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  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  Next

Comments 75651 to 75700:

  1. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Dana@14 "short-term temperature changes are dominated by ocean heat transport, not cloud cover changes. " What do you mean by short-term exactly? People tend to think of the oceans changing temperature relatively slowly, so one should be clear about the time scale involved and what is causing the ocean to change on that time scale. I know this is alluded to in the post a few times, but the point must be clear that we are effectively talking about changes brought about by ENSO, no? My concern now is that some people might misinterpret, spin this to claim that ENSO is driving global warming.... I like this part from the body post, "Dessler finds that.... In fact, the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately 20 times larger than the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2, while Spencer and Braswell assumed it was close to 0.5." Let me see, should we go with "found using observations" or with the "assumptions" of ideologically driven scientists? ;)
  2. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Eric @11, S&B postulated that clouds caused some of the ENSO temperature changes, not ENSO itself Actually, that is not clear Eric, b/c what Spencer is trying to argue is not clear. If you follow his online discussion (sorry, I cannot recall exactly where that was held off the top of my head, but I did find this), Roy's reasoning was almost incoherent and at times his statements are inconsistent. We know that clouds, especially deep convection, respond to the change sin surface winds and SSTs associated with ENSO, and those changes in cloud cover probably have some feedback. And no comment from you Eric about the problems with Spencer and Lindzen's and Braswell's and Choi's thinking running into trouble with the conservation of energy. "Their real conclusion is that it is not simple to extract cloud feedback (or even the sign) from temperature changes the way that the models are claimed to do. " That may be, but that is most definitely not even close to how their findings have been spun and distorted, not only by the denial misinformation machine, but by Roy Spencer himself. I have said this elsewhere on SkS, and it still applies today (especially after Spencer has now made a rather brazen defamation attempt on Dessler noted by Sphaerica @9): "Spencer is now clearly using science as a political tool in his ideological and political vendetta against the IPCC and climate scientists who are rightly concerned about the impacts of us doubling (or even quadrupling CO2). I find that incredibly disturbing." Spencer's actions of late also make his claims about being interested in advancing the science ring hollow. Eric you noted on another thread that: "With such gross oversimplifications on both sides I can't help but think Spencer is arguing about nothing." Yes, on that we agree.
  3. Dikran Marsupial at 01:41 AM on 7 September 2011
    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    When a good chess player plays chess, instead of playing the move that maximises his advantage, he plays the move that minimises his opponents maximum advantage; on other words he plays in the expectation of best play from his opponent. A good scientist publishes his arguments in the same manner; instead of presenting the strongest argument he feels the evidence can support, he presents the strongest argument that an opponent can't refute. So if there are choices to be made in presenting the evidence, you don't make the choices that maximally support your argument, you make the choices that give the least support for your position. If you are right, the evidence should still be on your side even then, and you will have made your paper bullettproof. Roy clearly didn't do that here, he didn't choose the models that were most closely in accord with the data, but those that would clearly make his argument. As it happens those models also happen to be amongst the worst in terms of matching the observations. What he should have done is present the results for all of the models (so there can be no accusation of cherry picking) and then find out why some of the models fit the observations better than others. Unfortunately for him it appears that it is not climate sensitivity. If his scientific career were a game of chess, this move would be annotated with a "?!" at best.
  4. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 01:40 AM on 7 September 2011
    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Andrew Dessler has made his paper available here.
  5. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Eric, there are a few key findings in this paper. One is that the heating of the climate system through ocean transport is ~20 times larger than energy changes due to cloud changes. A second is that while cloud changes can lead surface temperature changes, that's a result found in climate models as well, in which surface temperatures are an input. We'll have a bit more on this tomorrow. The bottom line is that contrary to Spencer and Lindzen's claims, the climate is behaving as models expect, and short-term temperature changes are dominated by ocean heat transport, not cloud cover changes.
