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  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  Next

Comments 68601 to 68650:

  1. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    #72 ranyl : Thank you for the references. I didn’t find Schneider’s paper for free, any link ? The distinction by Lunt et al 2010 between what they called Charney sensitivity (CS), fast feedbacks, and Earth System sensitivty (ESS), slow feedbacks, is interesting. The robustness of the application to mid-Pliocene warm period depends ultimately on the robustness of the estimation of boundary conditions they considered (CO2 orography, vegetation, icesheet) and of the reconstructed temperature change (for checking model fiability), all derived from PRISM data. So, to be continued ( here the page for selected publications around PRISM). Anyway, this leave me with a question : when models compare LGM and Holocene, should we consider they estimate CS or ESS ? As far as I undestand, climate of the mid-Holocene is considered as stable, so I guess it is ESS.
  2. It's waste heat
    "Your link to 2011 world energy outlook states in the second line that it's about the energy market, so I prosume it only takes into account metered power or power that is taken from the grid. " Ah no. It is about the energy generated and measured at source. Much easier to measure.
  3. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Thank you for the post John. Nice of you to remind Plimer since he seems to have a memory deficiency… If it’s any consolation; he has not made the impact with us yanks as he has down under. BTW, I hope you and the others that made it had a nice time up here on the left coast this week.
  4. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    With regard to past atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, a graph of the time series data over the past 800,000 years from Antarctic ice cores may be interesting. Below is a version (reduced from 609 pixels to 450 pixels wide) of Fig.1 in a paper by Alexey V. Byalko on the paleoclimate published in the journal Priroda [in Russian] (No.12, 2009, pp.18-28). The entire issue is downloadable as a pdf file (5 Mb). The x axis in the graph is time in thousands of years ago. In other words, "now" is zero on the left and the oldest data is on the far right. This is backwards to most graphs, which show "real" time (or "calendar" date) increasing from left to right. The green curve is a plot of methane (CH4) concentration in ppb, the blue curve is carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in ppm, and the red curve is a plot temperature deviation from the current average global temperature in degrees C. These plots may suggest how often atmospheric CO2 concentration exceeded 300 ppm during the past 800,000 years, how often and for how long the average global temperature was higher than it is now, and so on. I suppose the temperature decrease from about current temperature to -2 at the exit from the most recent deep ice age was associated with the Younger Dryas. This event seems clearest in the CH4 data, where a decrease from about 700 to about 550 ppb is seen.
    Moderator Response:

    [Albatross] Fixed image width.

    [DB] As an FYI, the highest CO2 excursions in the ice core records is 298.7 ppm.

  5. Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
    I've just read an article on the 'Physorg' site about research that shows that as Greenland loses ice, the bedrock is rising -- by 6mm last year. It occurred to me that if the land is rising, so must the sea bed around Greenland -- and if that's the case, then won't the rising sea bed displace water? So if that's correct, does anyone know whether this is being factored into sea level rise; and how much might global sea level rise as a result? It's, as journalists like to say, a 'double whammy'. I hope I put this post in the right thread -- I did consider one on sea level rise.
    Response:

    [DB] "does anyone know whether this is being factored into sea level rise"

    Yes; GIA corrections are made to the sea level analysys performed, as shown here:

