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  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  Next

Comments 68201 to 68250:

  1. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    72 - tallbloke Computers Seized in Cyber-Thief Investigation
    Thieves who broke into Unviersity of East Anglia computers in 2009... On Wednesday, detectives from Norfolk Constabulary entered the home of Roger Tattersall, who writes a climate sceptic blog under the pseudonym TallBloke, and took away two laptops and a broadband router
    is that you?
  2. Philippe Chantreau at 17:42 PM on 16 December 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1, you have a lot of posts on this thread and are no less culpable for its length that anyone else who has posted on it. The thread has seen little else than trolling and obfuscation, the worst example being that of Damorbel (see post #915, p. 19). Fred Staples and TOP's latest examples are not much better on substance. No need to add to it.
  3. The End of the Hothouse
    Norman, who said anything about reducing CO2 levels that low? Are you also aware of the amount that ice loss is accelerating? See the relevant articles at SkS. Entire, very large, ice sheets melted within ~<10,000 years at the end of the last glacial period. Within 2-3000 years between 11,000 and 8,000 years ago sea level rose ~60m. Meltwater Pulse 1A saw a rise of 20m in 500 years. What this shows is that large sea level rises in short periods of time are possible, given the right forcing and conditions, and that given appropriate forcing, deglaciation does not take over 100,000 years. Note that prior to Meltwater Pulse 1A, sea levels rose 20m in 6000 years, or ~3.3mm/yr. Coincidentally that's close to the rate sea level is rising today. It looks like abruptly around 15ka, sea levels began to rise rapidly. I'm not suggesting this will happen to Greenland or the WAIS, but rapid deglaciation and sea level rises have precedents, quite apart from the accelerations we observe today. source: globalwarmingart
  4. The End of the Hothouse
    Norman: Since the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Holocene interglacial was approx. 280 ppm, suggesting we are "saving" the ecosystems by burning fossil fuels and preventing CO2 concentrations from falling below 150 ppm is IMO complete nonsense. All: You might find this press conference from this year's AGU fall meeting of interest (hat tip to the comment threads at Deltoid where someone posted it). It's topical to this thread.
  5. Climate sensitivity is low
    A question to all - is it really necessary to rehash the previous discussion on the Lindzen and Choi thread, where RW1 spent considerable time pushing the same hypotheses, and where he was pointed at the same facts that he's being pointed at (and ignoring) now? RW1 - the same objections to your unbased claims still hold. What's the term? Debunked a thousand times (DATT)? Readers - Take a look at the Lindzen and Choi "Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements" thread if you have any questions about this discussion. Personally, I don't have the patience to discuss this again, as RW1 has stated: "I appreciate that you seem to be interested in helping me, but I'm not really interested in being helped per say. I'm a staunch skeptic of AGW, so my purpose here is to present contradictory evidence and logic that disputes the theory. That's what I'm doing." Those are not the words of someone willing to discuss the data, the facts. Rather, the words of someone who just wants to argue. DNFTT - Do Not Feed The Troll.
    Response:

    [DB] "What's the term? Debunked a thousand times (DATT)?"

    Very close.  PRATT - Point Refuted A Thousand Times.  Silver Star to you, circle gets the square.

    Edit:

    A large number of off-topic comments by RW1 and responses to him were deleted after this, as they belonged more properly on the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory thread (or others) and were thus off-topic here.

  6. Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise
    I don't see how local people on Pacific atolls have any effect on the rate of worldwide fossil fuel-burning. And I recollect seeing somewhere that many of the atolls that Webb & Kench (2009) looked at were actually uninhabited unpinned islets. Therefore, of course they'll shift around over time. One of the reasons they are uninhabited is that they're unstable.
  7. The End of the Hothouse
    Norman#8 "This rate would increase with warming but at this current rate it would take... " If you expect ice loss rate to increase, why do you even mention this extrapolation of the current rate? And if ice loss increases, why do you expect SLR to have the same rate? Move cities? Stop sea water leakage? Are you aware that salt water inundation is already doing damage? And who is Ed Ring?
  8. The End of the Hothouse
    You presume SLR due to ice sheet losses will be linear. Much evidence exists to the contrary.
