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  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  Next

Comments 71901 to 71950:

  1. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Sorry, Dikran. Somehow I understand why other "skeptics" did not withstand you. Apparently, I went three steps further then they did, and I have enough. I have no time to discuss the elementary math with you. You have to put all the chain of your arguments at once if you wish any further discussion. Sorry for that!
  2. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:37 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai, "terrestrial productivity is not really relevant, because it is CO2 neutral." Again do you have a reference for this? From my understanding terrestrial productivity can also act as a carbon sink.
  3. How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
    34, guinganbresil, See Trends in Observation and Research of Deep Ocean Circulation and Heat Transport for more details on currents. They act as an additional mechanism for transporting heat downward into the depths.
  4. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Gosh Daniel. Dikran disagreed with me in posting #130. You've missed that? Now we are just figuring out what is the reason for the disagreement. You want to participate [it] contructively [/it], or just snorking around?
  5. Dikran Marsupial at 03:33 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai sorry, experience tells me that step-by-step, with agreement at each point is the only way to differentiate between truth-seekers and trolls. As Sphaerica points out, if you want the discussion to proceed quickly and smoothly, then co-operate by simply replying "I agree" where you agree, rather than waste time obfuscating. I'm glad you agree with step #3 ΔC - E_a = E_n - U_n Step #4 is as follows, if the left hand side is negative, then we know the right hand side must also be negative, i.e. if E_a > ΔC then U_n > E_n Do you agree (if you state that you agree explicitly and unambiguously, and make no attempt to obfuscate or irritate, then I will have the confidence to proceed in larger steps).
  6. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    pbjamm - I noticed many WUWT commenters telling Watts "I told you not to say you'd accept the BEST results." Since he appears unwilling to accept results that contradict his pre-determined conclusions, saying he would accept their results regardless was indeed a mistake.
  7. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    The comments section of WUWT is a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance and denialism. Muller didn't come to the predetermined conclusion so he has sold out. 'They' got to him. He changed the rules. Blah blah blah.
  8. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Perhaps Muller should replicate Manns hockey stick, which he continues to say was poorly done. When Muller actually produces some new data it will be more interesting.
  9. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @ bugai @ 161 "Then I will point, at which step I start to disagree with you." So you have already decided to disagree with Dikran without actually evaluating the full argument, but are merely looking for the proper point in the discussion to insert it? How "skeptical" of you.
  10. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dirkan: to shorten the discussion, just put all your steps in a row. Then I will point, at which step I start to disagree with you.
  11. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    I liked Tamino's words to Muller (here): "Welcome to my world."
  12. How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
    Rob, Sphaerica - I think I understand now... Lets start with a picture: There are several gradients: 1 - Air to Surface = very small 2 - Surface to bottom of 'skin layer' = ~0.5 mm 3 - Bottom of 'skin layer' to the peak of the diurnal warm layer (when warmed by sunlight) 4 - The thermocline 5 - Deep ocean gradient below the thermocline I imagine that there is a depth where the diurnal swing in temperature is not observable due to a combination of mixing and the fact that you are too deep to get any direct sunlight warming. I think this depth is still in the well mixed layer in the top... The heat transfer between the air and the ocean is related to the air-surface gradient. A warming of the skin layer just increases this gradient, increasing the heat transfer - it is essentially a wash. The heat transfer to the deep oceans (by deep I mean 100's of meters not 100's of microns...) is determined by the gradient of the thermocline. Now, you can clearly see the gradients shown in the top figure would show a constant buildup of energy in the ocean... As I understand it, the deep, cold water (in the tropics) turns out to be the warm upwelling water in polar regions - rejecting the energy it picked up in the form of latent heat, so you don't see much of a temperature change... Remember the currents:
  13. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dirkan: I agreed long with your Step 3. Are you going any further?
  14. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Hyperactive Hydrologist: terrestrial productivity is not really relevant, because it is CO2 neutral. CO2 binding in oceans is significant, because the phytoplankton is beeing eaten by zooplankton and carbon is bound in the shells. The shells sink to the ocean deep for good.
  15. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    What's interesting to me is the finding of a slight cool bias in the not-very-rural station data. A similar kind of cool bias was found in the not-well-situated station data in Menne et al. 2010. As if everything else weren't enough, this should definitively rule out the idea that either microsite influences or UHI could have generated a significant part of the warming trend in the data, giving a false signal of warming. But as we're already seeing, it won't do that for the people committed to the fantasy that the temperature record is fraudulent or agenda-driven.
  16. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:05 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai @148, For this to be true globally you would require a similar reduction in terrestrial primary productivity. However this doesn't appear to be the case. According to this paper Net Primary Productivity (NPP) has been increasing by 0.52%/yr between 1980 and 2000.
