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  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  Next

Comments 75551 to 75600:

  1. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    The cannonical reference is Orr, J. C., V. J. Fabry, O. Aumont, et al. (2005). Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437(7059): 681-686. But AR4 and the IPCC 2009 Compendium have more recent refernces.
  2. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69 @ 53... That same Richard Alley lecture does a good job of explaining what is called the "carbonate rock weathering thermostat." It's really very fascinating and well worth taking time to watch.
  3. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Spencer has for a long time been saying on his blog that the rest of the climate science community just doesn't "get it," because what he's doing isn't that complicated. What Spencer seems unwilling to consider is that it's not that other scientists don't "get it," it's that he's making mistakes which invalidate his conclusions. Dessler's point that given Spencer's history of making these grandiose claims based on big mistakes (i.e. claiming the atmosphere wasn't warming until RSS corrected the UAH data analysis), his first thought should probably be "am I making mistakes again?". Really anytime you're making grandiose claims about reversing a long standing body of scientific evidence, your first consideration should be "am I making a mistake somewhere?". But it's especially true when you have a history of such grandiose claims, based on a history of mistakes.
  4. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Rick Perry's EPA would be a horse of another color. "I'll tell you one thing: The EPA officials we have an opportunity to put in place, they're going to be pro-business, and there's not going to be any apologies to anybody about it," he said. "Those agencies won't know what hit 'em." I hear the ex CEO of BP needs a job. After all, that little oil spill was a natural event.
  5. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dikran: Here's an applet for a double pendulum; here's an electrical analog. As you can see from the graphs, some chaotic systems are quite periodic and therefore predictable - and should model quite well, although you might need a bigger computer.
  6. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    "The economic downturn has made addressing climate change less urgent for voters. But the issue is not going away. The nation badly needs a candidate with a coherent, disciplined national strategy. So far, there is no Republican who fits that description." This is the concluding paragraph of a "must read" editorial, "In the Land of Denial " written by the NY Times Editorial Board and published on Sep 6, 2011.
  7. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69: "Also, I am glad to see you mention that CO2 doesn't control the climate." That's not a good representation of the situation. Say rather that CO2 is an integral part of the current atmospheric dynamic. Removing it causes radical changes to global temp and the current biosphere. Here's the abstract from Lacis et al. 2010 ("Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" in Science):
    Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
    (bold mine)
  8. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    dana1981: "Ouch." It's almost like Spencer's "angered" [edited inflammatory language] the climate science community by saying essentially that either 1) he's smarter than everyone else or 2) since his "revelations" are so obvious, everyone else is in on the Grand Conspiracy. Almost? :) :)
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Please tone down the language a notch.
  9. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @KR #95: The context for the links that I am providing is the article itself. When I see something that I blelieve provides additional/updated information, I post a link to it.
  10. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    From the Scientific American interview:
    "You would think, if you have a scientific history of being wrong on so many issues, you would have a little bit of humility before claiming you've overturned scientific evidence yet again," Dessler said."
    Ouch. But a good point.
  11. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dikran, Thank you for the response. It did teach me something and for that I appreciate it. I am looking to actually learn the issue, and not simply argue my bias. That being said, my understanding is that the Lagrangian math works great for 2 points, but becomes infinitely complex when you add 3 or more points to the equation. Maybe I am wrong here. Also, I am glad to see you mention that CO2 doesn't control the climate. The only point I see is in the politics of controlling output of man-made CO2 as the primary focus on policy, not the truth behind what is actually going on with the climate. Clearly,climate is a complex ball of wax and suppressing one part, without a full understanding of the unseen consequences, would have possibly worse outcomes. I also defer to Quine-Duhem theory with regards to the unknown variables present. Lastly, I think there is a radiative competent as to the upper limits of what CO2 can affect. For example my understanding is the TOA radiates at a constant 240W/m2 and energy radiated up from the earth’s surface is 396W/m2. There is a difference of 156/m2 . Does the introduction of more CO2 have an impact on this?
    Moderator Response: See CO2 effect is saturated.
  12. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Scientific American weighs in. Sadly, and tellingly, Spencer will interpret this as some kind of proof that there is a grand conspiracy to suppress his genius.
