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  1353  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  Next

Comments 68001 to 68050:

  1. 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).
  2. 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!
  3. 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).
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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'!
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.  :)

  25. 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.
  26. 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?
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Spherica, Tom, TOP - I introduced the term "radiative greenhouse effect" quite some time back in this thread - for the specific purpose of avoiding abuse of and confusion between convective (glass) greenhouses. I realize that's perhaps not a standard term, but I've found it useful in disambiguating the discussion. My apologies if it has been confusing. I would suggest continuing a practice of expanding acronyms the first time they are used. TOP - G&T's paper mostly consists of an extended and repetitive set of strawman arguments. They misrepresent the radiative greenhouse effect as the convective greenhouse effect, they misrepresent various energy transfers as the net transfer (heat), most clearly in their Fig. 32 (where they simply and distortingly do not show the full set of energy flows), etc. And once they have created these strawmen, they attack arguments that are not physical, and simply not made, by the scientific community. Add to that the near-Victorian language, the continual tone of 'scolding', and lots of irrelevant side trips such as the 8-10 pages of semantic games with the definitions of greenhouse effects, and G&T lack rigour, content, or any connection to reality. The entire paper is semantic games, rhetoric, and strawmen. Hence the multiple (and to date unmet) requests for you to identify something in the paper (other than semantic gaming) indicating some physical basis for objecting to the (radiative) greenhouse effect that G&T don't seem to actually discuss.
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 18 December 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP, I note that you haven't yet come up with some clear idea of what physical quantity your IR thermometer measures. The basis of G&T's obfuscation piece is to confuse people like TOP to think that heat, in the thermodynamic sense, is the same as energy. Energy can flow from the atmosphere to the surface, heat can not. Their game is made easier by the fact that the word is used with less care than it deserves in popular explanations. Nowhere in radiative atmospheric physics is there a sugggestion that heat flows from the atmosphere to the surface. Anyone who believes that will be fooled by G&T's game. I don't know how this paper made it through peer-review, it is of no interest whatsoever. I reiterate that G&T do not have a point. However, there is no shortage of individuals who are not really qualified, yet draw from it enough arrogance to go on pontificating that atmospheric physicists have it all wrong. That is why this thread was necessary, not because there is any substance in G&T.
  33. JoeTheScientist at 03:30 AM on 18 December 2011
    Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    Richard Arnett@30 "I thought that CO2 followed temperature by around 700 years." There is more than one mechanism at work causing the temperature increase associated with ice age terminations: Ice age termination is initiated by orbitally driven (Milankovich) increases in insolation. This insolation causes the initial leading temperature increase - the first mechanism. In ice sheets that have grown to a critical mass in terms of latitude and elevation extent, this temperature increase initiates runaway melting of the ice sheet. Said runaway melting dumps enormous amounts of fresh water into the oceans, which alters ocean circulation. Altered ocean circulation results in venting of the deep ocean - where atmospheric CO2 was being sequestered during the ice age - and releases it back to the atmosphere, causing the atmospheric CO2 increase associated with warm interglacial periods. This increased CO2 results in greenhouse warming which causes additional temperature increase above and beyond the insolation-driven energy balance. Thus, in this second mechanism, CO2 leads temperature. The additional warming due to CO2 greenhouse provides the additional boost needed to melt the entire North American and Euro-Scandian ice sheets. Insolation alone would probably not do the job.
    Moderator Response: [muon] Any follow up to this informative comment should go to the End of the Hothouse thread, which specifically deals with mechanism for the onset/termination of a glacial stage.
  34. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1226, if you wish to discuss G&T's purported discovery that a particular definition of the Radiative Green House Effect (?) is a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, summarize their argument including quotes of the most important sections, including, most importantly, the definition they are challenging and the cited source of that definition. Failure to find a cited source of the definition probably establishes the definition to be a straw man. You should probably confine your argument to this point as it is only this point that is actually on topic on this thread (which is not a generalized refutation of G&T).
  35. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1223, Tom, Thanks. I hadn't reread the opening in a while, but you are right... the original point of the experiment was as stated, and the real problem is that the conclusion (amazingly) has little to do with the intended design. Wood sort of derailed there. But agreed, Wood is way off topic. This is best resumed by TOP, if he so chooses, after the Wood post is up on on that thread. That would be the right place for it. [Somehow, I now find myself dreading that day, however.] Am I right in thinking that TOP's use of the term RGHE refers to "radiative greenhouse effect?" (A term presumably created to distinguish it from "convective greenhouse effect?")
