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  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  1447  1448  1449  Next

Comments 72051 to 72100:

  1. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Hopefully there will be a Skeptical Science special on the Easterbrook debacle textbook soon!
  2. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Muller and Rohde will present their results on November 1, at the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change. Also on the conference program are R. Lindzen, D. Easterbrook, C. Monckton, F. Singer, J. Curry, and other well-known denierskeptics. I wonder how the BEST results will be received?
  3. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai, your position appears to be self contradictory. Let's assume for the moment that your arguments of '5 year relaxation time' and 'CO2 accumulation due to pollution decreasing natural sinks' are correct... I don't see how that changes the conclusion that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is entirely due to human emissions. You concede that natural emissions are less than natural sinks... ergo natural emissions CANNOT be causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. You also agree that humans are emitting enough to increase atmospheric levels by about 4ppm per year, but the actual rate of increase is only about 2ppm. You argue that this accumulation is due to reduced natural sinks... but even if that were true, it changes nothing. Nature is taking out less than it would if not for pollution. Ok... but the accumulating excess is STILL entirely derived from human emissions since even these 'reduced' natural sinks are greater than the natural emissions.
  4. Dikran Marsupial at 09:25 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    KR, IIRC the 74 year figure is the e-folding time, i.e. the time taken for the concentration to fall to 1/e of its initial value.
  5. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    (-Snip-) Their CO2 models strongly depend on the ocean surface temperature. Taking a (-snip-) feedback of temperature rise due to extra CO2, you can (-snip-) any "relaxation time", even millions of years. I find the Bern CO2 model much more transparent: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1996.t01-2-00006.x/pdf The only drawback of that model is that it discards the dynamics of biologic removal of CO2 from the ocean. It implicitely assume that it is "constant". Look at the pulse response in Fig.3 and you see that the relaxation time is 5 years or even less. As it has been numerously measured in 50-ies and 60-ies of the last century. And yes, I claim it is the problems with a too weak sink of CO2, not with extra emission. That is why CO2 is rising. Even if the oceans are a net CO2 sink now.
    Response:

    [DB] Allegations of fraud and impropriety on the part of the IPCC snipped.  It is time to familiarize yourself with the Comments Policy here.  Future comments containing such violations will be simply deleted.

    Thank you in advance for your understanding and your compliance in this matter.

  6. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    From previous post: half-life of 34.66 years. Half life = ln(2)/rate = ln(2)/0.02% = ~34.66
  7. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Dikran - What level of decay are you looking at for adjustment time? 20%? Reason why I'm asking: Given 2ppm/year decay scaled to imbalance, and an imbalance of ~100ppm, I get a half-life of 34 years (38 years for 2ppm and 110ppm imbalance), decaying to 20% at ~79 years, assuming a single exponential decay model. Granted, that's wrong, as only the initial decay is primarily the ocean pH adjustment, and longer term exponentials for shell sequestration and deposition are going on at the same time... so the actual decay will take 100's to thousands of years. But I've found showing the fastest possible exponential decay to be useful in these discussions.