  9. The End of the Hothouse
    In the conclusion of the OT "In conclusion, we are already into a world where the long-term survival of parts of the ice-sheets is not favoured: the further towards the high hundreds of ppm CO2 we head the further we head into a world that does not favour any Antarctic land-ice, although of course to melt all that ice would likely take many centuries. That is no comfort when considering the ecological, humanitarian and economic effects of a steady sea-level rise of several tens of metres over that time, submerging all of our coastal cities one after another. If that's not worth making a fuss about then what is?" From this web page. "Ed Ring says: April 30, 2008 at 2:43 pm A net loss of 150 gigatons against a mass of 20.5 million gigatons is nothing." Antartica has a measured loss of ice at the rate of 150 gigatons year. This rate would increase with warming but at this current rate it would take around 137,000 years to melt the 20.5 million gigatons of ice frozen on that contintent. If mankind cannot find a way to move their cities or figure out ways to stop sea water leakage, then we truly are a dumb race and time for our extinction. Seems like we would be a really stupid people to watch this very slow rising water and just wait until the city streets are ten meters under water before taking some intelligent steps to avert disaster.
    Moderator Response: Your misconception is addressed by the post Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass.
  10. CO2 limits will hurt the poor
    This article doesn't really adress the point. The skeptic argument you underscore is : 'CO2 limits will hurt the poor. Legally mandated measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have significant adverse impacts on GDP growth of developing countries. This in turn will have serious implications for our poverty alleviation programs.' To show that CO2 rise will harm the poor (Samson et al 2011) does not tell us if the skeptic argument above is right or wrong. A better way to do so would be to show that poverty alleviaton does not imply a carbon rise.
  11. Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise
    Some satellite observations show a growth in coral atolls in the period since satellites have been observing them. Short of acidification or warming of ocean water, I wonder if the health of the coral atolls might actually be in the hands of the local people. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html William
  12. The End of the Hothouse
    Also of interest, and free access, the DeConto & Pollard 2002 paper for a model-based perspective linking Antarctica glaciation to CO2 change.
  13. The End of the Hothouse
    The research led to the understanding that it was in fact very difficult to glean useful reconstructions from high southern latitudes (i.e. the seas around Antarctica) How robust is that statement? I can imagine the cries of the deniers saying that ignoring the data from the high latitudes is cherry-picking. Am I right in assuming that the high-latitude data gives indeterminate results, rather than being emphatically in the 'wrong' direction?
  14. It's not urgent
    This is the only refutation I could find in the list by taxonomy that I thought might explain why "geo-engineering" doesn't solve the problem. After all, if geo-engineering would work, then that would reduce the urgency. So this is the perfect place (at least under the existing taxonomy) for addressing it. There is, after all, a a claim circulating the rumor mill now that sulfuric acid high altitude aerosols will solve the problem. I do not think we can explain the popularity of this belief solely in a one-sided reading of the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)
  15. Climate sensitivity is low
    Richard#265: "The warming since 1950... " Let's set the record straight. Warming of ~0.7 C since 1970; approx 0.18 C per decade. CO2 in 1970 = ~325 ppm, now = 395 ppm (see Mauna Loa). The 'percentage caused by CO2' is a meaningless hairsplit at this cursory level of analysis; it's a system of forcings and feedbacks. But if you want more detail, you can find it here. The sensitivity of 3C per doubling of CO2 is a straightforward calculation; you can find it many places here or even on wikipedia (search 'radiative forcing'). But in very rough terms, if a 22% increase in CO2 results in 0.7 degrees; four 1/2 times that in CO2 gets you in the ballpark of 3C. The point is this: A 2 or 3 C increase in global temperature has effects that are not what you should want to risk.
  16. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    skept.fr @100 continues to argue that there is no basis for the 2 degree C guard rail. The potential of nearly a third of the world's future population (and nearly half if the current population in absolute numbers) suffering from water shortage apparently does not move him. What moves me to favour a 2 degree guard rail is the fact that current CO2 concentrations are enough to destroy the Arctic sea ice, and hence the associated ecosystems. That, according to Ove Hoegh-Guldberg,
    "Given that these levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are likely to be associated with at least a 2°C increase in sea temperature, it appears that coral reefs will largely disappear if atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide exceed 450 ppm."