    Click to enlarge

  6. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Bernard (#3), I took a look at that posting, and it caused me pain. "Irreversible"? Well, yes, over thousands to millions of years. Over the course of a human lifetime or two, umm, no. But, the readers there jump all over the first 'yes', and conveniently ignore the fact that a reversal will not come soon enough for the great-great-...-great-grandchildren of anyone alive today. Sites like that are gathering places where people are free to make up their own facts, disregard others, overlook logical inconsistencies, and call well-established science "mantra". In that environment, there is no convincing someone to change their mind, because there is nothing tying them down to reality. People that get along there could come to sites like this one, but would quickly get frustrated by being restricted to claims that are relevant and can be substantiated. People from here could go there, but when they put out information that can readily be verified, and contradicts the information provided there, they are mocked, and the mockers receive applause. So, there are these fortresses that occasionally lob shots at one another, but for the most part, people in one don't communicate much with people in the other. And, meanwhile, the uncaring, unknowing masses proceed with BAU.
  7. Mercury Scientist at 04:54 AM on 10 December 2011
    Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    A promotional flyer (http://www.iaq.com.au/images/Event%20Flyers/2009/IAQ%2023%20june%202009%20Flyer.pdf) states that Plimer "rejects the unscientific idea that the explanation of climate change can be reduced to one variable (CO2)..." Gee, last time I checked, scientists' consensus in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was that [anthropogenic???] radiative forcing was attributed to CO2, CH4 (methane), nitrous oxide, and CFC's. CO2's radiative forcing is ~1.5 W/m2. Sum of all the others is ~0.9 W/m2, so not insignficant at all. CO2 is a big one, but clearly it is wrong to suggest that the scientific community is reducing climate change to "one variable (CO2)." The flyer further states that "He [Plimer] rightly assumes that humans will be able to adapt to any future coolings or warmings." Funny how they have verified this assumption already, when we're just getting started with the warmup. I do agree that as a species, we will adapt and survive. However, I also believe it is wrong to assume that profligate dumping of greenhouse gases into the global atmosphere will be without serious consequences and costs to society. I believe it would me much more cost-effective, prudent, and conservative to be proactive on this issue: reduce energy demand, and adjust our energy portfolio by increasing non-polluting sources, and decreasing polluting sources.
  8. Mercury Scientist at 04:33 AM on 10 December 2011
    Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    I wasn't familiar with this Plimer dude, so I did a google scholar search on him (plimer i r). Looks like his background is in hard rock geology and mineralogy. In the first 5 or so pages of google scholar hits, I did not see a single peer reviewed paper that appeared to have anything to do with paleoclimate. His papers have titles like "Tourmalinites from the Golden Dyke dome, northern Australia;" "Exhalative Sn and W deposits associated with mafic volcanism as precursors to Sn and W deposits associated with granites;" "The origin of the albite-rich rocks enclosing the cobaltian pyrite deposit at Thackaringa, NSW, Australia;" etc. If there's a climate connection in any of them, I hope someone will point it out. Google scholar does, of course, include his "Heaven and Earth--Global Warming: the Missing Science." I would bet that this book was not subject to rigorous peer review. I will concede that he must be quite knowledgeable on geology - particularly minerals & rocks - but his specific area of expertise seems quite disconnected from what he writes about in his popular book. I contend that "the Missing Science" is the fact that nothing on his own CV suggests any stature or relevant research experience in the paleoclimate field.
  9. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    @peacetracker #31: I totally agree with you. "fingerprints" are the most convincing proof that manmade climate change is real and is happening now. It would behoove SkS to ratchet-up its coverage of the climate changes that scientists and people througouht the world are documenting and witnessing.
  10. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    @Robert Murphy 6 I think he is talking about Dansgaard Oeschger events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event But I think the 8C warming is local to Greenland.
  11. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Composer99-I absolutely agree that we are all capable of confirmation bias.It is a human trait to try and avoid cognitive dissonance as much as possible.What I observe in these pseudo-skeptics though,is willful disregard for objective facts,that is indistinguishable from outright lying.Maybe that's just my own bias talking.
  12. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    tmac57: I suspect there is a great deal of compartmentalized thinking going on. Everyone is capable of, and indeed I am sure everyone engages in it once in a while. The problem here is that climate contrarians let themselves get carried away.
  13. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss I see a lot of effort to move energy minimizing losses. And clearly I do not by the idea that the less energy is absorbed the more the air will warm. I belive in energy conservation, call me crazy.
  14. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss: What about all the energy radiated by high tension power lines? They are 'hot,' carrying many megawatts, 24/7. Why else would power lines be called 'hot'? To do a complete accounting of all this warming potential, you must add that to the count of cell phone towers and microwave ovens. The microwave heating fellow's credentials are stated on his about page: I was studying the Microsoft MCSE Exam 70-058 that I discovered, what I considered, a possible explanation for the Polar Ice caps melting. In the networking essentials book, they said that the connection on a wireless network was a microwave frequency. When I learned that, I was immediately struck with the notion that wireless frequencies could cause warming. I figured if the wireless connections were microwave connections, then with an enormous use of these connections there could be a significant environmental effect over a long period of time. I wish I had such clarity of insight. I'm doing my part by shutting off my wireless router and canceling my dish network subscription.