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1225 Tom I guess if definitions aren't important to science then G&T is pretty well meaningless. IIRC they are trying to avoid word play by defining what they mean very precisely. How can one talk about RGHE if it is not well defined? G&T studied fourteen IIRC definitions of the RGHE and found at least one of them to describe a "Perpetuum Mobile of the 2nd kind" which I take to mean they found that definition of RGHE to be a violation of the 2nd law in that it described a perpetual motion machine. And yes, I'm tired of hashing over Wood too. So much more to discuss.
  37. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1224, heat may always only travel from hot to cold, but only if you use a very specific, technical definition of heat to mean "net thermal energy". Energy, including thermal energy can travel in any direction including from cold to hot. G&T employ the former technical definition in order to refute the second possibility (as indeed you are also doing). It amounts to empty word play and has nothing to do with real science.
  38. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1210 RW1 If you read G&T carefully you will find out that they do not state that IR photons or any other photons emitted by a gas do not travel in straight lines to whatever they are then stopped by. In fact they, as physicists who have published on quantum physics they have quit a nice explanation of how photons are involved in the transfer of heat both in conduction and radiation. Where they G&T disagree with you is in your definition of RGHE that, IIRC, you say requires heat to flow from the colder CO2 in the atmosphere to the ground. I believe G&T would use the term "Perpetuum Mobile of the 2nd kind" for what you are describing as your description of RGHE seems similar to one of the definitions they took exception to. Photons from the atmospheric gases (let's include all species here) can go in any direction but heat always flows from hot to cold. It is the basis for radiative heat transfer as described in G&T.
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Sphaerica, I may have misunderstood you but you appear to say that the purpose of Wood's experiment was to disprove the greenhouse effect. That is not correct. Rather, it was to show that actual greenhouses (made from glass) where warmed by preventing convection rather than by the radiative effects of the glass. As he said in his article:
    "THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents."
    Wood's experiment does in fact demonstrate exactly this point, ie, that physical greenhouses in fact prevent convection from carrying heat away from the surface, and thereby raise the temperature. However, he goes on to say:
    "Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions. I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar."
    However, that was not the ostensible purpose of the experiment, and nor does it follow from the results he obtained. Like many a denier since, Wood has simply misinterpreted his own result. What is more, his experiment is clearly irrelevant. The greenhouse effect was deduced by an imbalance between the temperature of the Earth's surface, and the temperature the Earth' surface needed to be to balance the incoming solar energy with outgoing IR radiation. Because the effect is calculated and predicted purely from the physics of radiative transfer, the fact that convection cannot carry energy into space can in no way undermine the theory. So while it is in principle possible to falsify the greenhouse effect, it is not in principle possible to do so using Wood's experimental design, and that is exactly because it allows as a significant method of heat transfer a means (convection) which is precluded in space. (It is in principle possible to refute the greenhouse effect with a similar experiment as described in my 1213, although the performance of such an experiment would bitterly disappoint deniers everywhere.) It follows from this that all discussion of Wood's experiment is a red herring, something you already appreciate. All it shows of relevance is what everybody admits, that the "greenhouse" analogy is inexact. Finally, I understand your frustration with TOP. All he seems to do is waffle on vaguely, misrepresent the opinions of others and never get to any substantive point. I heartily recommend that further discussion of Wood's experiment be declared off topic on this thread, and that TOP be required to answer your very reasonable question at 1219. His failure to do so, I think, would be clear evidence that his only purpose here is trolling.
    Moderator Response: [muon] Indeed. This thread is about the 2nd law of thermo, not about boxes or greenhouses. Wood's experiment is off-topic.
  40. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1218 Sphaerica You haven't answered my point. I did read 1175
    First, the purpose of the Wood experiment is not to "determine whether radiation or convection controls the temperature of the air inside the box." The purpose is to determine whether or not in a system where convection is not present radiation alone will have the capacity to control temperature in the boxes.