  17. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    156, bugai, [I won't interfere, but you accused me of being argumentative. You are demonstrating the same behavior with Dikran. With small, axiomatic steps this discussion with him will proceed very smoothly and quickly if you are less argumentative. All you need to do at each point is to respond "Yes, I agree" -- unless you truly don't at some point, but as you've pointed out, these steps are fairly trivial and should not involve any side discussion. If you let the steps flow, the answer will arise incontrovertibly.]
  18. Dikran Marsupial at 03:00 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai wrote "1st class school math. Could you increase your steps?" I would happily do so if you were more cooperative, while you are obfuscating at each step it make sense to go in as small steps as possible to give you as little room to obfuscate as possible. So, do you agree, if so, say so explicitly.
  19. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dikran: 1st class school math. Could you increase your steps?
  20. Dikran Marsupial at 02:54 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai O.K., step #3 we can rearrange the equation to get ΔC - E_a = E_n - U_n Do you agree? Note I have change dC to ΔC to make it clear we are talking about the change in C, which is completely conventional notation used in physics.
  21. Climate sensitivity is low
    240, Tristan, 1) No one knows for sure, because it's never been doubled this quickly before. The models give some insights, but this is hard to pin down. We're also pretty early in the process, so it's hard to even estimate it at the current rate of warming. We haven't hit any step-changes yet, and the system is sluggish. What we do know is that no matter how slowly it seems to happen, it is happening, and it is going to continue well beyond the point where we stop raising CO2 levels. 2) To my knowledge, this is the "Charney sensitivity" or "equilibrium sensitivity", meaning the final, end result sensitivity after everything has stabilized. Also note that while 3C is an easy working number, the assumed range is 2C to 4.5C, and it may even be lower (unlikely) or higher (also unlikely, but more possible than lower than 2). This is in contrast to the "transient sensitivity" we would see within 20 years of doubling CO2 levels, which would see all fast feedbacks come into play, but not some slower ones. An excellent paper to consider in studying this is Hansen and Sato (2011). They talk exactly about these issues in a fairly clear fashion, and compare current positions to what can be inferred from previous similar changes in climate. There are, really, I think (in my mind, not officially) three levels of feedbacks... very fast, slow, and very slow. Very fast includes humidity and cloud changes that happen quickly. Slow feedbacks involve things like albedo and CO2 feedbacks that require major ice melt and fast ecosystem changes. Then very slow feedbacks require even longer term things (the point where oceans warm enough to release rather than absorb atmospheric CO2, and major, large-scale ecosystem changes occur that in turn change albedo and release or absorb more CO2). But I think the hoped for answer is that 3C is all of these effects combined. [I will confess that someone else may be able to give you a more direct and perhaps different answer than this one... this is what I understand, but I could be wrong here. Hansen and Sato 2011 in particular talk about fast and slow feedbacks on other time scales.] The sad reality, though, is that we won't know if 3C is the accurate estimate of the final feedback result until 1,000 years pass. 3) That's why it's expressed in terms of a doubling of current concentrations, and not based on the incremental amount added. 4) Yes and no. There are logically slight differences in feedbacks depending on the source of a temperature increase, but overall feedbacks are driven by temperature change, regardless of the cause in temperature change. Refer to this chapter on efficacy (i.e. how one forcing differs from another) in the IPCC AR4 report. There would be more "room" for CO2 feedbacks, because the same amount of CO2 released would be proportionally larger to a lower starting level. But at the same time we'd have pumped less CO2 into the oceans to release there. More importantly, the CO2 feedback is only one of many. Other feedbacks (water vapor, albedo changes, etc.) are in aggregate probably more important. So that difference wouldn't amount to that much.
  22. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dikran: you guy have a problem. I write you: I agreed with your Step 2 long ago.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please avoid any form of ad hominem. Refer to the Comments Policy; such statements as these are usually cause for comment deletion.
  23. Dikran Marsupial at 02:45 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai agree to step #2 (or demonstrate that it is incorrect) and you will find out. The ball is in your court.
  24. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue, describing him as "a top-notch physicist". "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming. "Of course, presuming that he basically confirms what we have been reporting, the deniers will then decide that he is a crook or has some ulterior motive. "As I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers." “As soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury." Source: “Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns,” The Guardian (UK), Oct 20, 2011 To access the article, click here.
  25. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue, describing him as "a top-notch physicist". "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming. "Of course, presuming that he basically confirms what we have been reporting, the deniers will then decide that he is a crook or has some ulterior motive. "As I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers." “As soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury." Source: “Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns,” The Guardian (UK), Oct 20, 2011 To access the article, click here.
  26. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dikran: So what? It was your idea with steps. Will you do the step #3 finally? I agreed long with your Step 2, just written it in an accurate form (your is too sloppy).
