying:
    "Rahmstorf's reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of "net energy flow". The relevant quantity is the "net heat flow", which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately rede ning the thermodynamic system on the fly."
    If you are using the strict definition of heat, then the term "net heat flow" is nonsensical. There cannot be a heat flow, both up and down at the same time in order for there to be a 'net heat flow' under that definition, so G&T's claim here is nonsensical. In fact what they have done is slipped into the common definition of heat to refute Rahmstorf while retaining the distinct and contradictory strict definition for the rest of you discussion. When you allow yourself such blatant equivocation, you can prove anything you like (including, in a favourite example from my childhood, that a penny is a shilling.) Given the way that G&T play loose with word meanings, and radically misinterpret their sources, they can not be relied on as an authority, or source of instruction in any way. Their paper is so bad that it could well constitute evidence of academic misconduct, and not just incompetence. I cannot understand why you are using it as a source. I note that G&T's first criticism of Rahmstorf over discussing energy ignores the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have been generalized to apply to all energy transfers. That Rahmstorf uses the physics of the 20th century, while G&T wish to restrict themselves only to the physics of the early 19th century is no valid criticism of Rahmstorf. (* I said loosely because fridges are a counter example to this definition, and hence to the definition as used by G&T, but not a counter example to the law as strictly stated.) 3) In nearly all instances of heat transfer by precipitation, the heat transfer is from the ground to the atmosphere. That is because when precipitation returns to the ground (as water in either solid or liquid form) it is typically colder than when it left it (as water vapour).
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1240, Trenberth is fine. Thermals carry 17 W/m2 up via warm air. That warm air is replaced by cooler, sinking air. Heat transfer is upwards only. Evapotranspiration puts 80 W/m2 into water vapor (i.e. water that evaporates from the surface). It rises and condenses, releasing its energy as latent heat to the surrounding atmosphere, and then the water, now devoid of that transported energy, falls as rain. Heat transfer is upwards only. This is all, I think, fairly clear, and coincides with what I have already explained. Do you still not follow it?
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP#1240: No fear, it's not Trenberth who's 'confused'. Run the numbers in that diagram again, they check.
  26. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1239 Sphaerica Thanks for the link. I couldn't find the link to Halpern's January 25th material which G&T reference, but this will keep me occupied for a while. I assume most of what is here also found it's way into Halpern's refutation to G&T. Actually I don't know if was me or Trenbeth that was confused about latent heat and convection if you want to make a point of it. Look carefully at the diagram. Look just north of the Bering Straits. Trenbeth
    Response:

    [DB] "I don't know if was me or Trenbeth that was confused about latent heat and convection"

    You would have us choose between believing

    1. you are possessed of a well-spring of D-K (equating yourself the equal of a subject area specialist in climate science and then arrogantly saying that one of you is confused)
    2. you are simply trolling here to cause confusion and mayhem.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  27. There is no consensus
    #489, Jdey123, the scenarios in your link in post 488 represent different emissions scenarios not lack of consensus over the climate change models. If anything, there is too much consensus in climate models IMHO. The guesses get wider over the long term because they properly reflect uncertainty in unpredictable natural variations that increase over time. Here's a good explanation of the additive uncertainty http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.06.html introduced by lots of factors that each have their own uncertainty. Having a model that produces a number or a small range in a 100 year climate forecast is impossible.
  28. There is no consensus
    489, Jdey123, You posted a link that, combined with your interpretation of it, demonstrates that you don't understand how modeling or science work. Climate science is of course inexact due to the large number of variables and the difficulty in measuring them. As a result, predictions must cover a broad range. This does not devalue the predictions or imply a lack of confidence or understanding. You don't complain when the weatherman tells you it will rain tomorrow, but does not accurately predict that the first raindrop will arrive at exactly 3:37 PM. Your observations and complaints in three posts add no value. They advance nothing. They pretty much make you sound like you're really grouchy, and climate science is telling you something you'd rather not hear. That, in and of itself, is nothing new. Lots of deniers do it day in and day out. Do you have anything substantive and meaningful to post, or to ask?