  8. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    It appears to me that GISS and NCAR have very different ideas on the issue discussed in this post. NCAR appears to take the output of many models as to what the planetary energy imbalance is, i.e. they calculate it is about 1 W/m2, they find that this number appears to confirm estimates of what satellite observation finds is happening at the Top of the Atmosphere, they compare to observations where heat can be measured in the planetary system, things don't add up, so they look for "missing energy". NCAR models show the energy is going into the ocean, so NCAR is looking for it there. GISS, i.e. Hansen, has been saying for years that the figure for the planetary energy imbalance is lower, somewhere between .5 and .75 W/m2. His recent "Earth's Energy Imbalance" paper cites Von Schuckmann et al Argo data analysis. Rather than looking for missing energy, Hansen has decided there is a problem with the models, a position he has held for some years. The fact that most models, including his at GISS, calculate the current planetary energy imbalance as 1 W/m2 means to him that the models are incorrect. There isn't any missing energy. "Most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean". As I understand things, you don't get more diametrically opposed than NCAR and GISS are on this. Now if senior people working at these top flight institutions, NCAR and GISS, disagree this fundamentally, I wonder why you report on the science as if one of the organizations did not exist. I note that Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate says, on what looks like this issue is "I don't see any contradiction." (See end of this comment at RealClimate) NCAR appears to believe that the Top of Atmosphere observations, supported by the output of most climate models, can be taken as more likely to be valid on what the planetary energy imbalance is, than current ocean data. For instance, Trenberth says this, around 1:03:30 in this video: "the suggestion is that a lot of the ocean is not being adequately monitored at the current time and that this is not a problem with the measurements at the Top of the Atmosphere, but rather, it is a problem with how we can account for what is going on within the ocean." Whereas Hansen blasts the Top of Atmosphere satellite observations. In his recent paper he has a section discussing present abilities and future prospects for accurately measuring the energy imbalance at TOA. The present generation of satellites, CERES, he says "finds a measured 5 year mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2", which he says was simply corrected with arbitrary "calibration factors" "to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models" because the actual uncorrected result was "implausible". As for any future satellite operating at the Lagrange L1 point as some have suggested, he says the "notion that a single satellite at this point could measure Earth's energy imbalance... is... preposterous". All seem to agree that there is great potential in data from Argo. Perhaps the resolution on this point will come as confidence arrives about analyses of Argo data.
  9. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Well, to start off with, Monckton recycles his debunked Congressional testimony, bombards the reader with maths (which are never seen in any other part of the textbook), and cites Rachel Pinker yet again. A chapter written by Goddard is completely devoted to showing that 2010 was not the hottest year on record and is laden with digs at James Hansen. Every page has at least one illustration, often generated by Wood for Trees, and often taking up over half the page. Another Goddard chapter, "Arctic Sea Ice," is much the same way. Throughout the book there are oodles of citations from Climate Audit, WUWT, World Climate Report, and SPPI. Furthermore, several chapters are completely missing their bibliographies. This is the kind of stuff that gets you put on academic probation as an undergraduate student.
  10. Dikran Marsupial at 08:35 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai So you think that the natural environment has caused the rise in atmospheric CO2 even though it has taken more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere every year than it has put in? You are essentially saying that the natural environment has caused the rise in atmospheric CO2 by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Do you realise how absurd that sounds? You assume "Not far from equilibrium we can write for the natural sink: U_n = C/T" however, the carbon cycle is no where near equilibrium, we are currently 100ppmv over the pre-industrial equilibrium that had held for several thousand years at least. You are basing your argument yet again on the asumption that the relaxation time is 5 years. This is incorrect, the residence time is 5 years, the relaxation time (as you call it) is much longer. I have done the differential equations, and they give a figure of 74 years.
  11. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    A true sceptic would have recognized that the NOAA/GISS data are not really comparable to the HadCRUT. It's just a question of coverage. HadCRUT has only about 80% coverage while NOAA and GISS cover almost all of the surface (although they do not really have the data, but they do a very good job with their approximations). And, if compared with satellite data of a nearly equal coverage, we have quite fine correlations: RSSMSU vs. HadCRUT for nearly 80% and UAH vs. GISS for 100% coverage. If someone means that a record is "biased", the one forgets the fact of different coverages. The BEST study supports the data of 100% coverage, but it cannot approve the HadCRUT record to be biased, because they show their coverage values in the record. Greetings from Germany.