  27. Dikran Marsupial at 02:36 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai wrote : "To Dikran: will go any step further? I get tired with you." I have noticed over the years that the difference between those who are genuinely interested in the science and those who are deniers or trolls is that those who are interested in the science will follow a step by step explanation, and those that are not either obfuscate or abandon the discussion when it becomes apparent that they have backed themselves into a corner where they will soon be forced to admit that they were wrong. They normally get further than step #1 though. The ball is in your court, if you want to show that you are interested in the science, then either agree with step #2 or show why it is incorrect.
  28. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    For commentary on the various reactions to the BEST results, see the follow-up post to this one, The BEST Kind of Skepticism
  29. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dikran: will go any step further? I get tired with you.
  30. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Hyperactive Hydrologist: Well, to account for the observed CO2 raise from 280 ppm around 1750 to 380 ppm now, we need 100*(1 - 280/(380-280)) = 26% in productivity change. The observed 6.5% over 20 years can be easily extrapolated to 26% over the laser 250 years.
  31. How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
    32, Rob, Maybe jg can help, if you could just give him a napkin version of what you envision?
  32. Dikran Marsupial at 02:24 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai Sorry, you are just obfuscating. How about this, I will carry on with the dC and you can read it as dC/dt with t=one year if you really want to (although that would be an abuse of notation it would be your error not mine). Do you agree with step #2?
  33. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 02:20 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai @ 141, I had a quick search of the literature and found this paper. They do in fact show a -6.3% change in ocean primary productivity between the 79-86 and 97-02 periods. I'm not sure this is sufficient to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over that period.
  34. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dirkan: I'd like to stick to the ODE. You may think of dt=1 year, if you wish. 1 year is "instantaneous".
  35. Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
    @Agnostic #53: "The journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step."
  36. Dikran Marsupial at 02:10 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai You may prefer a differential equation, however as I will shortly be introducing annual observations into the discussion it makes far more sense to look at annual changes rather than instantaneous rates. So, do you agree with step 2 or not? I have solved the differential equations as well, so I am happy to discuss those later once we have agreed on the basics.
  37. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dirkan: I prefer the full differential equation: dC/dt = E_a + E_n - U_n Do you agree with that? It is better to have a true differential equation, because we have then something to solve.
  38. Dikran Marsupial at 01:52 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai good, so step #2, do you agree that we can write this more formally as dC = E_a + E_n - U_n where: dC is the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 in GtC/year E_a is annual emissions from anthropogenic sources in GtC/year E_n is annual emissions from natural sources in GtC/year U_n is annual uptake by natural sinks in GtC/year Technically there ought to be U_a, which is annual uptake by anthropogenic sinks, but this is effectively zero as we are not yet achieving any significant carbon sequestration. Again, this should be fairly obviously true as it is just a restatement of step 1 with total emissions divided into anthropogenic and natural. Do you agree with this?
  39. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Hyperactive Hydrologist: I am not an expert, but here is what Wiki writes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) "Use of chemical fertilizers is considered the major human-related cause of dead zones around the world."
  40. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 01:45 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Bugai, "It is known that due to pollution with fertilizers and pesticides large regions of ocean lose phytoplankton. According to some "studies", we have already lost up to 40% of phytoplankton since mid-1900. If true, this has certainly a big influence on the relaxation time "tau" and can easily explain the CO2 rise." I would be interested to see these studies. Could you provide a reference please?
  41. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To Dikran: Step #1: Do you agree that conservation of mass applies to the carbon cycle, in other words the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is equal to total emissions minus total uptake? Answer: trivially true.
  42. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To muon calculon: 1. "the rate of increase in global atmospheric CO2 has dropped noticeably in years immediately following global recessions": please, provide a reference for this statement. 2. "CO2 concentrations mirror diurnal cycles (increase during higher traffic hours) as well as weekly cycles (drop on weekends)." Is off-topic, as diurnal changes are (i) local and (ii) too fast to equilibrate with anything.
  43. Dikran Marsupial at 01:28 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai Sorry, refusing to answer a question and asking another one in its place is transparent evasion and not something I am going to encourage by indulging such behaviour. If you really want to get to the truth, I suggest we go through the arguemnt step by step and you can point out where the error lies when we get to it. Step #1: Do you agree that conservation of mass applies to the carbon cycle, in other words the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is equal to total emissions minus total uptake?
  44. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Answer to Sphaerica: sorry, I am not a "believer". I want to understand. Your "argumentation" does not do it in any way." Answer to Dikran. Or, better, a question. You say: "natural emissions and natural uptake .. are quite closely balanced compared to the magnitude of the fluxes involved. " Who balanced that? Why you think they are still balanced? How to describe the balancing process? My equations (see first posting) do that. The small extra antropogenic source cannot possibly change the balance. We do change the system by different means: pollution.