    (See also the 2007 review paper in Science.) I am also concerned about the impacts of higher temperatures on the Amazon rainforest. Based on model studies, the rainforest is stressed but intact for small temperature rises, but if temperatures rise above 3 degrees C, it is as though the Amazon falls of a cliff: (Source, two lines have been added showing 2 degree and 3 degree temperature rises for ease of reference.) Note that some model runs show decline starting much earlier than the 2 degree increase. Indeed, some show the decline to have already started, a result consistent with recent droughts in the Amazon. Exceeding 2 degrees C, therefore, has a high probability of causing the loss of three of the Earth's major biomes, and given that ocean acidification adversely effects planckton as well as reefs, and there will be major shifts in precipitation patterns, and significant rising temperatures, it is more likely than not that other biomes will become either extinct, or significantly stressed. Skept.fr places great faith in cost benefit analyses, even though the IPCC (which he otherwise accepts as an authority) indicates they can only indicate order of magnitude effects. I place no confidence in them at all. They are modeled on the assumption of a world much like this one, but a world without significant coral reefs is not much like this one, and nor is a world with out the Amazon. IMO, the supposition that civilization can continue much as before at temperatures with temperature rises above 2 degrees C is simply an act of faith. It is on a par with belief that decline into a full glacial would not effect our ability to feed the current population. This leaves aside entirely issues of climate extremes, known effects on global food production (which will decline above 2 degrees C) and sea level rise. skept.fr apparently wants his ideas to be taken seriously. In that case it is high time he recognized that the 2 degree guard rail is not just "a basis of discussion", but a basis of discussion based on solid scientific evidence.
  17. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    "However, how long are we going to tolerate Homeostasis arguments?? What evidence is there that the phase space of the climate system has 'very' stable points that pertubations out of those points will dissipate and the system will relax to the same point?" Well, I think it obvious that the system must have some moderating feedbacks on geologic timescales to have remained in a fairly narrow range of habitability for the last several hundred million years. Else we wouldn't have come back from things like snowball Earth, major meteorite strikes and volcanic eruptions, a faint young Sun, and so on. On multidecadal to millennial timescales, however, positive feedbacks must dominate for things like the glacial/interglacial cycle, D-O events, and the PETM to occur.
  18. The End of the Hothouse
    Doc Snow @ 1 Yes, a difference between the threshold for glaciation from the threshold for deglaciation would fit the definition of historesis. Differing history and/or internal state can vary the threshold values. I too would be keen to learn more about this.
  19. The End of the Hothouse
    Another important point to take away (and one that leapt out at me): "1000-1200ppm down to 600-700ppm in just three million years" What that says to me is that if we crank up atmospheric concentrations to ~1000ppm, it's going to take millions of years to get back to anything resembling 'normal' levels for all of human history. I.e. if we screw up the climate, it's darn well gonna stay screwed up, probably for longer than humans will exist on the planet...
  20. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    KR @99, an excellent summary.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I mean, I can even agree the net effect of additional CO2 could be zero or a wash, but not because of any second law violation. This is silly.
  22. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    @Muonocounter-thanks, watched the vid- very informative. I am writing a book 'metaphoring' my experiences with 2 diseases and major surgeries (liver transplant, other organ removals, septic shock, etc...doing well now :)) to the climate change arena. Some of my personal tipping points when organs and other important body systems suddenly 'tipped over' to other states of order and functionality were quite unpredictable in the sense of exactly 'how' and 'when'...it's often hard to believe they are coming until they actually arrive.(and even then it can take a while to grasp) Quite a challenging situation to communicate this phenomenon in the climate change arena in a way that 'gets through'.
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I can't believe this thread now is 1200 posts! There is no violation of the second law with the Greenhouse Effect, because it's not about energy going from cold to warm through a conduction process. Does anyone actually think that a re-emitted photon cannot travel from the colder atmosphere toward the warmer surface? How do the photons from the Sun pass through the colder upper atmosphere and reach the warmer surface?
  24. The End of the Hothouse
    If a drop in CO2 down to 600-700 ppm caused the onset of Antarctic glaciation, that is additional evidence we can use to rebut the skeptic’s argument that the CO2 effect is saturated.
  25. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    DB I believe when someone like "skept fr" is allowed to hi-jack a comment thread, it turns off other readers and inhibits their active particpation in the comment thread.