  13. CO2 is just a trace gas
    48, Dikran, All you need to know is here. This was the best of the bunch I looked at. The source code is here. You could even just try to modify this to add an attractor to one side of the pendulum, reducing your work load considerably. You'd also want to change the graph to draw the actual position of the lower pendulum, rather than the angle or velocity options currently offered.
  14. CO2 is just a trace gas
    50, Rob, 48, Dikran, FYI, I had the same thought and did some quick googling for the Java app used to draw his animation. I didn't find exactly that one. There are some existing apps to base this on, but it wouldn't be a trivial thing to do from what I can see. One might even need to be written from scratch, although the mathematics behind it is laid out on several different web pages on the subject. It would use up a fair chunk of time to do, though. It is tempting to come up with a JavaScript version to embed in a web page, though, perhaps using GWT to implement it.
  15. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    I had exactly the same feelings when I was reading Dessler's paper: this guy has just smashed every single argument used by climate skeptics into smithereens. And it only took him about 5 pages to do it. For me, it was the observational data on TOA flux being more than 20x smaller than ocean heat fluxes. So obvious, yet so totally devastating.
  16. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dirkran @ 48... That really would be cool if you could model the pendulum exactly the way you've said with outside forcings. Add a couple of little knobs so the user could interact with the forcings. It would be a great learning tool for people who want to better understand the dynamics of climate systems.
  17. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Badgersouth - Um, no insult intended, but could you please provide some context for the links you have been posting? For example, why it might be interesting, or what it discusses? I have to admit that I have followed exactly none of your links, as they lack said context.
  18. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    The first sentence of the article contains one too many "the"'s.
  19. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dikran @48, I just wanted to compliment you on your post. That was fantastic-- it could (should) perhaps even be expanded into its own blog post IMHO.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Cheers! Sorting out a blog post is on my to-do list (I have used the double pendulum analogy before), but I need to learn about Lagrangian dynamics so I can write the applet!
  20. Dikran Marsupial at 02:44 AM on 8 September 2011
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69 wrote "we are simply scratching our heads and wondering why such a dynamic, non-linear chaotic system rises and falls on one minor gas?" It doesn't (and nobody claims it does, "skeptics" claim that the climatologists claim it does, but that doesn't make it true, try reading the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report for example). Consider a double pendulum, like this one borrowed from wikipedia Thsi is a dynamic non-linear chaotic system. Now imagine putting an electromagnet to one side which can attract the pendulum, which happens to be made of iron. If you turn up the current passing through the electromagnet, the pendulum will still swing back and forth as before, but it will be biased towards the side the electromagnet is placed. Turn the current down again and the pendulum will be centered on average back in the middle. This is a simple analogy for the climate. It has internal variability (the weather, ENSO etc) represented by the chaotic oscillation of the pendulum, and it has forcings such as CO2, aerosols, solar etc (represented by the electromagnet), which bias the oscillations a bit up or a bit down depending on how strong the forcing is (how much current is applied to the electromagnet). The difference lies in the specific details, but the underlying concepts are essentially the same. Juts because weather is chaotic, that doesn't mean climate (long term statistical behaviour of the weather) is also chaotic. Ask yourself why we don't seem to have a runaway thermal affect due to this increase of CO2 alone? Most of us here have never needed to ask such questions becuase it is based on the incorrect assumption that anybody thinks CO2 alone controls the climate. The Stephan-Bolzmann law is one reason. "Also, it seems that the CO2 being a trace gas is never affected by convection. " Can you provide some evidence to support that premise? I rather doubt it as it is quite obviously false (ask yourself how CO2, which is heavier than normal air is well mixed in the atmosphere, vertically as well as horizontally).
  21. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69... "Ask yourself why we don't seem to have a runaway thermal affect due to this increase of CO2 alone?" Think of it this way... When you put one more blanket on your bed on a cold night why don't you get a runaway thermal effect? It's works the same with CO2.
  22. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69 my impression is that there's some misunderstanding. For example, who is claiming that CO2 is not a trace gas? The point of this post is that the concentration of a trace element matters. Another example, who is assuming no convection and a grey atmosphere? One may sometime use highly simplified models to easily show some foundamental behaviour, but radiative-convective models has been developed in the '60s, almost fifty years ago. Your claim is simply untrue, due to a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge of the matter. If any weakness will be found in our current understanding of the climate system, be sure it won't be on the radiative properties of CO2 or any other foundamental aspect of this well know atmospheric physics.