  45. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai#131: "the antropogenic source is negligibly small" If that is true, you will need to explain why the rate of increase in global atmospheric CO2 has dropped noticeably in years immediately following global recessions - when emissions decrease. In addition, explain how locally measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations mirror diurnal cycles (increase during higher traffic hours) as well as weekly cycles (drop on weekends).
  46. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    131, bugai, Your position is untenable because the accounting has been done and is very straight forward. We know how much carbon we burn. This is carbon that has been sequestered under the ground for hundreds of millions of years. It can't get back there on it's own. We take it out, we burn it, it must go somewhere. There are three places that it can go; into the air, into the oceans, or into vegetation. We have been measuring the level in the atmosphere. We know it is increasing. We have been measuring the level in the ocean. We know that it is increasing. We know that the balance (amount burned - added to the atmosphere and ocean) is going into vegetation. This has all been studied, measured, worked out, and is incontrovertible. Hence your conclusion:
    antropogenic emissions cannot possibly account for observed CO2 rise. No way.
    is untenable. Beyond this, you have two problems to solve: First, if anthropogenic CO2 is not going into the oceans and atmosphere, then where is it going? Second, what is the source of the CO2 that is causing the increase in the atmosphere? It's not the oceans, because CO2 is increasing there. Where is this added CO2 coming from?
  47. Dikran Marsupial at 01:01 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Bugai wrote: "Your claim is that the mankind influences the natural CO2-sinks via CO2 emission. This is very shaky as the antropogenic source is negligibly small." The error in this line of reasoning has already been pointed out, anthropogenic emissions are not negligibly small. Whether CO2 rises or falls depends on the difference between total emissions and total uptake, the volume of the flux is irrelevant. Anthropogenic emissions are large compared to the difference between natural emissions and natural uptake, which are quite closely balanced compared to the magnitude of the fluxes involved. Around 1850 the difference between natural emissions and natural uptake was also much smaller than it is now. If you look at the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 you will find it has been roughly 45% of anthropogenic emissions, going back as far as 1850. So as anthropogenic emissions have increased, the difference between natural emissions and natural uptake has increased with it and the natural carbon sink has been strengthening. "For this, there is no more balance between NATURAL CO2-sources and CO2-sinks." I have already pointed out that there is no balance between natural sources and sinks. You would make more progress if you paid better attention to the replies to your posts. Regarding residence time and adjustment time, I suggest you read the glossary of the IPCC report, which explains the distinction very clearly. Carbon cycle models do not neglect photosynthesis by phytoplankton, however they also do not neglect respiration by oceanic biota. Here is a challenge for you, if you think that anthropogenic emissions are not the cause of the observed rise then explain (i) how the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 can be less than anthropogenic emissions unless the natural environment is a net sink or (ii) how the natural environment can be the cause of the observed rise if it is a net sink. Nobody has risen to the challenge so far.
  48. Climate sensitivity is low
    I'm trying to understand the relationship between climate sensitivity and C02:temp feedback. Assuming that CS is 3C for the radiative forcing resulting from doubling atmospheric C02: 1)Over what time period is this realized? 2)Is this the limit of the temp:C02 feedback or is this just the first order effect? 3)Wouldn't the C02:temp feedback limit be dependent on the amount of C02 already in the atmosphere? 4)If the radiative forcing came from a non-C02 source, wouldn't the temperature rise be larger, as there'd be more 'room' for the feedback to occur?
  49. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    111, Briago1, No one seems to have replied to you (because you packed too many off topic arguments into a single post), but your misconceptions are pretty easy to address, so I took the time to help point you in the right directions. Response to your first point is on the runaway warming thread. In response to your second and third points (which are relevant on this thread):
    2) On the whole 29GT does not sound like much
    The carbon cycle involves a constant flow in and out (refer to this diagram here). What matters is not how much flows in and out, but the net difference. In this context, the system has been pretty much in near perfect balance for thousands of years. We are now shifting it out of balance by 29GT per year, which slowly but surely increases the concentrations both in the atmosphere and the ocean.
    3) ...a measly 4% increase in plant/algae life would more than make up for the difference
    But it doesn't. Scientists have actually measured where the carbon is going, and how much is going into increased vegetation, the ocean and the atmosphere. We don't need to argue about what should or might happen here, because we've pretty much measured it and we actually know exactly how much is going where. Response to your fourth point is on the CO2 lags Temperature thread. Response to your fifth point is on the Has Arctic Sea Ice Recovered thread.
  50. Arctic sea ice has recovered
    Briago1, This is in response to your point 5 here.
    5) ...the north pole all but completly melts EVERY YEAR
    This is not true. In the 70s the north pole melted back only fractionally, while today it is almost completely melting every summer and will probably totally melt some summer in the near future. Here is the ice extent at the end of the melt season in 1980: And here it is again at the end of the melt season in 2009:

Prev  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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