  15. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    You're quite welcome. I would encourage you to take the recommendations that the others have made above to heart. You are the steward of a precious cargo: young minds. It is a trust given you, one that entails a great responsibility. Given the extreme levels of disinformation in the media about climate science and the massive amounts of dissembling websites in the blog-o-sphere, it's extremely difficult to know whom to trust for reliable information about the science. This website is created precisely for those just like you: people who have an interest in learning, but have been exposed to much that is simply incorrect about the science. There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here (4,700+ threads, all replete with links to original peer-reviewed sources) and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history, per Rob Honeycutt's sage advice above. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread. Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.
  16. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Bernhard, look at Rinehart's #5: "Over the last 120,000 years, there have been 25 periods of warming where temperature rose by up to 8 deg C. These were not driven by human emissions, were natural and were neither irreversible nor catastrophic." What the????!! 25 times of 8*C change during the last 120,000 years, which was mostly a glacial period? Where do they get this nonsense? I remember seeing a similar thing on a Neil Boortz thread a few years ago. I think it may have come from Plimer ultimately.
  17. It's waste heat
    123 - jmorpuss What do you see? And, assuming it's something to do with your claims, how many kw do you estimate based on what input? Numbers are what counts; all else is just waffle. Well, OK, numbers and physics - but the rest is waffle.
  18. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    The thing that stands out most starkly to me,is that deniers will mercilessly mock and nitpick Al Gore,despite the fact that he got most of his facts right,but never ever,ever,ever,examine criticize,or retract obvious mistakes and contradictions that come from their spokespersons.How can they reconcile such gross hypocrisy?
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Because most deniers are ideologues. Their ideology blinds them to reality.]
  19. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    [DB] Thank you for your consideration.
  20. It's waste heat
    Riccardo No their part of the public sector When I came across this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O44WM1Q9H8&feature=related It is about power beaming back in 1975 and it made me think what it is being used for today. And here's what is taking place now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSGprwJx_zs&feature=related Do you see what I see
  21. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    The Plimer on the left has better hair, so I'm believing him!
  22. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss @116, "primary energy consumption" is defined as:
    "Primary energy consumption refers to the direct use at the source, or supply to users without transformation, of crude energy, that is, energy that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process."
    That is, it is the energy capacity of all oil, gas, coal, uranium and what have you that is extracted by any means, including all energy lost as waste heat, and including even the energy of fuels lost due to spillage. Ergo, it includes all energy used by military and governments, as well as that used in the private sector.
  23. It's waste heat
    Wikipedia has a good, somewhat relevant reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28power%29
  24. It's waste heat
    Riccardo @117, exactly, the less the energy absorbed the greater the warming. Hence the homeopathy theory of climate. We'll be in real trouble when jmorpuss realized that extreme low frequency radio waves are used to communicate with subs. They carry virtually no energy at all, and very little of what they carry is absorbed by water. Therefore by the homeopathic theory of climate change, they must cause massive warming. It turns out that its the ELFs that are doing it.
  25. It's waste heat
    118 - Riccardo Maybe it's Shhh ;-] ;-]
  26. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Plimer contradicting Plimer is not an isolated incident. One of his pet arguments is that carbon dioxide has been much higher in the past, without the Earth going into meltdown. He concludes that carbon dioxide can't have much of a warming effect. There's a major flaw in this line of thinking. The further back in time you go, the cooler the sun gets. If it wasn't for the warming effect of carbon dioxide, the Earth would've been a frozen iceball throughout much of its history.
    Curiously, Joanne Codling reproduces a screed by Gina Rinehart saying the same thing. I was gobsmacked to see that Codling reproduced Rinehart's points 1 and 2 in immediate succession, without apparently even blinking at the inherent internal contradiction of Rinehart's propaganda. Well, perhaps not gobsmacked. Codling long ago proved that she has no demonstrable grasp of science, for all her vaunted involvement with scientific education of children.
  27. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss are you saying that telecom and broadcast companies are off grid?
  28. It's waste heat
    muoncounter sorry mate but you critic to the microwave theory is wrong. Maybe you do not know that microwaves heat more because they are NOT absorbed. Read: "If you put ice in the sun rays, the ice will melt eventually at very slow rate. If you subject ice to a microwave frequency, it will melt at much more rapid rate. This is because the suns wave frequency absorb into water and ice, whereas, the microwave frequency will pass through the ice and water." The less power is absorbed, the more heating you get; a nice way to create energy. Or maybe heat is not energy ... I'm a bit confused here.
  29. It's waste heat