  12. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai - "If we switch out antropogenic CO2 source abruptly, the CO2 levels would be declining by >2ppm/year just for the relaxation time: the 5 years." And now we're on step 2, your conflation of molecular residence time with atmospheric concentration adjustment time. I'll now refer you (again) to the IPCC 7.3.4.2 Carbon Cycle Feedbacks to Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, which actually examines these rates for various sequestration pathways. Short term adjustments to CO2 imbalance have about a 37-40 year half-life, with a very long tail once pH buffering tapers off and biological sequestration and geologic impoundment take over. [ Source ] See also the IPCC glossary for "Lifetime", as Dikran mentions, here, on page 948. Again - residence time for individual molecules is quite short. But in the presence of bi-directional exchanges, it is not the concentration adjustment rate. That's a common mistake - but it's a mistake.
  13. Dikran Marsupial at 08:21 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai wrote "If we switch out antropogenic CO2 source abruptly, the CO2 levels would be declining by >2ppm/year just for the relaxation time: the 5 years." It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the relaxation time is not five years, the residence time is five years. They are not the same thing. Perhaps you would like to look up lieftime in the glossary of the IPCC WG1 report and tell us what it says there.
  14. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @Dikran Marsupial: This is a point we disagree. >>>> (i) demonstrate that step 5 is incorrect The formula is perfectly correct. >>>> (ii) demonstrate that the natural environment can be the cause of the observed rise even though it is a net carbon sink Yes, it is. I know, you do not like differential equations, but we do need them to understand the problem. We write: dC/dt = E_a + E_n - U_n Certainly, U_n > E_a, and still it is the nature that is responsible for the CO2 rise. Not far from equilibrium we can write for the natural sink: U_n = C/T where T is the relaxation time, in our case somewhere 5-10 years. It is not constant, but depends on the state of the sink (ocean pollution). So, we write T(t). If we monitor CO2 on time scales larger than the relaxation time, dC/dt << C/T, the quasistatic (but time-dependent!) CO2 level is C(t) = (E_n(t) + E_a(t))/T(t) It is the change in T(t) that drives the CO2-level in the atmosphere, not E_a. here Sn is the natural source, Sa (iii) agree that the observed rise is not a natural phenomenon. 1. >>>> Current anthropogenic CO2 contribution: ~29GT/year. Current yearly atmospheric CO2 accumulation: 2ppm/yr or ~14GT/year. delta CO2 (D) = Sources (S) - Sinks (K) D = (anthro S + natural S) - (anthro K + natural K) D = (aS + nS) - (aK + nK) = 14GT/yr [ for convenience ] Anthropogenic sinks (aK) are essentially zero. If we subtract anthropogenic sources (aS) from both sides of the equation: -15GT/year = nS - nK Natural sinks > Natural sources by ~15GT/year at present. <<<<<<< Correct. I agree with these numbers completely. 2. >>>>>> So without our contribution to atmospheric CO2, CO2 levels would be declining by >2ppm/year right now. Hence we are indeed responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2. Early in the industrial revolution, anthropogenic contributions were much lower, but the imbalance in CO2 was much smaller, hence the natural sink of CO2 driven by that imbalance was smaller as well. See the history of emissions and CO2 levels for that relationship. Nature is acting as a net sink - anthropogenic contributions are responsible for rising CO2 levels. That's "1st class school math" - any disagreements? <<<<<<< Disagree. If we switch out antropogenic CO2 source abruptly, the CO2 levels would be declining by >2ppm/year just for the relaxation time: the 5 years. Then CO2 level change due to antropogenic source will relax completely and the CO2 level will be moving - in whatever direction! - by the disbalance of the natural sources and sinks. Because we destroy the CO2 sink by pollution of the oceans, after 5 years have passed, the CO2 level will continue to rise at the same rate as it does now.
  15. Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
    John - All very true but why go back to step 1 when we are already well down the road?