  6. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Sphaerica, You really need to read up on ENSO events before commenting as such. The following are a few good links which show the SLR dependence on ENSO events. By the way, I did read the original post, which is why I am commenting. Rob appears to be disputing years of evidence to the contrary. I would suggest that the onus is upon him to provide significant evidence beside the graphic above. While it is possible that the changes in rainfall between EL Nino and La Nina conditions does lead to greater changes in SLR, it is the exception, not the rule to the current thinking. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1999/1999GL002311.shtml http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2004/lombard.pdf http://www.legos.obs-mip.fr/fr/equipes/gohs/pdf/lombard.pdf
  7. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    8, Eric (skeptic), Your post confuses me. On clouds, Dessler showed that their effect, one way or another, is trivial, so your proposed question of "are clouds forced by ENSO or a feedback from temperature change" is moot. On ENSO, I don't at all see what your problem is. My understanding is that Spencer tried to treat ENSO events as climate change (temperature changes) in and of themselves, without reference to the mechanics that cause them. By ignoring those mechanics, he makes them seem like unrelated climate events controlled by clouds or other factors. To get better results in his claims about models, he also ignored those models that best handle ENSO events. Lindzen did something similar, by treating annual swings in temperature that are caused by a local physical mechanism (ENSO) as if those were actual changes in the heat content of the earth-energy system over longer time scales. You just can't do that. It would be like rocking a parked car, and then claiming you can use that behavior to model how the car would accelerate away with the engine on and a driver behind the wheel.
  8. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    "...if what they find happens to disagree with Al Gore..." Spencer *has* to know that no climate scientist gives a rat's posterior about what Al Gore says about the science. This is gutter-level denialism.
  9. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    S&B postulated that clouds caused some of the ENSO temperature changes, not ENSO itself. Extending that to "climate change" is unsupported, also they did not quantify the amount of temperature change that was radiatively forced except very roughly (70/30). Their real conclusion is that it is not simple to extract cloud feedback (or even the sign) from temperature changes the way that the models are claimed to do.
  10. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Eric(skeptic) @ 8: that may be the question you would like answered, but it's definitely not the question that S&B11 was trying to answer, which was more like: are clouds causing ENSO (and any and all climate change)? Dessler seems to answer that question strongly in the negative.
  11. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    An interesting two pronged attack by Spencer on his blog. First, a post preempting everything that re-iterates how wonderful and indisputable he considers his own paper to be, and how nefarious must be the nature of his critics. Second, today, a post on a completely different subject, but apparently aimed at undermining Dessler's credibility. What I found most comical was the following quote from his first of the two posts, on the brouhaha over his own paper, where he in one breath says that funding by Big Oil is an urban legend, but then goes to accuse other scientists of fudging their own work to gain government funding. I swear, he just Poe'd himself.
    And (BTW) we get no funding from Big Oil or other private energy interests. Another urban legend. I hate to say it, but we need some sharper tools in our shed than we have right now. And the fresh eyes we need cannot have the threat of a loss of government funding hanging over their heads if what they find happens to disagree with Al Gore, James Hansen, et al.
  12. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Dessler essentially admits they aren't measuring sensitivity, but ENSO. Dessler picked some models that do better modelling ENSO yet none of them drop into negative correlation. Understandable since models can't easily predict the pos/neg or neg/pos switch. So what we end up with is "And since most of the climate variations over this period were due to ENSO, this suggests that the ability to reproduce ENSO is what's being tested here, not anything directly related to climate sensitivity." Dessler then tries to unglue himself from the failure of linear regression, lagged or not, by pointing out that temperature response controls ENSO which controls temperature. Thus, he states, "clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade" But the question we are trying to answer is are clouds forced by ENSO or a feedback from temperature change (i.e. climate change from CO2 forcing), and if feedback, what sign? The answer from S&B11 is we don't know. Dessler does not answer that question either.
  13. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    22, Jonathon, As I said, however, thermal expansion affects the upper 700 meters. ENSO events affect the upper meters. The amount of actual mixing in those upper meters is even less. In any event there is no net change in heat content, just a redistribution. I do not see how any effects can be more than trivial. Please provide a citation for your claims. As far as sea level rise actually associated with ENSO events... did you even read the post on which you are supposed to be commenting? The cause is the excessive precipitation falling on land (Australia, the northern coast of South America) instead of open ocean. It is not due to thermal expansion. I shouldn't need to say this. Please read the original post. If you wish to dispute it, provide a solid argument to do so, backed by data, calculations and most importantly citations.