    In the context of both Wood and G&T the convection was with the bulk outside atmosphere. G&T also made that clear with their discussion of the warming of a car interior with closed windows. Anyone knows that convection will occur inside any closed, gas filled container with a temperature differential and gravity. Of course in such a small box, convection will soon come to a halt as the enclosed gas reaches an even temperature. Your comment is obfuscation and a lack of taking the experiment in the context in which G&T offered it. The term RGHE was not coined by me, I just contracted it from "Radiative GreenHouse Effect". It was coined on this thread by someone else and such contractions are commonly used here. If you don't read the thread as you accuse me of doing, what can I say? G&T also proposed using a different term, "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and low and behold, what do you know, it is the first that phrase that occurs in the abstract quoted as the SoD here. G&T don't support their assertions? Did you read the paper?
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1220, TOP,
    the point being tested in the experiment was that greenhouses function by preventing convection
    No. You misunderstand, and this is why you can't get past the Wood experiment. How in the world could GHG's "block convection"? Scientists know that convection contributes to the behavior of the atmosphere. Why would this factor be ignored? As far as the way a real greenhouse works... that's silliness. Of course GHGs don't work exactly the same way. It's an analogy! It's used to introduce a complex concept to people before getting into the nitty grity. If your issue is that the word "greenhouse" is inappropriate (as with G&T) then you are wasting everybody's time! And please stop saying "RGHE". What the heck is "RGHE?"
  42. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/glacier-update-0809.html#70066 "Although reliable figures are often missing, considerable detrimental changes due to shrinking glaciers are universally expected for water availability in river systems under the influence of ongoing global climate change. We estimate the contribution potential of seasonally delayed glacier melt water to total water availability in large river systems. We find that the seasonally delayed glacier contribution is largest where rivers enter seasonally arid regions and negligible in the lowlands of river basins governed by monsoon climates. By comparing monthly glacier melt contributions with population densities in different altitude bands within each river basin, we demonstrate that strong human dependence on glacier melt is not collocated with highest population densities in most basins." Most needs to be defined, but that says that most people don't rely on glacier melt water. And where it does if it does, it all boils down the difference in melt rate between ice and snow.
    Moderator Response: [muon] 'Most' does not need to be defined here. Please do not attempt to bog a discussion down in such pedantics (defined as 'excessive concern with formalism and precision').
  43. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1215 Sphaerica I'm going to have to break the rules with the moderator's indulgence (-snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] This is tedious.  Your entire agenda revolves around presumption (as defined by your repetitive use of the word seems): presumption of posts you have not read nor understood in their entirety, presumption of what other people are saying without clearly asking them, presumption of what the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases actually is and presumption of just how much leeway you will be given in your prosecution of your agenda.

    An agenda which, in the absence of substantive points by you (and failing to answer the repeated clear questions of others) devolves to wasting everyone's time here.

    Get to the point, clearly and without dissembling, or cease.

  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1216, TOP, I asked a simple question in comment 1208 and you ignored it. Again, this discussion goes no where if you simply choose to ignore things that are presented to you. I will not waste my time jumping from point to point and simple repeating the same things over and over. To repeat: G&T spend a lot of time making assertions, but do not support them. Most of their assertions and the vast bulk of their diatribe consists of pointless word games and not science. Please identify some scientific or mathematical observation that you believe is demonstrated by G&T and which you are not on your own able to discount or untangle. Please identify some way in which G&T "prove" that greenhouse gases do not work as the rest of the scientific world understands and accepts.
  45. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1216, TOP,
    Are you saying that it did not in fact show that real greenhouses work by blocking convection cooling and not radiation trapping? That was what was being tested in the experiment.
    No. That is not what was being tested. You misunderstand the experiment. I explained this to you already in comment 1175. [As an important side note, if you are going to demonstrate that you either do not read or completely ignore responses to you, then this conversation is a waste of everyone's time. The tactic of simply repeating the same thing over and over as if your points have not been refuted is common and unacceptable. If you simply missed my response I apologize, but I have no time for games.] The purpose of the experiment was to determine if infrared radiation could be "trapped" and slow the cooling process. To do this, the system attempted to control convection and all other factors so that they would be the same in both environments. The only difference in the two setups should have been the ability to emit IR (which would be blocked in one case). The setup failed in this regard. Convection and other factors were unrecognized, so that they warmed the glass plate and the rock-salt plate equally, causing it to emit IR and creating no difference . I have no idea what "RGHE" is. Please don't define your own acronyms and then use them as if they are common place.