  29. There is no consensus
    So I post a link which shows there's no concensus even amongst the warmists as to what the climate change model is, and muon claims that this is off topic. No scientist threatens to delete posts which don't fit with their view of the world, they seek to uncover the truth and present evidence that cannot be disputed. I don't know what the purpose of this site is but it certainly isn't interested in climate change science
    Moderator Response: [muon] We'll try again.
    Perhaps you could start by reading the original post, which deals with the idea of 'consensus' among scientists, not 'convergence' of climate models. Follow that by a thorough reading of the Comments Policy; if you cannot abide by that policy, your comments should indeed be deleted.
    The thread about modeling, if you care to have a look, is #6 on the 'Most Used Climate Myths.' Read and learn. Then start asking questions; you'll find most here are glad to engage in reasonable debate. However, if you are here to just throw around jargon, make unsupported claims and lecture about your views on 'uncovering the truth,' you're wasting everyone's time.
  30. There is no consensus
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/slides/05.02.htm. The link.shows that the IPCC do not have a concensus on how much the earth will warm in future. The claim by warmists is that they can't be expected to accurately predict temperature change in the short term, but judging from the graph, over the long term their guesses just get wider.
    Moderator Response: [muon] You seem to have missed the moderator's response immediately above. There is a thread dedicated to climate modeling; use the Search function or view the 'Most Used Climate Myths' to find it. While you're at it, view the Comments Policy.
    Note, too, that unsubstantiated claims such as yours carry little validity and make you seem as if you are not very well versed in this science. Use of terms such as 'warmist' doesn't help make your case either.
  31. There is no consensus
    I don't see any links in the majority of the posts on here. Are you claiming that there is only 1 model predicting climate change increase and this is agreed by all warmists? The fact is that a real scientist seeks the truth by creating a model that fits observed data and then checks it's accuracy against new data. There is no model that has managed to accurately predict climate change. All we have is a load of excuses that no model is accurate over a time period less than 30+ years. No explanation as to why a model should not be accurate over shorter timescales has been presented to the best of my knowledge.
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1235, TOP, You might want to look here for more about G&T. But... Based on your posts, my feeling is: 1) Your own foundation in science, while not "poor," is incomplete. The fact that you were confused by latent heat and convection as a heat transport mechanism in the atmosphere, as well as what you were measuring with a handheld IR thermometer, suggests to me that you need to start from scratch. Find a text on atmospheric physics and read it (learning it, rather than assuming that it is full of errors that you can riddle out as you go). 2) The bulk of your objection seems to fall back on G&T, i.e. an appeal to authority, when in fact that particular "authority" is alone, contradicted by all of the other authorities available, and who themselves are not able to clearly articulate their own case.
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1235, TOP, I didn't answer any of your questions in post 1233, I simply pointed out that your response about the section of G&T claiming that GHE represents a perpetual motion machine has no foundation. They offer no support. They point to section 3.9 which gives the standard discussion of thermodynamics and perpetual motion machines, but they never demonstrate how this relates to the GHE. For your questions: 1) I can't begin to tell you, because as you point out, the G&T comment is mere assertion without further explanation or support. They do so throughout the paper, which is why it is a waste of words. 2) Again, an unexplained G&T assertion, although I would clarify that "heat" is not exactly a "form" of energy. Heat and temperature are both useful quantifications (perceptions) of energy. To clarify, consider that when you touch hot pavement what you are sensing as heat is the rapid vibration of the molecules in your (solid) skin, as a result of the heat transfer from the pavement to your skin. Those vibrations are caused by a combination of the transfer of kinetic energy from the vibrations in the molecules of the pavement as well as IR emissions resulting from the relaxation of some of those vibrations. On the other hand, when you sense heat in the wind from a hair dryer, because you are dealing with a gas and not a solid, the vibrations in the molecules of your own skin are caused primarily by the velocity of molecules in the gas (and, again, by IR radiation, as well as possibly vibrations and rotations if the molecules are complex enough — like H2O — to have vibrational and/or rotational modes). "Heat" and "temperature" are concepts that arise naturally from the observations of the macroscopic world around us, but looking further into inner space we find that these are mere mathematical, perceptual constructs which help us to describe large systems in aggregate, but do not exist in and of themselves as distinct "things." Thermodynamics itself, in fact, is a holdover from an age where only macroscopic analysis, concepts, descriptions and relationships were possible. Unfortunately, too many people seem unable to move beyond this or, more importantly to reconcile the combination. That G&T get caught up in the distinction between heat and energy without themselves being able to clearly articulate how the distinction does and does not apply the the process behind the greenhouse effect speaks to either their poor abilities as communicators or their poor understanding of the subject they are tackling (or both).