  14. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:08 AM on 7 September 2011
    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Thanks, Rob and Dana for this outline of Dessler's paper. Good to have. BTW - I just popped over to Spencer's blog. From what I gather he is saying in his latest blog article is that to claim global warming will make droughts and floods worse than they would otherwise have been is a load of hooey. And this man is supposed to be helping research climate? I suppose he has tenure, but surely that sort of scientific illiteracy would be grounds for a shift sideways to a clerical or TA role, if not the sack.
  15. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    The Spencer paper compares a 100 year model run against 10 year top of the atmosphere measurements, would I be correct in thinking that that 10 years would be influnced by sulphate areosols, methane and CFC levels, by the ENSO which may not come out as neuteral over 10 years and due to dropping solar forcing (although I am not sure about the latter as if it is a TOA measurement it should measure incoming shortwave light).
  16. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Sphaerica, I already mentioned the local effects of La Nina / El Nino. Yes, the volume affected is only the upper ocean. The deeper ocean has a fairly constant temperature and density, which is unchanged by this surface movement. While the depth is small, the area is large, equating to a volume which is not insignificant as you claim. While you feel that sea level should rise during a La Nina and fall during an El Nino, would you care to give your explanation as to why we are seing the reverse effect as shown in the above graphic. El Nino would be expected to result in less enery loss due to the decrease in the trade winds, hence warming.
  17. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    I can't wait to see what drroyspencer.com has to say about this.
  18. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Aye, Bob--good grief, when I first came to the climate situation a few years ago, I knew that complaints about the use of "greenhouse" were misplaced, because it was actually stratospheric CO2 radiating heat to the surface. Sigh . . . well, live and learn, and whenever an absolute pops into the head, beat it with a hammer until it breaks down into mere probability.
  19. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    19, Jonathon, I don't believe your statement here is accurate. Any citations that you can provide for that position would be welcome. First, El Nino doesn't actually change the energy content of the ocean except in the reverse fashion that it appears; an El Nino causes a more rapid loss in energy/temperature, while a La Nina enables it to absorb more, so the effects should be reversed. Based on this, sea levels should actually rise due to a La Nina, and drop due to an El Nino. Secondly, the "piling up" of water that occurs does not reach far down at all (considering the upper layer of the ocean is usually taken to mean the upper 700 meters), so the volume of water actually affected by the shift from one event to another is really very small. The overall global affect due to his shift would be minor. Certainly, there are local changes in sea level, in that is part and parcel of the mechanics behind ENSO events. But I don't believe there is any known or presumed global mean sea level change that results from ENSO events due to thermal expansion. I've certainly never seen mention of it until this post, but as stated, the change is a result of where precipitation falls, not thermal expansion. Also, your statements about precipitation changes are too broad. It all depends on where you live and what the season is. El Nino (and La Nina) will make some areas wetter, some drier.
  20. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    @Camburn #47: When you re-read S&B be sure to take into account the humongous error bars associated with it.
  21. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    96, Rosco,
    ...although why we need to simplify insolation to a constant irradiated disk when we have computer programs which ought to deal with the complex equations seems unnecessary.
    This is exactly true, in that many computer models, which run on super computers and take months to churn through a hundred years of simulation, do in fact do things at that level. The Stefan-Boltzman, disk/area approximation is purely a very simple model for 50,000 foot arguments (meaning, for introductory teaching, trivial blog discussions and explanations like this one). There's an important lesson to be learned there. Everything that is discussed is a simplification of what is really going on (to make it manageable by human minds, or in discussions). In particular, when people get around to "visualizing" the actual interactions of the greenhouse effect they get it all wrong. They try to picture simple "back radiation" and other things that are useful gross oversimplifications in some situations, but are really totally and completely wrong. When you find something that doesn't look right, dig deeper! The answer lies in the as yet unknown complexity, not in the idea that thousands of scientists over hundreds of years have made some obvious, stupid blunder.
    I still have doubts about the relevance to the surface temperature but that can wait till another day.
    That's fine. Keep learning. But really... all of this discussion belongs on another thread. In the future, please be more attentive to the appropriate discussion for the thread in question. Feel free to find a better thread, and leave behind a comment explaining where you've posted your question (although many of us will find it anyway by looking at the "recent comments" page of this site). I'm glad you've come to some terms with the factor of 4 aspect of the equations and can now move ahead.