  16. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @KR: 1. >>>> Current anthropogenic CO2 contribution: ~29GT/year. Current yearly atmospheric CO2 accumulation: 2ppm/yr or ~14GT/year. delta CO2 (D) = Sources (S) - Sinks (K) D = (anthro S + natural S) - (anthro K + natural K) D = (aS + nS) - (aK + nK) = 14GT/yr [ for convenience ] Anthropogenic sinks (aK) are essentially zero. If we subtract anthropogenic sources (aS) from both sides of the equation: -15GT/year = nS - nK Natural sinks > Natural sources by ~15GT/year at present. <<<<<<< Correct. I agree with these numbers completely. 2. >>>>>> So without our contribution to atmospheric CO2, CO2 levels would be declining by >2ppm/year right now. Hence we are indeed responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2. Early in the industrial revolution, anthropogenic contributions were much lower, but the imbalance in CO2 was much smaller, hence the natural sink of CO2 driven by that imbalance was smaller as well. See the history of emissions and CO2 levels for that relationship. Nature is acting as a net sink - anthropogenic contributions are responsible for rising CO2 levels. That's "1st class school math" - any disagreements? <<<<<<< Disagree. If we switch out antropogenic CO2 source abruptly, the CO2 levels would be declining by >2ppm/year just for the relaxation time: the 5 years. Then CO2 level change due to antropogenic source will relax completely and the CO2 level will be moving - in whatever direction! - by the disbalance of the natural sources and sinks. Because we destroy the CO2 sink by pollution of the oceans, after 5 years have passed, the CO2 level will continue to rise at the same rate as it does now.
  17. How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
    guinganbresil - ""A warming of the skin layer just increases this gradient, increasing the heat transfer - it is essentially a wash." No, warming decreases the gradient. Warming from the surface (longwave radiation) means the temperature difference between the bottom of the layer and the (now warmed) top is smaller - therefore the gradient decreases and slows the heat transfer process (ocean to atmosphere). The point to remember is that this greenhouse gas-warmed cool skin layer is global in scale - all heat transferred from the ocean has to go through this layer. Anyway I'll get around to giving this post a re-write, and include some diagrams.
  18. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai#181: "You cannot see "diurnal" osciillations there, but certainly the seasonal ones." Perhaps you should study the literature on CO2 monitoring a bit more, rather than make quite so many assumptions. Chmura 2005 et al is a good starter, showing that an industrial city is a CO2 source: The CO2 mixing ratios measured in the urban atmosphere revealed quasi-permanent excess concentration of this gas when compared with near-by background atmosphere. The annual mean CO2 concentration recorded in Krakow in 2004 was almost 10% higher than that recorded at high-altitude mountain site (Kasprowy Wierch). Such effect is occuring probably in all urban centers. There is indeed a diurnal signal: In the urban environment, the lowest CO2 mixing ratios are recorded generally during mid-day, when the convective activity of the lower atmosphere and resulting vertical mixing is at its maximum. In contrast, at the mountain site high CO2 mixing ratios are generally recorded during mid-day and early afternoon. This stems from sun-driven convection within the planetary bounday layer over Kasprowy Wierch “sucking” the CO2-laden air from the valleys towards the top of the mountain. In addition, there is an isotopic signature to anthropogenic emissions: Seasonal fluctuations of delta13C visible at both discussed sites are shifted in phase. The Krakow record reveals lowest delta13C values during winter season, when local CO2 emissions due to burning of fossil fuels in the city (heating plus car traffic) are most intense. So the record of CO2 emissions appearing in the atmosphere is unmistakeable. You seem to rest your case on 'it can't be us.' Can you provide anything more substantial than that?