  34. There is no consensus
    There was a concensus that the earth was flat for centuries. Science is about finding a model which not only fits retrospectively observed data but also accurately predicts the future. There is a concensus that the world is warming and that CO2 acts as a warming agent. That's it, there is no concensus on whether CO2 or another warming agent e.g. Methane is the primary warming agent. Nor does the IPCC have confidence in it's modelling, producing 5 potential scenarios in which the climate hardly warms at all, up to a potentially disastrous 4C increase.
    Moderator Response: [Rob P] - Indeed there was a consensus on Earth's flatness, but it wasn't a scientific consensus. The ancients Greeks realized the Earth was round two thousand years before Columbus sailed to the Americas, and Eratosthenes (a Greek mathematician) accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth around 200BC. "Nor does the IPCC have confidence in it's modelling" Citation? This isn't the wild, wild west of the intertubes where any old rubbish claim can be made. We expect you to support assertions with references to the relevant peer-reviewed literature, in other words - facts. Also, don't spam the threads. If you have a point to make, find the most appropriate and relevant thread to comment on by using the search function. Please read the comments policy. Failure to comply may result in your comment being deleted.
  35. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/glacier-update-0809.html#70126 ...what farmers need is steady flow in rivers throughout the year -- not seasonal floods and droughts. This discussion if allowed to proceed will wind up comparing the difference in melt rates between snow and ice.
  36. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    10# Yes, but -- as Kiwiiano writes -- what farmers need is steady flow in rivers throughout the year -- not seasonal floods and droughts.
  37. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1231, TOP, I'll answer your question 3 for now because it's the easiest. The "heat" doesn't come back down with the rain. The water comes back down, but the direction of energy transfer is only one way. Water evaporates, gains energy. Water vapor rises. Water condenses, transferring the extra energy to the surrounding atmosphere. Condensed water falls as rain. When cold air sinks to the surface... it's, umm, cold! No heat carried down with it.
  38. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    #21 Tom : I agree of course with your point. I was probably not clear because I mentioned SkS reference to gas, but my point was related to peak risk in the hypothesis of a business as usual scenario  – in fact, what we do for the moment. If a peak (oil, gas or coal) occurs when you haven't already and seriously engaged your energy transition toward other sources, and so limited your dependency to the peaking source, you will have major problems to develop rapidly substitutes because the economic effect of the unprepared peak will seriously damage your existing infrastructure and your economic capacity to invest. Such a short-termism is unfortunately the way we choose for the moment, we are blind to energy as to climate risks. I think we hope that the market prices correctly reflect the value of an energy source at all timescale. IMO, it doesn't. Not only market prices ignore the long-term externalities from climate, but they also ignore the real geologic quantities of carbon sources (asymmetry of information) and the time/effort needed by a human society to engage an energy transition (moral hazard, unrealistic discount rate). Market prices, at least in their current condition of emergence, are the produces of such short-term and poor-informed anticipation that they are not pertinent for climate and energy policy choices. But I'll not deepen these points here, as the real subject of the SkS article is the technological level of RE alternative to fossil energy.