  22. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    @dorlomin #2: As Big Tobacco proved, all the anti-AGW Spin Machine needs to do is create doubt and confusion within the general public in order to prevent government from taking action to address a problem.
  23. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    A copy of the paper is apparently available here.
  24. OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
    Doug do you have a reference for this? average ocean pH has decreased by 0.11 pH units (from 8.25 to 8.14) since the industrial revolution and is on track to decrease by a further 0.3 units Thank you Tony
  25. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Instead of converging the public debate is still increasingly polarised.
  26. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    No wonder the Spencer fanclub consists nearly entirely of people who have no idea what his explanations mean, but loves his conclusions. No wonder his reader is more like a Glenn Beck spectator, and not a physics student.
  27. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Dave, Compare the surface water temperatures changes in 2008 and 2011 with the SLR graph above. The generally warmer waters from 2003 - 2007 can also be seen. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gyjdmjk0b3I/Thl79Kxnb4I/AAAAAAAAGio/EoxXdfvFLgs/s1600/AMSRE_SST_2002_thru_July_7_2011.gif
  28. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    enSKog, Actually, La Nina tends to amplifier the normal state by increasing the trade winds and forcing more warm water towards the Western Pacific. EL Nino is a reverse, whereby the warm Pacific waters are pushed eastward towards South America. These warmer waters atop colder actually induces greater mixing in the eastern Pacific. While local conditions vary, El Nino years lead to have warmer, drier seasons, while La Nina years lead to cooler and wetter. Whether La Nina leads to lower SLR due to cooling of the ocean water or greater precipitation (or both) has not been accurately determined. Since thermal expansion of the oceans is only occurring in the upper portion (the deep ocean has a fairly constant temperature), the El Nino / La Nina cycle can greatly impact this contribution. Claims of changes in SLR should be viewed with respect to ENSO changes in the same way that temperature changes should. Compare the SLR and temperature records for the El Nino of 1998 and the La Nina of 2011.
  29. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Question- given the huge amount of water moved, shouldn't we see a signal in the surface water temperatures? Did I miss a discussion of this?
  30. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    muoncounter: "But it looks like some folks were predicting heavier rain and more snow back in 2006." Muon, It seems that those predictions date back to at least 1994. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=w7q445p545h78g38&size=largest A. M. Fowler, and K. J. Hennessy 23 June 1994 "It is now widely recognised that the most significant impacts of global warming are likely to be experienced through changes in the frequency of extreme events, including flooding. This paper reviews physical and empirical arguments which suggest that global warming may result in a more intense hydrological cycle, with an associated increase in the frequency and/or magnitude of heavy precipitation. Results derived from enhanced-greenhouse experiments using global climate models (GCMs) are shown to be consistent with these physical and empirical arguments. Detailed analysis of output from three GCMs indicates the possibility of substantial increases in the frequency and magnitude of extreme daily precipitation, with amplification of the effect as the return period increases."
  31. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    I always had a problem with the factor of 4 thingie being used to reduce insolation. I have actually learnt some things from this discussion. And, whilst I am a sceptic I wasn't always and I really do not have an agenda. The equation always caused me to question. Whilst I could appreciate that it seemed right by all the science I had ever read it still seemed at odds with calculating the effective temperature of earth - heck I know I never bought it. But if I look at as a radiative balance statement- that to maintain radiative balance for earth the OLR over the surface of a sphere only has to be one quarter of the insolation over the disk - well heck that makes some sense - although why we need to simplify insolation to a constant irradiated disk when we have computer programs which ought to deal with the complex equations seems unnecessary. So we have some common ground - there is an area where the insolation is balanced by the OLR and the temperature of this "interface" - for lack of a better word at the moment - is ~255 K or -18 C. I still think all of this discussion has been relevant and there is still some way to go. I still have doubts about the relevance to the surface temperature but that can wait till another day.
  32. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco @94, the level of the atmosphere with a temperature of 255 degrees K is on average approximately 5 km, and if the GHG in the atmosphere absorbed and emitted equally at all wavelengths, it would radiate approximately 240 W/m^2 at that level. But in fact the GHG's only radiate at a limited number of wavelengths, so much of the radiation comes from the much warmer surface. Consequently the it is only when you get to the TOA that the sum of energies across all wavelengths of outgoing radiation sums to ~240 W/m^2.