  26. Climate sensitivity is low
    Richard Arrett, among many other problems, you're ignoring the possibility that more than 100% of the warming since 1950 is due to CO2. Impossible! I hear you cry. But not, actually, as it is quite likely that aerosols are offsetting the non-CO2 warming effects and some of the CO2 warming effects. It will be "interesting" in a Chinese curse sort of a way, when China and India sort out their pollution issues. Another issue is you keep discussing equilibrium sensitivity values when you should be discussing transient sensitivity values, which are closer to 2C per doubling. We don't expect to see equilibrium sensitivity-sized changes instantaneously.
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I genuinely have no idea what any of this has to do with violations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1197 Sphaerica I think I just answered part of that in 1198. In the Wood (1909) experiment, there was a small discrepancy in how fast the two boxes heated. The box with the IR transparent cover heated faster. So I jumped to the conclusion that if that was so, and if placing an IR opaque filter in front of the box caused the temperature rise to drop, then the same would be true if the atmosphere were IR opaque (which it isn't, see muon's charts.)
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1163, 1193 scadenp Well, I thought I did in 1174, but Philippe in 1179 pointed out that I incorrectly used the term energy for "Sunlight". It just all depends on what Blambda means when integrated as in equation 30 on page 22. It could just be power (energy per unit time) integrated over a portion of the spectrum. [I am being a bit imprecise here. You can look up Blambda elsewhere.] That table in G&T is referring to the black body radiation of the sun before it passes through the atmosphere. So of course the gases in the atmosphere are going to take their "cut" of the radiant energy on the way down. Wood demonstrated, however, that a significant and measurable portion of IR does in fact reach the ground. But muon's charts support this finding. Just out of pure curiosity, how does RGHE deal with the warming of CO2 from the sunlight? And why does muon's graph show such a low temperature in the CO2 notch looking down from above if there is so much radiant energy available to heat it? I have a thought on that but I am wondering what your opinion is.
  30. Climate sensitivity is low
    John Russell at 04:50 AM on 16 December, 2011: I certainly did not feel like I was being banned. I am moving to this thread so as to not be off topic. The warming since 1950 has been around 1 degree F or .55 degrees C. But how much of that is due to CO2? I read 75% in one article and 50% in another. Lets say 75% of the warming from 1950 is due to CO2 and the rest is due to land use changes, black carbon on snow, methane, etc. So .75 degrees F seems like a fair estimate of the warming from 1950 caused by CO2. First off - does that seem about right to you? I am not a climate scientist - so what I see from this data is that we seem to be on target for about the amount of warming you would expect from physics - but just the direct warming - no amplification effect. Doesn't that imply about 1.5 degrees F of warming to 2100 (or about .83C) from just CO2. Of course, there would be temperature increase also due to the other 25% non-carbon causes. If you just extend the trend line - doesn't it look like we will get about 1.2 degrees C by 2100? When I look at the data, I see the direct warming from CO2 - but no indirect warming from CO2. That is my main problem with a CS of 3 degrees C - it just doesn't add up for me.
  31. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP, You still have not answered the question "How can an IR-opaque atmosphere possibly lead to global cooling?" I only ask again (for the third time) because I think that this may be at the heart of at least some of your problems. If you believe this, then there is something seriously wrong with your understanding of the physics involved. Please explain yourself.
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP - we have no problem with idea that greenhouse effect is badly named. Its just not news. This in no way invalidates the fact the atmospheric greenhouse gases warm the planets. That IS the only point of substance for climate. SoD assumed G&T just skipped 100 years of literature; I think it more likely that they were trying to sow seeds of doubt about GHE with that long preamble. Looks like it worked. Are you arguing that IPCC science doesnt understand GHE. (eg as described here). Or that Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 (the basis for current calculations) have got it wrong?
  33. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    John, I respectfully must side with KR on this issue. Shocking, I know (not the agreeing with KR part). Part and parcel of the "engaging the denial to debunk it" is not the actual attempted conversion of the fake-skeptic; the larger victory is the point-by-point takedown of the meme itself for the purposes of educating the many who read SkS, but will never comment in these threads (which they are under no obligation to do). Elucidate, educate and edificate.