  19. Dikran Marsupial at 07:52 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    KR sure, as it happens we were almost there: step #1 The carbon cycle obeys conservtion of mass, so the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is equal to total emissions minus total uptake step #2 We can write this as ΔC = E_a + E_n - U_n where ΔC is the annual increase in CO2 E_a is annual anthropogenic emissions E_n is annual emissions from natural sources U_n is annual uptake by natural sinks all of these quantities are of course positive. Step #3 rearranging ΔC - E_a = E_n - U_n Step #4 if the left hand side is negative, then the right hand side is negative, so if E_a > ΔC then we know that U_n > E_n also I'm assuming that bugai agrees with this as (i) it is elementary mathematics, and (ii) he had plenty of opportunity to say it was wrong but didn't. Step #5 - look at the data. The blue line is E_a, the red line is ΔC, and the green line is E_n - U_n estimated by ΔC - E_a. The data are all freely available from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (here, here and here). This clearly shows that E_a > ΔC and so we know that U_n > E_n. In other words we know that environmental uptake has exceeded environmental emissions every year for the last fifty years at least, and hence has been opposing, rather than causing the observed atmospheric increases. Bugai only had one step left to go, pity he preferred to be obstinate. So bugai, you have three options: (i) demonstrate that step 5 is incorrect (ii) demonstrate that the natural environment can be the cause of the observed rise even though it is a net carbon sink (iii) agree that the observed rise is not a natural phenomenon.
  20. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai - One thing at a time, for the moment. Current anthropogenic CO2 contribution: ~29GT/year. Current yearly atmospheric CO2 accumulation: 2ppm/yr or ~14GT/year. delta CO2 (D) = Sources (S) - Sinks (K) D = (anthro S + natural S) - (anthro K + natural K) D = (aS + nS) - (aK + nK) = 14GT/yr [ for convenience ] Anthropogenic sinks (aK) are essentially zero. If we subtract anthropogenic sources (aS) from both sides of the equation: -15GT/year = nS - nK Natural sinks > Natural sources by ~15GT/year at present. So without our contribution to atmospheric CO2, CO2 levels would be declining by >2ppm/year right now. Hence we are indeed responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2. Early in the industrial revolution, anthropogenic contributions were much lower, but the imbalance in CO2 was much smaller, hence the natural sink of CO2 driven by that imbalance was smaller as well. See the history of emissions and CO2 levels for that relationship. Nature is acting as a net sink - anthropogenic contributions are responsible for rising CO2 levels. That's "1st class school math" - any disagreements?
  21. Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
    Correction since the 1950s. Apologies !
  22. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @KR: You say "Incorrect - a 5% input sustained over centuries..." Certainly incorrect. Antropogenic CO2 source: In year 2005: 30 billion tons. In year 1945: 5 billion tons. In year 1850: 0.1 billion tons. "Centuries" of 5% emission? Assuming a constant natural CO2 source, the antropogenic CO2-source was just miniscule 0.9% at 1945. And - (-Snip-) - the striking 0.01% antropogenic emissions there leading to the end of LIA! 2. - "These (plankton die-off, ocean warming) are the two main reasons for CO2 rise, not the tiny emission by the fuel combustion" Sorry, unsupportable statement contradicted by all the science. We know the rates for those, and for anthropogenic emissions, and the math just doesn't support this claim. ///////// You know the exact rates? Put them forward.
    Response:

    [DB] Inappropriate tone snipped.