  23. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Dan69... Reading through your comments it looks to me you're basing your thinking on a lot of assumptions. I would highly suggest you watch an online AGU lecture by Dr Richard Alley called "The Biggest Control Knob." If you google his name and that title it should pop up. CO2's role in moderating the climate system over time is really pretty well understood, so laying MOST (not ALL) at the doorstep of CO2 is not unreasonable. Note though, that no climate scientist says that it's all about CO2. As the Alley lecture title suggests, CO2 is merely the biggest control knob on climate. This is well accepted and backed up by many thousands of research papers. The point to this article is to say to people, yes, trace amounts of things can and do obviously have profound effects. CO2's affect on climate is merely one of the many. If you get through Alley's lecture I would also suggest you spend some time reading the many articles here at SkS. Everything is backed up with published literature so you don't even have to take any given authors word on faith. You are welcome to look at the actual research and make up your own mind if the scientific community is getting it right.
    Response:

    [DB] Alley's talk can be found here.

  24. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    The study cited in my previous post (#93) is also the topic of "Survey: Tea Party Isolated on Climate, But Wide Accord on Most Energy Policies," a post by Andrew Revkin on DOT Earth, NY Times, Sep 7, 2011. Revkin concludes his post with this ominous warning: "In reviewing the study, I found myself mulling the Tea Party views above in the context of recent research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute concluding that when 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, that belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. "Add in a big dose of talk radio and attack blogs, our habit of conducting politics from the fringes, and the Republican nomination process, then have a look around."
  25. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Let me state up front I am not a scientist, so my comments are based on a layman's view of the issue. CO2 IS a trace gas with regards to overall content of the atmosphere. The rebuttal used, is to compare aspects of trace elements that have an impact on a closed system, i.e. a persons body. Comparing a closed system to an open system to make your point only allows that much skepticism to rests its head on. Whilst they seem to make good rhetoric, they do NOTHING to support your contention that CO2 is in by itself NOT a trace gas. Conflating false examples does not make for an effective argument. Furthermore, please keep in mind that a skeptic on this issue is not debating the physics of the greenhouse-gas theory, or that a slowing in cooling attributed to the 2nd law isn't happening with more CO2 in the atmosphere, we are simply scratching our heads and wondering why such a dynamic, non-linear chaotic system rises and falls on one minor gas? Negative feedback anyone? This doesn't mean that the climate isn't in a warming phase, or disparate behaviors aren't affecting the climate as a whole, but to place it ALL at the doorstep of CO2 seems a leap. Ask yourself why we don't seem to have a runaway thermal affect due to this increase of CO2 alone? IMHO.... Also, it seems that the CO2 being a trace gas is never affected by convection. How can a theory which assumes no convection and a "grey atmosphere" (=no change in absorption properties with wavelength) can be used to explain something significant about the real atmosphere?
  26. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    57, Sphaerica- Absolutely correct! Dave
  27. Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
    67, JimCA, I did quickly use Photoshop to overlay the MCA temps onto the current temps using the NOAA data. In this image, purple areas will have been cold in one period and hot in the other (red + blue = purple). Greenish areas (cyan + yellow) will have been cool in one and warm in the other. Yellow, orange and red areas are in agreement between the two. As you can see, the main areas of "warming" overlap here are Greenland, the North Atlantic, and the North Sea, the USA contiguous-48, parts of the Amazon and the Congo and Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean Sea, northernmost Asia, and the western Pacific ocean. Canada, Eurasia, Europe (away from England), the Sahara, South Africa, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, Australia and the equatorial Pacific were all cooler in the MCA and warmer today. Interestingly, in both cases the north central Pacific ocean and western South America are cool.
  28. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Suggested reading: “Politics & Global Warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the Tea Party,” Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason Center on Climate Change Communciation, Sep 7, 2011 To access a PDF of the report, click here.
  29. Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
    67, JimCA, Part of the problem is that the MCA spans a good 400 years. Some areas are warmer in 950, some in 1150, and so on. So what you really need is an animation demonstrating the anomalies over time. Someone could do so, but it would be a lot of work. I actually did start such a project, but it quickly stalled when life caught up with me. It is a lot of work, and it's really not worth that much. In the long run, temps are going to keep climbing and leave the MCA so far behind in the dust that it becomes a complete non-issue to anyone but the most hardcore deniers. Honestly, temps now are already well above any MCA peaks. You'll note that most graphs of the MCA with current temps end in 2000.