  39. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/glacier-update-0809.html#70120 An aspect that isn't made clear here is that if the retreats are due to reduced snowfall ... The IPCC tells us: For a future warmer climate ... Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.
    Moderator Response: [muon] fixed closing italics tag.
    Note the use of the word future in your IPCC quote. Note also the words globally averaged mean water vapour. Clearly glaciers are not a global mean occurrence.
  40. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    Interesting, because the 'vulnerable countries' (presumably this only takes account of human requirements) appears to be almost the opposite ofhose with 'ecological sensitivity'!
  41. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    An aspect that isn't made clear here is that if the retreats are due to reduced snowfall in the icefields, eventually the river flows will diminish. If they are due to a change from snow to rain, even with no change in annual volume, an additional problem arises of the rain pouring down the mountains in a rush, boosted by melted ice, leading to flood pulses that may overwhelm storage or protection systems.
  42. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    Glacier runoff does not generally increase or decrease the total annual runoff. It does alter the timing of the runoff and hence the seasonal distribution. As the glacier shrinks in area the amount of water it releases via melting declines during the melt season, which is typically the dry season. Runoff will generally increase in winter and during the spring melt when streamflows are generally high. The glacier acts as a natural reservoir. The smaller the frozen reservoir the less the melt it releases. This is widely observed already today, during retreat, that glacier runoff in the melt seasons declines and is not offset by the increased melt rate once significant area loss has occurred (Pelto, 2008). The loss for example has enhanced the increasing low summer flows in many rivers including the Skykomish River (Pelto, 2011). Now picture yourself as the water manager involved with the Artesonfaju Glacier where is the extra water? In this case since you are losing your melt source, and evaporation of precipitation is high, net annual runoff is already declining.
  43. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    It's also worth pointing out that as long as the glaciers continue to recede, the total amount of water in the various watersheds will exceed the amount of precipitation. If the glaciers no longer recede or disappear, the water in the watersheds will reflect the amount of precipitation. Should the glaciers grow again, the amount of water building up in those growing glaciers won't be flowing in the rivers. In other words, taking ground water and evaporation into account, the water available to be dammed up and fed through the various reservoirs, canals & channels for irrigation is the sum of total precipitation in the watershed plus or minus the glacier melt or ice build-up. Countries that rely on water from watersheds that contain glaciers as a source will enjoy more water than supplied by precipitation as long as the glaciers continue to melt. They can't continue to melt forever, the recession will either stop or the glaciers will disappear, either way the volume of water currently available will decrease.
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Sorry, how is this? response to Halpern
    Response:

    [DB] Close enough that I was able to fix it.  :)

  45. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1233 Sphaerica Which question were you answering? It would help me if you specified which question you are answering. I'm pretty thick you know. You asked me for specific questions. The least you could do is give specific answers. I have Halpern and I have response to Halpern. I also have versions 1-4 of G&T's paper. Still working through them.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Your link is corrupted.
  46. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1230 KR Figure 32 It just raises the question which I raised in 1231 Question 3, "Where is the boundary across which RGHE is expressing a heat balance?" G&T put it at the stratosphere. Ternbeth uses the term "atmosphere" in depicting some nebulous boundary. G&T go on to quote Rahmstoff in discussing the figure, but Rahmstoff uses the term atmosphere not stratosphere. Rahmstoff clarifies, "However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.” It seems like the RGHE is trying to mix microscopic phenomenon "radiative energy transfer by means of photons" with macroscopic effects, heat flow. Is the major transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface in either direction primarily through conduction or radiation?