  23. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    Trenberth (1:10:50 or so of this video) points out that the heat the NCAR model shows going into the ocean is "mainly in the Pacific" "in the subtropics, or up to about 40 degrees latitude". "And so, if the model is anything like right, it suggests where we should start looking harder at the observations". When asked about what "the mechanism" was that could move this heat into the deeper parts of the ocean enough to flatline the average global surface temperature graph for a decade he mentioned a number of possibilities: "there are subtropical overturning circulations in the Pacific that clearly play a substantial role in moving heat around although the main thought is they have been involved in the top 400m or something like that. And so there is some overturning in both hemispheres that is clearly important, largely involving the tropics to subtropics, these subtropical overturning circulations. But the other part of it that needs to be explored a lot more, where there is potential for depositing heat at much greater depths in in the Western part of the Pacific, particularly in association with the boundary currents. The Australian Current, and the Kurishio Current. And there, there are clearly components that go down deeper than 1000m. And there's quite a lot of variability. Those are the most dynamic features in the ocean - the currents can be 1 m/sec. The same thing with the Gulf Stream. And so its in those regions also where I think we need to look harder as well... ...We don't know well what is going on. The sampling of the deep ocean is quite fragmentary. There are a couple of papers…. [may be referring to Purkey] suggesting that indeed there is evidence of warming at greater depths. Generally [the heat] is permeating through. The oceanographers are not quite sure how this happens. The general thought is in the abyss, the deep part of the ocean, there's not much action there, and change is very slow. If its just conduction, not currents or convection moving stuff around then it should be a very slow process. There are things like tides, which are continually pumping the ocean up and down and at some places at greater depths are known to cause greater mixing which is probably important which may not be taken fully into account . And so it may be that there are ways and places where heat is mixed down more readily than others. It may not be everywhere. And some seasonality can come into play. That's certainly the case in the N Atlantic. The main convection that occurs in the ocean is where you get in winter these cold dry outbreaks and this large heat fluxes into the atmosp0here that cools the surface of the ocean and then that cool water sinks. And so there is this overturning within the ocean. And so in wintertime you can get this very large changes to a few km depth in association with those kind of events. …. But in general, especially with a warming climate, if you are warming the surface, its more buoyant and it tends to sit there and the ocean becomes more stable.... "
  24. Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
    I think you are radically understating the cumulative ice mass loss for Jan 1st each year in the Arctic. It is approaching a 70% drop in ice mass for the period 1970/79 to present. If extent has fallen by 35% [confirmed] and thickness decreased by 50% [confirmed] then one has lost 67% of the volume [Maths]. NASA will not disagree with that number: its theirs. 65% of extent left X 50% of depth = 32.5% of volume. So 67.5% loss in mass. more on www.carbonvirgin.com
  25. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    I tried to download a sample chapter of Easterbrook's textbook but at 20 MB, it wasn't worth wasting bandwidth on. I wonder if it's worse than Rapp's textbook, and honestly, how does stuff like this get published?
  26. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Funny thing, I was wondering last night whether or not McIntyre was going to "audit" (i.e., nit pick, make mountains out of molehills, feed fodder to the skeptics) the BEST research-- I wonder if he would have done so had their findings been at odds with NASA, NOAA and HadCRU? Very likely not. I wonder if Dr. Muller realizes that he is now officially a member of "The Team"-- ironic given how critical he has been of Mann et al. It is both entertaining and pathetic to watch those in denial about AGW implode.
  27. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Dikran - It may well be useful to list the steps in a consolidated post: if the steps are numbered and labeled. A nice tabular reference (perhaps the contents of a new post?) would be useful in this and other discussions - particularly as a drop-in for those in denial. If bugai or others disagree, they would naturally have to support which step(s) they disagreed with, and why. And if they wander off in obfuscation, that's easy enough to point out. --- That said: bugai - You have made a number of unsupported statements. - "The humans emit just 5% of the total CO2 influx. This is nothing and could increase the CO2 percentage in the air by the same 5%, no more." Incorrect - a 5% input sustained over centuries, with an observed atmospheric annual increase equal to roughly half of the anthropogenic contribution, certainly shows the anthropogenic input driving atmospheric CO2 rise. See the IPCC CO2 attribution section for any number of references. - "...where tau is the relaxation time. We know that tau is somewhere between 5 and 10 Years." Absolutely incorrect. Single molecular residence time is on the order of 5 years - you are conflating that with adjustment time, which is ~70 years halflife as a short term adjustment, with a several thousand year tail, due to the rates of rebalancing the CO2 input to the atmosphere and the multiple pathways. See the IPCC carbon cycle drawdown section. - "These (plankton die-off, ocean warming) are the two main reasons for CO2 rise, not the tiny emission by the fuel combustion" Sorry, unsupportable statement contradicted by all the science. We know the rates for those, and for anthropogenic emissions, and the math just doesn't support this claim. I hate to say this, bugai, but none of your statements on this topic have been supportable (yet - I have hopes). They all sound good, but the data shows otherwise. Skepticism starts with ones own closely held ideas...