  34. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1192 pbjamm It isn't semantics. The good BBC professor purported to demonstrate the "radiative greenhouse effect" by comparing temperatures in a) a bottle filled with air (0.04% CO2) and b) a bottle filled with CO2. The experiment did not demonstrate what was purported even a little. Nor did it invalidate Wood's experiment in 1909. You have read G&T haven't you? They have a big problem with the term "greenhouse effect", if for no other reason than it is not well defined, at least for a mathematical physicist's purposes and it is not an "effect". There are 14 subsections in their paper that find flaws in published definitions of the term in, I would hope, respected literature on AGW. G&T are arguing the "semantics" because without defining terms, what exactly is being discussed? What I say is of little consequence. And just a note of style, if you quote, put it in quotes or indent. As everyone knows, I am easily confused.
  35. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    John Hartz - I will point out that debunking anti-science propaganda is one of the purposes of the SkS site.
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Wow, almost 1200 comments in and we have consensus: It shouldn't be called the greenhouse effect because 'real greenhouses don't work that way.' In what way do these pedantics change the physical science involved - or the outcome? TOP#1187: Very insightful critiques. Now do the same with your 'I measured the temp of the stratosphere with my handheld IR thermometer experiment.'
  37. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    KR: We are engaged in a propoganda war with a well-financed and sophisticated, international Climate Denial Machine. In my opinion, SkS is not obligated to provide deniers with a forum for posting anti-science propoganda.
  38. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    dagold: Watch this video from the recent AGU conference: Hansen, Rohling and Caldeira on the Paleo Climate record. Very informative on the evidence showing a record that dovetails with calculated/modeled sensitivities. Very sobering stuff on rapid changes, especially in terms of sea level.
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP - as has been said before, great hunks of G&T are telling us what everyone knows full well but possibly they and definitely you, seem to think contradicts how we understand atmospheric physics to work. The skeptic point to take down in their paper was their idea that 2nd law is being violated. It is not. Muon has pointed you at the spectral observations from both top and looking up. Both agree with model calculations which could not be valid if G&T were right. There is no observational evidence to contradict the GHE and a very great deal to validate it. Now, have you figured out what was wrong with the G&T statement I quoted earlier?
  40. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP@1191: I do have a problem with calling it proof of the "radiative greenhouse effect" as applied to real greenhouses when real greenhouses don't typically have a 90% CO2 atmosphere ======= Is this a purely semantic argument that 'greenhouse effect' is an inaccurate description? At this point I am not clear what you are arguing for or against.
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1189 pbjamm Read my response. I don't have a problem with the science. CO2 does absorb IR. Look at muon's graphs and many others posted here. Those are actual measurements taken with expensive instruments. I do have a problem with calling it proof of the "radiative greenhouse effect" as applied to real greenhouses when real greenhouses don't typically have a 90% CO2 atmosphere. Perhaps that experiment should be called the "absorptive greenhouse effect". Mr. Wizard did a much better job of controlling his 6th grade experiments in the '60s.
  42. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    SirNubwub, you can get a clearer picture of what is really going on if you remove known sources of natural variation from the temperature as was done in this paper. Corrected graphs look like Not much sign of "global warming" stopping there is there? What do you figure will happen to temperature records in the next El Nino? Now perhaps you think that El Nino event will suddenly stop, but then perhaps you note that 2011 was hottest ever year with a La Nina event.
  43. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1185 John Hartz This is a discussion about G&T. Their paper is long and I saw little specific discussion of the points that they made that could be traced to specific parts of that paper. So I quote it. Frankly I don't think that a lot of the discussion on this whole thread has attempted to address G&T. And even when quoting G&T the discussion seemed to diverge from the topic of the post rather rapidly. I will say that I haven't found much of anything in the respondents to my comments here that convince me of the error of G&T's ways. I learn a lot but I see a lot of regurgitation of information found in other papers and books. Most of it just comes down on me for word choice or "rhetoric". Guess I'll have to take remedial English or writing. But then this is a blog and I would expect to be cut some slack on form and style like I cut slack for others. And if banning me is the only way to win the argument that speaks loads for the argument. G&T have made some headway. In 1184 KR uses the term "radiative greenhouse effect" which to me is acceptable in place of the "convective greenhouse effect" which is what happens in real greenhouses. And I will note that G&T wanted to use the term "atmosphere effect" in place of "greenhouse effect" when talking about warming the atmosphere by radiation.
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP@1187 "There was no control, no Design of Experiment and no statistically relevant reduction of data. This was just a snake oil presentation." Are you serious? This was not a graduate thesis, this was a 6th grade level science demonstration. If you really want to *prove* that it is fabricated nonsense perform the experiment yourself. It should not take more than an hour start to finish and you probably have everything you need in our kitchen. Please post a youtube link when you are done. I eagerly await your results.