    Tom @112 Your link to 2011 world energy outlook states in the second line that it's about the energy market, so I prosume it only takes into account metered power or power that is taken from the grid. How I see it is all that gets taken into account is the poor old public sector and the military and goverments com's and detecting are not taken into account Things like these are of grid and use enormous amounts of power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater I could give you many more links to antena arrays that are of grid but I've been told not to link dump so I'ii hold back.
  30. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Its is a fundamental problem with the whole 'sceptic' position, it is just a morass of contradictory and often vague assertions.
  31. The Monckton Maneuver
    It may have escaped peoples attention, but Monckton now has a countermove in the Monckton maneuver. He has been clearly shown to misquote and misrepresent data from scientists and scientific papers by both Abraham and Hadfield. So in his latest post on WUWT, he as avoided the difficulty by not citing sources. Now the pontificating peer establishes himself as the sole necessary authority for any fact he cares to assert. Or at least he tried to. Unfortunately for his maneuver, the "... answer – again straight out of the usual suspects’ playbook" turned out to be so arcane that he had to relent and provide a source:
    "The value 100 Watts per square meter for the radiative forcing arising from the presence as opposed to the absence of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is within the interval 86-125 Watts per square meter for the top five greenhouse gases given in table 3 of Kiehl & Trenberth (1997)."
    Problem is, the 125 W/m^2 is the clear sky value, while the 86 W/m^2 is the cloudy sky value. (The overlap with clouds reduces the effect of other components.) The cloud Long Wave forcing is given by Kiehl and Trenberth as 30 W/m^2, and the total forcing (the figure Monckton needed) is given as 155 W/m^2. This brilliant man (at least in his own estimation) it turns out cannot even read the caption of a graph, nor yet the paper from which he cites. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/#comment-820375 Of course, that is not Monckton's worst error in that post. That would be employing the all sky total greenhouse effect to calculate the sensitivity of doubling CO2. To do that correctly, ie, to include forcings but not feedbacks in the calculation, he should employ only the forcings from well mixed greenhouse gases. These are given as 50 W/m^2 for clear sky, and 35 W/m^2 for all sky in Kiehl and Trenberth (Monckton's chosen authority). From them we also learn that there is a total cloud cover of 62%, so that the total well mixed ghg forcing is (0.62 x 35) + (0.38 x 50) ~= 41 W/m^2. Therefore the correct result for Monckton's calculation of sensitivity, given his chosen source of data is 3.7 x 33/41 = 2.98 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2. Somebody ought to phone the IPCC and advise them of their massive error of 0.02 W/m^2 in their central estimate. Of course, there are many caveats to such an estimate of climate sensitivity that Monckton ignores but would promptly find if the he ever used the real formula. Back on topic, Monckton does not just use the invisible source for his figures. He also invents unnamed scientists who, "When [he] pointed out this simple but powerful [desperately flawed] result to scientists recently at the Santa Fe climate conference organized by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of them said, “Ah, yes, but what evidence do you have that today’s climate exhibits the same sensitivity as the total system sensitivity?”" Well, yes, I'm sure unnamed scientists whose response cannot be independently checked would make so weak a response. Actual named climate scientists, however, would know a thing or two about climate science and point out the glaring flaw in the calculation from the get go.
  32. Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
    Open University chip in with a similar rebuttal as Dana's: http://www8.open.ac.uk/platform/news-and-features/the-science-behind-climate-change-explained They don't mention Lawson though.
  33. It's waste heat
    I dunno. I'm still romantically involved with Hapgood's Crustal Displacement "Theory"; an affair that is unrequited due to the extreme paucity of evidence in favor of it and that damning thing called reality... Not that the paucity of evidence ever gets in the way of a good romance; the id-eology wants what the id-eology wants.
  34. It's waste heat
    Muoncounter @113, LOL. Your last idea is obviously too far fetched. It has none of the clean elegance of the Homeopathy for climate that is the microwave theory of global warming.
  35. It's waste heat
    There's another tiny point relevant to cell phone signals: If atmospheric gasses absorbed those wavelengths, they wouldn't be much use for communication. And isn't that what these devices are designed to do? But in the internet era, every idea, no matter how devoid of substance, gets its own website. A close cousin are the folks who think that microwaves are the culprit. All that effort in support of an 'idea,' despite readily available science to the contrary. Now that's what I call waste heat! Hey, here's an idea which could use a website: Energy from the sun warms the earth's surface, which in turn radiates long wave IR back towards space. Something in the atmosphere absorbs that IR and ...
  36. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    It's a Monkton Maneuver Moment
  37. It's waste heat
    Flanner 2009 says:
    "Utilizing the second law of thermodynamics, it is assumed that all non-renewable primary energy consumption is dissipated thermally in Earth’s atmosphere. Country specific data of energy consumption from non-renewable sources (coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear) were obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea) for year 2005."
    Presumably human energy consumption has increased since then. However, the US EIA 2011 World Energy Outlook put human primary energy consumption in 2008 at 13.56 Terrawatts including renewables, which is approx 0.027 W/m^2. NOAA places 2008 greenhouse forcings at 2.74 W/m^2. Clearly the numbers are not precisely known, but are known well enough to be certain that the enhanced greenhouse effect contributes approximately 100 times the effect of waste heat per annum to warming the Earth's surface.
  38. Eric (skeptic) at 22:34 PM on 9 December 2011
    It's waste heat
    According to wikipedia, worldwide energy use was about 15 TW in 2008 which equates to 0.03 W/m2
  39. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    Or SirNubWub could just be a bit of not particularly creative trolling.
    Response:

    [DB] Let us first presume genuineness.  This forum witnesses real trolling all the time and what SirNubWub has stated does not rise to that level.

  40. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss you really need to put numbers in your theory, if not I may say that to have a pleasant swim this winter you can just drop a cup of tea in the swimming pool. 4 million 100 W towers plus 4.5 bilion 2 W subscribers sum up to 9.4 GW. That's a lot, sure, but the earth is huge; it's surface area is about 500 million Km2. Dividing the two you get about 2e-5 W/m2. Compare this number to, say, 4 W/m2 of CO2 forcing; it is 200 thousand times smaller. Do we really need to take it into account? The amount of waste heat is known, it's there but it's small.
  41. It's waste heat
    Tom @107 thanks for clearing up my mistake about linear thing.My theory is based around the greenhouse effect and how man has observed and replicated nature I mean of a night the only thing that ratiates into the atmosphere is blackbody radiation from the surface the moon and stars But man needs to communicate and detect 24/7 so the planet dosen't get time to rest. So the atmosphere is allready warmer then would be when the sun comes up Just one example is our mobile phone network with about 4 million towers and 4.5 billion subscribers. What sort of accumulative effect does this calculate to. The towers put out about a 100 watts and the phone about 2 watts and I haven't even looked at TV and radio, If you start to look at this you can see that there are many many things that add to this night time forcing process that would not be happening if you take man out of the equation. So the effect this has of a night is a thousands times more energy being released then the sun creates of a night.
    Response:

    [DB] "My theory is based around the greenhouse effect and how man has observed and replicated nature"

    First of all, what you are doing is trying to formulate a hypothesis.  Things that are theories are robust, supported by observational evidence and are testable, having survived countless experimentations by scientists who have documented their work through thousands of research papers in reputable journals.

    One such theory is the radiative physics of greenhouse gases.  Another is AGW.  Centuries of research document and quantify their effects and they are well-supported.  Since you have not even properly quantified the effects of what you propose (like the next two comments already have), let alone support it with research of your own or citations to pre-existing research in the field, what you propose fails to rise to the level of hypothesis yet.

    Read the post at the top.  Learn.  Read the comments on this thread.  Learn more.  Work out the maths.  Read through the links in the OP and in the comments.  Learn more.  If you gain support for what you propose, write it up as a plausible hypothesis complete with maths and citations to other established work which you can then use to support your position.  Then bring the completed homework back here.

    Until then you waste everyone's time here.  And that is putting it nicely (Mr. Curtis has the paitence of a saint, and when he runs out of patience it is due to the intractability of the individual he is trying to help).