  28. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai@187 "Yet, he is still welcome to put his arguments. But in one posting." You are not in a position to set the rules for the discussion. He is free to post them in any way he sees fit and you are free to ignore them. The difference is that Dikran's method looks like he is trying to move a discussion forward and you look like you are trying to stall it.
  29. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @KR and Composer99: see my posting #128. Concerning Dikran. I asked him to explain his position. He refused. It is not my fault. Yet, he is still welcome to put his arguments. But in one posting.
  30. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai - Given that you are claiming that anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not drive the observed CO2 increases, in contradiction to the vast majority of data and analysis on scientific record, it might well be said that the onus is on you to prove your point. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi Dikran is attempting to discern where you disagree with the general body of science. In the past I have noted that his technique (of covering all steps in the analysis) has been quite successful in identifying points of disagreement for further and quite useful discussion. You are more than welcome not to participate in this. However, I will note that leaving a discussion because you don't like how it is progressing, rather than proving your point, may well be taken by most readers as evidence that your hypothesis will not stand the light of day.
  31. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai: Given you are disputing a finding which has ample empirically-derived support in the peer-reviewed literature as outlined in the OP and on this website generally with no references to speak of (save for Wikipedia), I do not see how you are in a position to expect conditions from those who are arguing with the evidence on their side.
  32. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Wait a minute. Have you considered the fact that the data sample BEST used was too large? Don't you realize that if they used a smaller database, Anthony's opinion that the UHI effect is significant might have more likely to be validated? They should have been more selective in choosing their sample. After all, any legitimate researcher knows that it's easier to prove your hypothesis the more you limit your sample.
  33. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @Composer99: I did cooperate with Dikran and I am ready to continue, but he has to put all his steps in one posting. Then, we discuss. That's the condition.
  34. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    From a Nature news article:
    Steve McIntyre, who runs the sceptic blog Climate Audit, said in an interview that the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work. Although he hasn't gone through the papers in detail, he is already questioning the results reported by the Berkeley team regarding the questionable research stations and the urban heat island effect. McIntyre, a statistician, says he has already run a preliminary analysis and was unable to reproduce the results reported by Muller and his crew.
    Perhaps McIntyre has found that the UHI effect is even more negative....
  35. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    I rather wish bugai had continued to cooperate with Dikran; speaking as science laity, I was finding his step-by-step run-through enlightening.
  36. Dikran Marsupial at 05:46 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai, it has already been pointed out to you that the "relaxation time" is not 5 years, and a specific reference given to back it up glossary of the IPCC report. Residence time is 5 years, not relaxation/adjustment time, which is 50-200 years (according to the IPCC).
  37. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To muoncounter: There is no doubt that short time signal can be observed in CO2 concentration. The CO2 relaxation time is 5 years. Fluctuations shorter than this period are not smoothed out. You cannot see "diurnal" osciillations there, but certainly the seasonal ones. Prooves nothing.
  38. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Don Easterbrook's Preface... what a load of cr@p. "How To Fit Every Silly Denial Misdirection Into A Single Preface" by Don Easterbrook. It's embarrassing.
  39. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Watta has now cut & pasted a rant from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (that same organisation that rates mass extinction of species as 'life flourishing abundantly'). In it I like best the GWPF description of the BEST coverage by Forbes - Breaking news the earth still goes around the sun and its still warming up. "This prejudiced, intolerant and inaccurate, (Forbes) article completely misrepresents sceptical views, and is a good example of the problem facing the debate about climate science within and without of the scientific community."