  47. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1231, TOP, Okay. Please note that G&T do not in any way make their case. They do absolutely nothing more than to say, in so many words, "2nd law, you lose." Their entire section 3.9 is nothing more than a repetition of explanations of accepted Thermodynamics. They then finally get to page 78 where they quote Rahmstorf as saying that the second law is not violated, to which they simply say what Rahmstorf would agree with, that it is energy, not heat, being exchanged, which could be an argument for exactly why the second law is not violated. In the end, they have made no point. They then attack a phrasing of the issue in Wikipedia. Wow. What earth shattering scientific prowess they show! They have published a peer-reviewed paper to correct Wikipedia! And yet G&T present no evidence or clear argument whatsoever. They do nothing more than stomp their feet and shout "2nd Law." There is nothing there to argue with. G&T is a total and complete waste of everyone's time. Honestly, the International Journal of Modern Physics must be a pretty crappy journal to have published it. I'd refer you to Comment on "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics" by Halpern et al.
  48. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1230 KR You do realize that one or both author's (Gerlich & Tscheuscher) speak German as their first language? I wouldn't take this as indicative of some attitude on their part. I have read other author's who speak German as a first language and have found some of these turns of speech prevalent there also. German grammar is different that English grammar an can color the lanquage of a non-native speaker. I appreciate that they took the time to communicate in English and most of all to translate important quotes into English.
  49. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1224 Tom and 1219, 1221 Sphaerica First of all to Tom. While I am writing responses to posts other post are made which I don't see until I submit my post. If you take this to be avoiding answering 1219, so be it, but I think you will find I was writing 1220 at the time 1219 was also being written and submitted. I seem to be having to answer several posts simultaneously and this has to be done one at a time. And of course I can no longer respond to 1221 or 1223 either. Tom I appreciate that you restated much of what I stated in 1220. To clarify RGHE see @465,859 and others. KR uses this term frequently in this thread and others without complaints. Now to ask the question that Sphaerica requested: In G&T they quote this definition of RGHE from Stichel:
    “Now it is generally accepted textbook knowledge that the long-wave infrared radiation, emitted by the warmed up surface of the Earth, is partially absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 and other trace gases in the atmosphere. This effect leads to a warming of the lower atmosphere and, for reasons of the total radiation budget, to a cooling of the stratosphere at the same time.”
    to which G&T respond, " "This would be a Perpetuum Mobile of the Second Kind. A detailed discussion is given in Section 3.9. Furthermore, there is no total radiation budget, since there are no individual conservation laws for the different forms of energy participating in the game. (T&G p39)" Question 1 G&T make the assertion that Stichel's definition of RGHE is a violation of the 2nd Law. Is this definition a violation of the second law and if so why or why not? In particular I believe Stichel's choice of the term "warming" has something to do with G&T's response as in the colder atmosphere is raising the temperature of the warmer ground. Question 2 G&T make the assertion that there are no individual conservation laws for different forms of energy [which I take to mean that energy has to be taken as a whole to be conserved]. If you look at Tom's point #1 in 1181 he produces a picture of from Ternbeth et al, 2009 showing 333 W/m2 of something called backradiation flowing back to the earth's surface. Is this back radiation a "heat flow" that can raise the earth's temperature? If it is a "heat flow" is it occurring from a colder to a warmer body in general? Question 3 I will also add a question about Ternbeth's graphic since it appears so many places. It shows a convection (thermals) and a latent heat flow of heat in one direction, up. Why does it not also show the counter convection heat flow and latent heat flow down as occurs when rain falls or cold air sinks to the surface? When I took thermodynamics we had to clearly define the boundaries around which we considered heat and work moving in and out.
  50. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    Re:#5 It's worth pointing out that in the area I mentioned at #3 -- the coastal region between the foot of the Andes and the Pacific, which is over 2,000 miles long and ~100 miles wide (and the reason Chile is called 'El Spaghetti' by the locals) -- meltwater from the Andes is vital for agriculture in the warmer central and northern areas. Without this water the area would suffer major drought, as in some places the annual rainfall is only 120mm. The rivers flowing off the Andes are dammed and the meltwater is fed through a series of reservoirs, canals and channels to irrigate the entire plain. Though the plain is not densely populated in places, the food grown there is vital both for feeding the population in the cities and for growing produce for export. The reduction in the size of glaciers is greatly concerning the South American countries that rely on this source of water.

Prev  1350  1351  1352  1353  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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