    The IR thermometer I have is not capable of registering any significant back radiation from the green house effect.
    I don't know how in the world you get this. This is very simple. We'll work with an analogy. Everyone is in a crowded gymnasium, trying to get an autograph from someone famous at one end. Thus, most of the people are crowded at that end. There are less people milling around in the middle of the gym and almost no one at the far end. One person there is your friend, who has already gotten his autograph and is waiting for you. You are right next to the person signing autographs. The noise there from all of the people clamoring for autographs is deafening. You turn your ear in the direction of your friend to listen to see if he is calling you. What you hear is an ear-splittling cacophony. Based on your logic, you conclude that your friend is able to speak incoherently and deafeningly with several hundred voices at one time. Lets go back to GHG. The air near the surface is far more dense than the stratosphere. The number of CO2 molecules is far higher. The air near the surface is also far warmer. As such, the amount of IR being emitted by the air around you is far, far greater than the IR being emitted by the stratosphere above, and that IR in turn has layer upon layer of intercepting greenhouse gases between it and you. You have no chance of measuring the IR emissions of the stratosphere from the surface of the earth, because it will be masked by the IR emissions of the entire atmosphere, bottom to top, in between.
  46. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1214 Philippe G&T don't have a point? Apparently they have some kind of point that needs addressing or this thread wouldn't exist. G&T made the assertion from basic physics that the concept of radiative balance is meaningless. They are well qualified to make this assertion in peer reviewed literature and have published on climate related issues on other topics. It is the assertion that they made regarding the concept of "radiative balance being bad physics" that I would like to see an answer to here. You can't just brush that off by saying they are wrong. And no, muon's graphs don't answer the assertion but are to be interpreted by the physics they assert are true. I'll have to check whether Halpern made a rebuttal to this point in his response to G&T. But I don't remember seeing it.
  47. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1209 Sphaerica So if what you are saying is true about the blocking of the back radiation was the true reason the glass windowed box in Wood's (1909) experiment had a lower temperature rise rate, then if the boxes were pointed at right angles to the sun, the box with the IR transparent window should also show a higher rate of temperature rise assuming that it started at a lower temperature. After all the CO2 that is radiating this back radiation is all around us. Sorry, I missed the flaw in the Wood experiment. Are you saying that it did not in fact show that real greenhouses work by blocking convection cooling and not radiation trapping? That was what was being tested in the experiment. I have half a mind to try to repeat the experiment using DOE methods. Turns out that rock salt windows are commercially available in optical grades at reasonable prices. Now you made a statement that my IR thermometer was possibly measuring the IR from the RGHE when I pointed it skyward. I did a further experiment with the IR thermometer to see if it was in fact measuring any back radiation from RGHE. It does not. The experiment was simple and I will describe it here: Using the flame of a common household propane torch as a source of IR from a visible flame composed primarily of H2O and CO2 at several thousand degrees F measure the flame temperature by pointing the IR thermometer at the flame 6 inches from the torch nozzle and slowly move the detector down the flame towards the source until the IR thermometer is pointing at the nozzle of the torch. Results: Some small temperature increase over background (75F vs 55F room background) from the flame until reaching the metal nozzle at which point the temperature reading jumped to 400F. Discussion of Results: Either the handheld IR thermometer measures a lower temperature than the actual gas temperature because the IR emitted by the high temperature gases was not in the narrow band specific to the semiconductor device or the emissivity of the high temperature gases was so low that the detector could not pick it up (this instrument not having a correction for emissivity available) and of course remembering that T&G don't believe the term emissivity can be applied to the radiation from gases at all as that applies to black body radiation which is not the radiation coming from a gas (no it isn't a different kind of photon, it is a different kind of geometry). Further refinement of the experiment: An aluminum reflector was placed behind the flame and the temperature measured increased significantly, but still nowhere near the actual flame temperature. Conclusion: The IR thermometer I have is not capable of registering any significant back radiation from the green house effect. We'll leave that to the folks who made muon's graphs. RGG emit IR in a very narrow band and require expensive instruments to detect. My IR thermometer was likely just indicating the low end of it's range when pointed at clear sky and the temperature of the moisture in the clouds when pointed at the bottoms of clouds. Note: The IR handheld did detect the correct temperature of hot water which means it should detect water droplet temperature.