  40. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    Geo77@16 Yes, the negative sign of the UHI effect on global land temperatures, as noted by BEST, is counter-intuitive. Urban areas are unquestionably hotter than nearby rural areas and the growth of cities should, other things being equal, increase the contribution of the UHI effect on global temperatures over time. What's not surprising is that the UHI effect is very small, once the areal weighting of the urban weather stations is done properly. Urban areas, according to the MODIS analysis quoted in the BEST paper, only cover 0.5% of the the Earth's land area. And land only covers about 30% of the Earth's surface, so once ocean surface temperatures are included (which they are not, yet, in the BEST work), then we can expect even smaller UHI effects on global (land and sea) temperature trends.
  41. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Pandas and People is at least explicable, as it was published by a creationist advocacy group. The Skeptical Environmentalist is also supposed to be excused because Cambridge published it under their popular books section. Elsevier, on the other hand, is a legit academic publisher. I have full online access to the textbook through my university subscription, and I've got to tell you this thing has left me speechless. It is literally a repackaging of various WUWT posts.
  42. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
    Lassesson@2 What happened around 1865-1870 in figure 3 and where did the huge peak around 1880 come from? There were far fewer temperature stations in the mid 19th century and they were mostly concentrated in Europe and the eastern seaboard of N America. The higher global temperature variability observed at that time probably mostly arises from poor sampling.
  43. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Alex, thanks for that. Everybody should check out the preview on the Science Direct site, or the Look Inside feature on Elsevier's page. Shades of Pandas and People.
  44. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @Sphaerica #177 The best I can do is to provide a link to a news release about the study posted on Oct 5, 2011 by the University of Zurich.
  45. Philippe Chantreau at 05:05 AM on 22 October 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    I'm not sure where Bugai's assertion that terrestrial biomass is CO2 neutral comes from (it's not substantiated). Pretty much everything I have read indicates otherwise. The DOE is researching ways to enhance sequestration by terrestrial biomass. The very fact that trees add mass from year to year demonstrates the non neutral aspect. If terrestrial biomass production truly is carbon neutral how could such tremendous quantities of carbon been stored in the ground during the carboniferous period?
  46. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    bugai#138: "rate of increase in global atmospheric CO2 has dropped noticeably in years immediately following global recessions" USEIA provides emissions data; this report highlights emissions decrease in 2008 due to the recession. MLO reports annual increases in atmospheric CO2 in ppm: 2002-2005 all above +2ppm/yr; 2008 - +1.62, 2009 - +1.88. See also the 1991 drop in annual increase rate - the port Gulf War recession; 1981-1982 drop in rate following the Arab oil embargo. If we are not emitting this CO2, why does the atmospheric concentration follow economic activity? "diurnal changes are (i) local and (ii) too fast to equilibrate with anything. " So what? Atmospheric CO2 concentration, local or otherwise, increases with traffic density. Transportation is a significant percentage of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Where do you think that CO2 goes?
  47. The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    This isn't strictly related, but I thought this would be of interest. Watts is now promoting Don Easterbrook's new academic textbook (!) on climate science: http://www.elsevierdirect.com/ISBN/9780123859563/EvidenceBased-Climate-Science http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123859563 As it turns out, Christopher Monckton is one of the contributors.
  48. Philippe Chantreau at 04:45 AM on 22 October 2011
    The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    Another shining example of what R.P. Sr. calls Watts' "commitment to scientific robustness." There would be no significant difference if Muller used 30 years. If Watts thinks so, the data is right there to verify. Considering he took him years to even attempt the first data analysis to support his main premise, I'm not holding my breath. The paper will certainly pass peer-review because it is solid but will continue being attacked in the usual fashion. Hansen is most accurate describing these people as acting like lawyers, that's exactly what they do. There is hardly a minute spent on Watts' site that is not a complete waste of time.
  49. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    174, John Hartz, I can't find a free copy of the paper to download. Can you summarize the "environmental and biological controls" they reference?
  50. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    To John: Sounds like a good research!

Prev  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  1447  1448  1449  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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