  30. Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
    Would it be possible to display a graph of the direct difference between MWP and modern temperatures, as opposed to two graphs, each relative to some other base period? For example, that would make it much easier to spot locations that were warmer/cooler during the MWP than during the past decade, thus making it easier to point out the extent to which focusing on southern Greenland is cherry-picking. I think showing the MWP relative to the past decade would be the most useful, since it would address the oft-repeated claim that the MWP was warmer than today, by directly showing the extent to which that was true (or not) in each location.
  31. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    53, Dave123, If you don't mind my putting words (back) into your mouth (meaning you did say this in your comment #50), what you mean to say is that "the central tendency of the data points to a small short term effect." This work says nothing whatsoever about the long term changes in clouds, and their ultimate feedback resulting from increased temperatures resulting from increased CO2 levels. Camburn's attempt seems clearly aimed at somehow twisting these studies to imply that we know nothing at all about clouds and so can't fairly estimate climate sensitivity, when the only commonality in the two ideas is that the word "clouds" appears in both.
  32. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    51, Philip Amit, Dr. Shulmeister's quote doesn't at all mean what it implies when considered out of context. It is very clear from the article (here) that what they are discussing is only a new method of measuring, by proxy, precipitation levels in Australia. He is talking about an opportunity to better evaluate the actual versus modeled precipitation levels specifically predicted for Australia. This is very, very different from the implied idea that all climate models are way off base in every way. Also note that a better place for your comment would have been Models are Unreliable. In the future, if you have a question that seems off-topic, please use the search button in the upper left corner to find an appropriate thread and post your comment or question there.
  33. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    The funny part about McIntyre "auditing" Dessler 10 is that, Dessler's is the conservative look at the subject and draws wide conclusions based on the error bars. The ones making the outlandish claims about cloud effect on the climate are Spencer and Lindzen! He says he has all the data. He has all the papers. This should surely put the idea that McIntyre is an independent "auditor" into serious dispute.
  34. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    136, Norman, Just to explain one more thing in this line of thought, consider the fact that the increase in DLR during the day is not a direct, immediate response to increased daytime surface temperatures, due to intense daytime solar radiation. Ultimately, DLR is a result of atmospheric temperature. If the atmosphere is cooler, it emits less, warmer it emits more. So the relevant question becomes "how quickly does the atmosphere warm as a result of the day's solar radiation?" Your imagined effect of immediate increased back radiation during the day is, I think, exaggerated. Much of the outbound OLR that is intercepted by greenhouse gases is passed to the surrounding atmosphere (O2/N2) immediately through collisions. It heats the surrounding atmosphere, rather than coming "right back down." It is this increase in temperature of the atmosphere (which is obviously also affected somewhat by convection and latent heat) which actually increases DLR (which follows, as is already understood, the Stefan-Boltzman relationship). Based on this, one might even expect to find the highest DLR values in the evening, when the sun has moved on but the atmosphere has warmed in response to a variety of mechanisms, not all of which act quickly (and since the atmosphere is, for the most part, transparent to inbound sunlight). Lastly, remember that a major factor in DLR is clouds. Clouds tend to build during the day, then dissipate (mostly) at night. That means that their effects are minimal until after the sun has gotten lower in the sky, but can persist well into and even completely throughout the night and next day (when they would impeded inbound radiation). These are all sort of fudged concepts. Building a clear model of it would involve far more research than I have time. I'm simply trying to suggest to you other factors which greatly complicate the picture beyond your more simple mental model of "more inbound solar radiation in the day must mean more outbound long wave radiation, too." A last note: This page might be useful in playing with calculations, although I cannot vouch for its veracity. I just stumbled across it.