  45. Climate sensitivity is low
    jmorpuss, none of those links give any hint of any way by which the phenomena discussed could have any material effect on climate - by orders of magnitude. As such I cannot see how you can link this in any way to the idea that climate sensitivity is low.
  46. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    question...many of the news stories re: Hansen's recent statement that 2 C warming is, in fact, much more problematic than previously thought- have this quote-.."Hansen found that global mean temperatures during the Eemian period, which began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 15,000 years, were less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today. If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian" My question: if the Eemian was about about (a bit less) 1 C warmer than 'today', wouldn't "2 C rise over pre-industrial times" bring our mean temp more or less EQUAL (maybe .2-.4 higher taking 0.8 C as present rise since pre-industrial) with Eemian and NOT "far exceeding Eemian"?? I am writing a book (very much accepting the consensus of climate scientists) on Climate Ch. from a layperson's perspective and I want to be as accurate as possible. Thanks!
  47. Newcomers, Start Here
    scaddenp - part 2 is dead on what I was looking for. For now I will use the wikipedia source for 4,000 ppm average for water vapor. It also appears by rough estimate that over 90 of the water vapor is in the part of the troposphere containing 50% of the CO2.
  48. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Re: SirNubWub What exactly do you mean by the phrase "global warming has stopped"? More specifically, what exactly do you mean by "global warming"? There are many measures of the temperature of the planet: - near-surface air temperatures over land (i.e., typical weather station data) - tropospheric temperatures from satellites or radiosondes - sea surface temperatures - deeper ocean temperatures At any time, one or more of these can decrease for a period, even if overall heat content is still rising. Examples would be the redistribution of heat related to ENSO. At any time, there may be temporary decreases in one or more of these, due to such factors as volcanic eruptions, anthropogenic aerosols, solar output, etc. The effect of the top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance caused by increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased energy retention somewhere in the earth-atmosphere system, but it doesn't mean that every temperature, everywhere is constantly increasing. The implication of most "global warming has stopped" statements from deniers is to claim "global heating due to CO2 has stopped", in an attempt to discredit the strong science that tells us the effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This implication is unjustified, misleading, deceptive, disingenuous, illogical, specious, unfounded, unscientific [insert favourite synonym here]. To make an analogy, the "global warming has stopped" claims are pretty much equivalent to claiming that the furnace in my house has stopped heating because I opened a window on a cold winter day and one room's temperature has dropped. The furnace is still pumping just as much heat into the system, and temporary, localized effects that show cooling don't change what the furnace is doing. You don't conclude the furnace is broken, when you know that the temporary/local cooling is caused by the open window. The effects of a volcanic eruption can be seen in a short-term temperature record. The effects of ENSO can be seen in a short-term temperature record. The effects of a short-term change in solar output can be seen in a short-term temperature record. The effects of a slow, steady imbalance due to rising atmospheric CO2 cannot be seen in a short-term temperature record, and that means that short-term records also cannot show that the effect isn't there. It is an obfuscation by deniers to pretend that short-term variations in an global temperature record disprove greenhouse gas theory. To detect that slow, steady signal in the noise, you need longer records. Long enough to be statistically significant.
  49. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1186 Tom Curtis Thank you Tom. I am trying real hard to make a reasoned point in a tough forum.
  50. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1171 Moderator I viewed the BBC experiment. Thanks for the notes. Among other problems: 1. Lights repositioned between 1:14 and 1:18 so that the CO2 light is more direct. 2. No control over the positioning of the lights. 3. The left bottle had .04% by volume CO2 while the right bottle probably had 90% by volume CO2 proving that CO2 absorbs more IR than air if the experiment actually represented equal impingement of IR on the bottles. All this would prove is that CO2 absorbs IR which nobody is disputing or perhaps that it takes an almost pure CO2 atmosphere to raise the temperature a few degrees. 4. The right bottle had an object behind it that may have reflected energy back into the bottle. 5. There was no control, no Design of Experiment and no statistically relevant reduction of data. This was just a snake oil presentation. This experiment simply proves, if anything, that CO2 absorbs IR, it has nothing to do with explaining why greenhouses warm in the sun. (-snip-).
    Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

Prev  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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