  48. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    skept.fr @20, I welcome the return of the fact based focus which have made your posts such enjoyable reads for me, with the exception of certain recent departures. I appreciate your excellent summary of the situation. I find little to disagree with, and nothing fundamental. My only quibble is with your claim that peak production of gas inevitably means "exploding market prices". Price increases are effectively limited by the price of the nearest effective substitute. For gas this may be supposed to be some combination of renewable energy on the assumption that, renewable energy in 2050 will be cheaper in real terms per kilowatthour than currently, and that in 2050, carbon prices will make coal too expensive. In that circumstance, rising prices associated with peak production will just drive energy supply across to renewable (or nuclear) energy. If Renewable Energy is already cheaper than gas per kilowatthour, there may well be no price increase with peak production, but only a retreat into specialist uses such as the Haber-Bosch process in which gas retains a competitive advantage.
  49. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    OK, as I first did in #16, let’s keep on a science-based discussion and avoid OT futilities. I will discuss here the different proposals of your text. SkS : ‘Of course in an ideal world, renewable sources would meet all of our energy needs.’ We must first precise that is not an ‘ideal’, but a necessity. No civilization can be founded on non renewable resources like fossil fuels, and it is extremely likely the actual 80% fossil world energy mix would lead us to an energy, climate and economy collapse during this century. Even for a layperson blind to deleterious climate change, the dependency of our economy and society to fossil fuel is to be viewed as a highly risky bet. There is no consensus between experts on the total amount of recoverable quantities of fossil sources (eg Höök 2010, Chiari 2011) and some analysts (for example Lipson 2011) even suggest our current recession is partly due to a too high depedency to fossil energy sources (notably already-depleted conventional oil) and their high volatility prices (also of interest Jin and Fan 2011 on commodity effect, Chen 2010 on bear market trend, etc.). All that is subject to debate among specialists (see Segal 2011 for an example of counter-interpretation), but it would be at least unreasonable to plan the long term development of humanity and welfare of future generations on such a fragile socle. For a more precise example, as SkS mentioned the gas as a possible and less pollutant than coal part of baseload power during the coming transition, in a recent estimate of gas ultimately recoverable resource ( Mohr et Evans 2011) comparing six scenarios with different assumptions, gas production should peak between 2025 and 2066 at 140–217 EJ/y. As a production peak implies an exploding market price, with deleterious effect on economy and society, and as energy transition are decades-long challenge, we can rely partly on gas for the first part of the century but our energy targets for 2050 and beyond should by no way include gas as an inexhaustible resource it is not. Of course, when present and projected climate externalities of fossil use are integrated, the probability of collapse (at least sustained recession and associated problems) is even higher because part of our precious but rare energy will be devoted to costly adaptations to climate change, rather than to productive activities. So, the ‘precautionary principle’ as well as the physical limits of resources indicate that a renewable-based energy mix will be a necessity for this century, not jus an ideal. One of the SRREN 2011 robust conclusions is that even for scenarios without ambitious climate targets, the part of RE in the primary energy supply is planned to increase in coming decades for all models. And of course, the more ambitious our climate targets, the more fastly RE will penetrate the energy system. I think there is no reasonable objection to these basic facts. As most REs have lower known externalities than fossil or nuclear sources, and as they can supply the long term goals necessary to all human society, the only objections to a large deployment we can meet in literature is either the relative cost (economical objection) or the large-scale feasibility (technical objection). The point of this SkS article is the second family of objections, and I’ll make some further observations about each RE.
  50. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    Shrinking is not quite the right word for the annual mass balance losses that are the focus of this bulletin. Shrinking will occur with ongoing mass balance losses and this makes 22 straight years of global mass balance loss, and we thought Chrysler and Greece needed a bailout. The loss of a glacier is just no longer unusual. It could be the Swiss, Cavagnoli Glacier or the Milk Lake Glacier in Washington today we have had to publish a model for forecasting glacier survival (Pelto, 2010)

Prev  1353  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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