  33. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    But isn't the area of the atmosphere radiating ~240 W/sq m actually at ~5 km above the Earth's surface?
  34. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    131, Norman, If you look at any solar spectrum curve... You see that the most energy comes in at short wave lengths (visible light). During the day this "dominates" because it so outweighs any down-welling IR in any calculations. At night, there is no such incoming shortwave radiation. Infrared radiation dominates. This isn't about "up-welling" at all. It's about what is coming back in to keep the surface warm... short wave sunlight during the day, long wave IR from greenhouse gases at night.
  35. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco @91: The equation you misquote applies only for surfaces with no variation in temperature, and with an emissivity of 1. Neither is true of the Earth. In particular, the effective emissivity of the Surface of the Earth significantly less than 1 due to the effects of the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In contrast, the effective brightness temperature of the Earth as observed from space has, by definition, an emissivity of 1. Therefore, for planets with greenhouse gases, this equation only applies at the Top of the Atmosphere. Further, the Earth does not have equal temperatures across the globe, but it has near equal temperatures - sufficiently close that this equation represents a fair approximation. So, let's check out the approximation at the TOA for the Earth. According to NASA, the Black Body temperature of the Earth as observed from space (aka, the brightness temperature) is 254.3, and the radius of the Earth is 6378100 meters. Therefore the total energy radiated to space by the Earth is approximately: 5.6704*10^-8 * 254.3^4 * 4 * pi * 6378100^2 = 1.2122 * 10^17 Watts The TSI equals 1366 Watts/m^2, and the Bond albedo equals 0.306 so the total energy absorbed by the Earth is approximately: 1366 * (1 - 0.0306) * pi * 6378100^2 = 1.2116 *10^17 Watts. That is just a 0.06% difference. Not bad for an approximation. Of course, I understand that you have been so blinded by your need for AGW to be wrong that you will not be able to acknowledge this clear result. Consequently, I suggest you do as climate scientists do and ignore the approximation. Instead, work out the total energy absorbed from the sun using in each cell of a 5 degree latitude by 5 degree longitude cell of the Earth's surface over a one year period. Remember to compensate for the different areas of each cell depending on their latitude. Sum the total energy absorbed. Then determine the total energy emitted from each cell over the year based on the variation of temperature and surface type (which effects emissivity), and sum the results. If you are correct, the sums should be approximately equal. But in fact they will not be, for as has been shown in the General Circulation Models the equality is at the top of the atmosphere, not the surface. IF you are going to dispute the climate scientists who have gone to the effort of just that sort of detailed calculation (and much more), you should yourself make that same level of detailed calculation instead of disputing an approximation used for teaching purposes (as you have been doing).
  36. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    91, Rosco, This goes back to the problem you were having with the geometry. The energy absorbed is proportional to S(1-r) over the area of a disk. The energy emitted is the same, but it is distributed over 4 times the area because the earth is a sphere and not a flat disk. Perhaps this discussion will make it more clear, but really it comes down to two simple statements: The earth absorbs energy as a disk (πr2). The earth emits energy as a sphere (4πr2). The temperature of the earth reflects this, which is why we divide 1368 by 4 to get 342, which in turn is cut to 240 by the earth's albedo (1-r).
  37. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    muoncounter @ 130 I looked at the Malamud paper you linked to. I do not understand this statement from the article: "Our basic hypothesis is that a large part of the temperature and DTR trends at Mauna Loa can be attributed to changes in CO2. At night, longwave radiation and turbulent sensible heat fluxes dominate heat loss. Increasing presence of greenhouse gases will result in enhanced reradiation back towards the surface and hence warming nocturnal temperatures. During the day time, shortwave radiation dominates, particularly in tropical regions." This is my most basic question and the article does not really answer it. What is the meaning of "shortwave radiation dominates"? Shortwave solar energy will have a greater watts/meter flux than upwelling IR but the surface emitted IR will still be greater during the day than at night. Unless shortwave radiation pressure can limit the upwelling IR raditation from being emitted, how does the dominance of shortwave radiation affect the upwelling shortwave radiation (from my physics knowledge, the IR emission is determined by the temperature of the object and its emissivity). During the day you will have greater flux of upwelling IR from the surface than at night because of the greater temperature of the surface. You should have a stronger reradiation during the day than at night, hence more effective GHE (more IR going up during daytime, more coming back down from the omnidirectional energy distribution of greenhouse gasses).