  42. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    John H@13 "Tell me again why the world’s leading climate scientists should not be present en masse in Durban." Because Durban's civic organisation couldn't handle the waste disposal problems of all those melted, fractured, exploded irony meters? But really, there are already >10,000 people there. Their job is to use the science to inform policy. Unfortunately, the policies in question excite all kinds of nationalistic, economic, short-sighted, selfish, ham-handed, ... any wrong headed notion or feeling you can name. And the negotiations move on, haltingly, from there. Not very far and not very fast. But we have to remember. Negotiations of this sort always take a long time and a lot of argy-bargy. The reason this is all so frustrating is that we didn't roll up our sleeves and get anything useful done before Rio, after Rio. We could have got moving then instead of accepting pious hopes as plans for action.
  43. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    Tom Curtis - I don’t know what reforms you are contemplating but I'm sorry for the bad news but the events over the course of the last 50 years and where we find ourselves today, socially, economically and in environmental terms, show us that the experiment in social democracy has failed. It is dead. (-snip-) We need a system that will allow everyone to operate according to something like C-M-C, where money is not hoarded by economic actors but is used to transact between producers. x
    Response:

    [DB] Please take note of the Comments Policy.  Specifically the parts about politics, ideology & one-world governments.  The snipped portion of your comment above strays too far from the topic of this thread.  You are welcome to reformulate your comment such that it better complies with both the Comments Policy and the OP of this thread.  Leeway is given on threads like this except when the discussion gets sidetracked.

  44. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss @107: 1) You have the molecular configurations exactly backwards. CO2 is linear, with the oxygen atoms aligned 180 degrees from each other relative to the carbon atom. In contrast, in water the hydrogen atoms form a 120 degree angle relative to the oxygen atom. 2) Nearly absorption of energy from radiation by molecules is by alteration of the vibrational pattern or rotation of the molecule. In particular the absorption of microwaves by H2O is due to changes in the rotational state. A summary of this information can be found here. Information on the vibrational absorption patterns (IR absorption) can be found here. Also of interest are the following: General discussion CO2 H2O 3) Even if less energy was absorbed in microwaves, the consequence would be less heating. If that where not the case your theory would violate the conservation of energy. 4) You still fail to adress the very low energies involved in transmitted microwaves relative to incoming solar radiation, and outgoing IR radiation. To repeat, the total energy use of humans represents less than 100th of the additional warming due to CO2 as a result of the greenhouse effect. Total energy transmitted as microwaves is a very small fraction of that total human energy use. Therefore the total energy involved in your theory would be indistinguishable from noise (probably even indistinguishable as noise) relative to the enhanced greenhouse effect. 5) Finally, you have not as requested provided a clear statement of your theory, as per my point 2 in post 105. I therefore suggest to the moderators that we no longer entertain your nonsense.
  45. It's waste heat
    Tom @105 would you say that this thread is more about Blackbody radiation that follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics The way radiated heat is gobbled up and dispersed by a cooler atmosphere. What I'm trying to bring to the table doesn't fall into this thread, it's more about greybody radiation that is capable of on going heating as it passes through the air because most of the energy is not absorbed rather it vibrates the molecule and causes heat through friction. Also does the CO2 molecule have 3 sharp points (none linear)and has no real rest state unlike H2O which is linear and can spin like a top as well as tumbelling end on end. DSL @106 I'll try and engage but as you can see writing doesn't come easy to me and I'm a slow reader so try and be patient. Remember ladies and gents life is like a mirror you will always get back what you put out so be nice.
  46. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    John H: Doesn't that fact that there is such pitifully poor media coverage of climate change issues suggest that the 'tool box' has no actual tools? Perhaps your question is better addressed directly to the AGU's public affairs contacts.
  47. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    I am a high school teacher who is trying to figure out this climate change issue.
    Possibly you should have figured it out before telling your students things that aren't true?
  48. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    Muoncounter: Most of the media that cover climate change were in Durban, not San Francisco this year. News confernces are only one tool in the tool box.
  49. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    The link to the presentation, GWPPT6, is now available in the ADDENDUM section at the bottom of the OP.
  50. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    SirNubWub…. I would highly suggest watching the full presentation given by Dr Alley from which this video is taken. It can be found in the comments on Peter Sinclair's YouTube channel. I would also highly recommend watching Dr Alley's AGU lecture titled "The Biggest Control Knob." It's great you are here looking for accurate information. The best place to find it is in the actual published literature. Every article you find on this site will have full citations to the supporting literature.

Prev  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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