  35. On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
    Posted on behalf of Penn State Professor Richard Alley (in rsponse to question posed by Bern, #3) at his request while his e-mail access is limited: The tunnel in the iceberg is beautiful! To be honest, I don’t know why they form, although someone may. But, I have seen a lot of them. A few thoughts: In glaciers from regions with abundant surface melt, there are lots of healed crevasses and moulins (meltwater channels), sometimes including meltwater channels that melted their way down into the glacier and then developed lids as snowdrifts bridged over or the ice squeezed closed. The most common are probably moulins that started as crevasses. Water flows faster where the cracks are wider, making “frictional” heat that melts ice, while refreezing happens where cracks are thin. Boreholes through “wet” glaciers have found all sorts of water channels and cavities, many quite interesting, big and little, long and short, interconnected and not (and, up shallow or in the winter when the water drains, some become air channels, including ones that really skillful or really crazy people go caving in). So, an iceberg from an appropriate glacier starts with a lot of holes. Next, my experience is that the big channels in icebergs often are close to the water level, either at the water level or slightly above on a berg that seems to have been rising as ice calves or melts away above the water line faster than below. So the suggestion is that something occurring at or near the ocean surface is important. Often, there is a relatively thin layer of sun-warmed water near the ocean surface, so maybe waves moving this water are focused into the preexisting channels and crevasses in some places, enlarging them to give the beautiful features seen. At least, this seems like a good working hypothesis, although I suspect we could cook up a few others as well.
  36. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Philip Armit, unless the research can change the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, CH4, and H20, change measurements of albedo, change cloud and aerosol feedbacks, and change other elements of "current climate models," I doubt if such a paleo study can do much with a "current climate model." Now, if you actually meant "change our understanding of past climate change," then, yes, that's more possible. Further discussion should move to one of the paleo posts/arguments. Don't worry about your comments getting lost on an old thread, as many regulars here watch the "recent comments" page.
  37. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    You mistake my meaning Camburn. The central tendency of the data points to a small effect, not something that overturns the 2-4.5 sensitivity range of the IPPC that centers on 3. The denialist position magnifies this uncertainty to an unworldly extent.
  38. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    136, Norman, I don't have the time right now, but I suggest you play with the numbers. There's a Stefan-Boltzman calculator here. For the sake of this you can use an emissivity of 1, but if you wish to use other values (see the table on the page), that's fine. Try plugging in various temperatures from your own local weather at different times of the day and night. You can estimate inbound solar radiation for different times of the day, maxing out at 1368 W/m2 on the clearest day possible, at noon at the equator. Add estimated DLR from the Philipona paper above, keeping in mind that the daytime/nighttime difference is not as great as you first thought, and that it is also affected by local conditions (e.g. a cloudy day reduces sunlight but might increase DLR). So try to figure out how much the earth is emitting around you, using local temperatures at different times of the day. Compare that to the radiation that is at the same time being replaced by different values of DLR (a lower value from before CO2 levels increased, and a higher value later). You might even be able to take this a step further, and subtract what goes out and add what's coming in to compute a subsequent temperature, to see how comparatively quickly things warm and cool under different conditions, and so see the DTR effect directly, yourself, quantitatively.
  39. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Dave123: You have hit it on the head. You can't make a case with present evidence for clouds doing much. Neither Dessler nor Spencer have shown with any certainty anything. It is good that they are looking at this issue, but as of today, nothing conclusive is derived from either authors papers.
    Response:

    [DB] Camburn, the inescapable conclusion one draws from Dessler's paper and your comments on it is that you simply do not understand what it is you are reading.

  40. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    134, Norman, To better quantify things, this paper (Philipona et al, 2001) measured between 260 and 420 W/m2 DLR in the daytime over an 8 day period in Oklahoma. The paper also measures a range of 270 to 380 w/m2 DLR at night, so the difference between night and day is minor. More importantly, the earth is heating up during the day. It will certainly heat more due to GHGs and increased DLR, but the primary factor is always going to be direct sunlight. Remember Stefan-Boltzman: E = σT4 Because of the T4 relationship to energy emitted, as something gets hot, it becomes harder and harder to make it even hotter. It sheds ever increasing amounts of energy as it heats above and beyond the increase in temperature. Thus, adding more energy during the day, when direct, unimpeded sunlight at noon can deliver 1368 W/m2, is not going to raise temperatures as much. But at night, this DLR is going to prevent cooling. Here, when temperatures are lower, the effects of the same increase in DLR are much greater. Basically, it is easier to merely keep something warm than it is to make it hotter. It is easier to warm a cool object that one that is already hot. As a result, the temperature gain during the day is not increased as much by increases in DLR, while the temperature loss at night is greatly influenced by increase in DLR. Your reference to El Nino is not relevant in this case. El Nino is a condition that can last for months. It raises ocean temperatures and so emits more OLR, and so triggers more DLR, but it does so 24 hours a day. It applies at night as well as during the day, so if anything it decreases the DTR in the same way increases in DLR do as a result of the GHE.