  38. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Sphaerica: Sorry you couln't watch Dr. North's presentation. It was quit good. The question period was excellent, with both Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North commenting. I seldom do watch video's, as I agree with you. Reading is a lottttt faster, and you can easily go back to re-digest what you have read. I just re-read Dr. Trenbeth's and other two fellows op ed piece. The very tone raised red flags to me, so I feel I must go back and re-read S&B. There may be more value to S&B than my original readings brought to me. Now it will be to find the time.
  39. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Lecture/Lecture_3.pdf Radiative Equilibrium Energy Conservation Principle at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) Incoming solar energy absorbed = Outgoing infrared energy emitted S (1 – r) x π ae2 = σTe4 x 4 π ae2 σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant S = Solar constant (total solar energy/time/area at TOA) r = Global albedo ≅ 0.3 ae = Radius of the Earth Te = Equilibrium temperature of the Earth-atmosphere-system Leading to Te = ∜(S(1-r)/4σ) But if we restate the “equality” Incoming solar energy absorbed = Outgoing infrared energy emitted S (1 – r) x π ae2 = Ro x 4 π ae2 (where Ro = σTe4 is the outgoing radiation) we see that this simply says that the outgoing radiation is a quarter of the incoming radiation. Alternatively, taking the original “equality” and dividing both sides by π ae2 you arrive at the interesting postulation that :- S (1 – r) = σTe4 x 4 and thus proving the Stefan-Boltzman equation is wrong. So what has gone wrong here? Clearly the original statement is not an equality !
  40. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    45, Camburn, I did not watch Dr. North's presentation because the streaming method used did not make it easy to fast forward past Dr. Lindzen, and I really didn't have the time. Honestly, one can absorb 1000 times as much in 1/10th the time through reading. I see little point for such kindergarten level show-piece presentations. I'll take your word for it on what it contains. Suffice it to say that (a) it's a waste of my time in general and (b) if Dr. Lindzen was in any way involved then it's a waste of everyone's time, and a just a chance for people to get even more confused. As much as the denial crowd wants to frame it as such, this is not a "debate." It's not about opinions and beliefs, and Dr. Lindzen's position is laughable. If he or Spencer or anyone else really had a way to prove their case, they'd have done a substantially better job by now. They haven't. The fact that Lindzen takes so readily to the talk show circuit and high-visibility op-ed pieces instead of real science all by itself speaks volumes.
  41. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Sphaerica@43: Didn't you listen to Dr. North's presentation as well? actually thoughtful: I commend you if you were able to listen to Hannity, or Rush, or Levin. I have tried, but I find no entertainment value in those folks. I have made it through 10 mins, and just couldn't stand it any longer. They whine and whine, yet present no alternative solution. If I want to hear whining, I can listen to a two year old to get my fill of that. Dr. North is almost a polar opposite of Dr. Lindzen. Apparantly most folks didn't listen/observe his presentation, nor the discussion period at the end. As far as vacations....I don't care how many President Obama takes. In fact, his current economic policy is so flawed that I wish he would take a longer one. All I can say about President Bush, is that he didn't take enough of them either. Not good for the USA to have two somewhat dim presidents in a row who never saw someone elses dollar that they didn't want to spend.
    Response:

    [DB] American politics are now OT on this thread.  Please, no more.

  42. actually thoughtful at 11:13 AM on 6 September 2011
    Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Indeed Camburn, just as you watch what you put in your body for your own health, it is important to watch what you put in your own mind for your mental health. I spend a fair portion of my day listening to right wing talk radio. As an educated and thoughtful person, I thought myself immune to their tactics. I can usually debunk a statement made by Hannity, El Rushbo or Mark Levin literally before they are done uttering it. However, I had no hard data on time spent on vacations, and the recent talk has been about Obama's excessive vacations, and time on the golf course, etc. So I assumed Obama must be roughly equal to Bush (who got an earful for not working enough). Well, I had an opportunity to check the facts and it turns out that Bush had taken THREE times as many vacation days in the same period of time! 3 TIMES! http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/08/18/cbs-comes-obama-s-defense-vacation-time-after-they-cue-him-prognosticat So when you choose to let people known to twist the facts (like Spencer at this point (see Sphaerica@43)) into your mental diet - it is incumbent upon you to be extra, excessively vigilant, or else end up spouting half truths (see Camburn@37). Now that those who actively reject science own the main stream media (Fox news is the most watched, therefore the most main stream media we have in the US (and Murdoch is big in at least Australia and Great Britain as well) - we all must be very, very careful, as the mental diet being forced down our "throat" is indeed not healthy.