  41. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Norman apparently you discovered that the atmosphere is heated from below by the land or ocean surface. You should have quoted Horace-Bénédict de Saussure who in the late 18th century demonstrated the effect.
  42. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Thank you Rob, I have read Willis' papers about closing the SLR budget, which is difficult over short periods given the large annual variability and measurement uncertainties. It may be noteworthy that they had trouble closing the budget over the 2003-2006 interval, but were successful from 2006-2010. I suspect this had to do with the extended El Nino during the first interval, and their determination that there was no steric SLR during this time. Enhanced precipitation would definitely influence global sea levels, and may be contributing to the recent change. This may be a result of the recent La Nina. However, one year does not compare to the multi-year changes we have observed during the ENSO cycle, especially since this past year has witnessed more rainfall in certain areas than a typical La Nina. This may fill lakes and reservoirs and lead to increases in the snowpack. A continuation of this pattern would lead to decreased sea levels. Over time, these are the two main components dictating global sea levels (GIA and plate tectonics playing a smaller, but not insignificant role in the short term). ENSO definitely plays a role in the steric component, and possibly in the mass portion also.
  43. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Forgive me, if this comment is off track. Apropos of "accuracy of climate models", a letter in my local paper suggested that current research by Dr Craig Woodward at School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, Uni of Queensland "may have significant impacts on climate models used for predicting global warming". Head of school (I think) Prof James Shulmeister is purported to have said: "All our current climate models may be way off base." Research involved looking at fossilized chitinous head capsules of larvae in mud layers in lake beds for info about climate at the time they lived. Anyone know how that impacts on accuracy of models? Been following weekly blogs and commentary with fascination. But bit new to this form of communication. Hope I haven't broken the thread.
  44. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    I followed Bickmore to MacIntyre and noted two things- MacIntyre ducked key parts of Dressler's analysis, which in one sense is a good thing to admit his lack of knowledge, but then goes on to miss the point entirely- the point being that you can't make a case with present evidence for clouds doing much (short term) to influence the feedback one way or the other. Of course, if you are professionally peddling uncertainty, this isn't a point you want to talk about.
  45. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    A useful summary of events with lots of links over at Carbon Brief.
  46. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Sphaerica @ 132 and muoncounter @133 Here is an article on ENSO that describes exactly what I am saying. There are many graphs. The ocean is warmer during an El Nino event and the downward longwave radiation is greatest during the El Nino cycle and lowest during the La Nina. During the day the ground is very warmer than at night so it will radiate more long wave radiation. More upwelling longwave radiation will mean more downwelling longwave radiation. So the GHE should be greater during the day. The radiation is additive. You get a 20 F increase in temp from shortwave solar insolation but the downwelling longwave radiation of day should be greater than at night so if night time adds 2 F to the temp, daytime downwelling longwave radiation should be higher and the addition of this energy should not make a smaller DTR but actually a slightly bigger one. That is why I think clouds are the major ingredient of the DTR decrease and it has a logical mechanism. Clouds at day keep things cooler but at night have a warming effect which would decrease the DTR. See my post at 101, based upon a peer=reviewed article. Article showing warmer water does produce more Downwelling longwave radiation.
  47. OA not OK: Booklet available
    Doug, Christina & Keith, awesome series of posts. Thanks a bunch!
  48. Models are unreliable
    Thanks a bunch Sky :)
  49. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Here's a nice YouTube on the subject.
  50. Models are unreliable
    #391: watch out for cause-effect relationships between different factors, but you'll also want volcanic forcing in there, and perhaps aerosol forcing too. With a reasonably simple model you can reconstruct surface temperature changes using CO2, SOI, volcanic - see Tamino's Open mind for some examples, one here and a better (superb) one here. I'm not sure about sea level, though a recent post on this site speaks of the impact of ENSO on short-term variations. Simple models don't capture the complexities of the interactions in each system, but they have their value in identifying some of the key elements to a system.

Prev  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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