  43. On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
    An interesting little article. Illustrative of the scientific mindset, too! The first question that popped into my mind, though, was this: What caused that tunnel through the iceberg? I'm guessing one of two things - a vertical meltwater channel (is 'moulin' the right word?), or something carved by wind & wave action since the berg calved from the glacier.
  44. On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
    My first up close experience with bergs brought a similar mystery. A berg with beautiful grooves in it. Almost like they were made with a giant rake with a thousand teeth. The local iceberg expert explained it to me at the time but darn if I have not forgotten the exact reasons. Something to do with currents. Here it is: http://mactardis.com/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=18708 I may not know exactly the cause of this but my first thought is not to chalk it up to magic or a higher power but to ask how it happens. We live in a country where far too many find it much more comforting to invoke the magic.
    Response:

    [DB] Embedded picture.  You can even see the seabirds flying in the foreground.

  45. actually thoughtful at 10:39 AM on 6 September 2011
    On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg
    I can't help but wonder how efficient that lawn mower is. I am hazy on the reasons, but two stroke engines are less efficient. One presumes a riding mower would be 4 stroke, but it isn't clear. I think, too, the above comment shines a light on the fundamental difference between science oriented and denial oriented minds. The science oriented questions everything. I admit the first thing I thought of was the climate impact of the mower - not in a gotcha, but just where my mind goes. Everything is on the table, and grey exists. I think for many "skeptics", the same observation would be in gotcha mode, as in "why should we listen to you - you use a polluting, gas powered device to mow your lawn" - as is endlessly done to Al Gore and Dr. Mann, Dr. Jones, etc. Kind of hashing my point here - it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between skepticism (question everything, by nature) and the blind ideologue approach I see in US politics (on the right in particular (indeed it has become a distinguishing feature between the left and the right) that questions anything that doesn't support the current talking points, but gives the rest of reality a pass.
  46. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    41, Camburn, I do not consider Lindzen to be eminent in climate science. When you do so you are attempting an appeal to authority, but in this case competence does not equate to trustworthy. Actual eminence would require that he publish something that contributes in a notable way to the science. He has a long publication record, primarily focused on either minor details, or else magic bullet papers that attempt to overturn the field in one fell swoop, and then are roundly and embarrassingly refuted by his peers. That does not, to me, qualify as eminent. When he stands up and uses his "authority" to spout drivel, he does not actually talk in a balanced and informative way about the science but instead acts like a debater being very careful to offer only those details that would lead you to a particular desired and incorrect conclusion. He has shot himself in the foot with his credibility with his op-ed pieces and flat out lies. I've seen them for myself, to the point that I do not trust a word that the man says. That you find him credible speaks to your lack of skepticism.
    • Politically oriented commentaries that do nothing to advance science, and in many cases actively work to undermine it:
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2008) An Exchange on Climate Science and Alarm. In Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2006.
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2006) There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Debunking the Myth. Business Today, 43, 66-67.
      • Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen (2006) The Stern Review: A Dual Critique, Part I: The Science, World Economics, 7, 167-198.
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2007) Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously, Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.
      • Lindzen, R.S. (2008) Climate science: is it designed to answer questions. arXiv:0809.3762, available as pdf file on www.arxiv.org, Physics and Society.
  47. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Nice new piece of evidence showing nights warming faster than days and DTR decreasing. Thirty years of hourly temperature data at Mauna Loa makes this detailed analysis possible - and hard to question. -- source (tamino analysis of new paper) Link to paper: Malamud et al 2011 Small world: one of the co-authors (Turcotte) was a geophysics prof when I was in grad school.
  48. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Thanks Mark. The impacts are still being researched but I think I can summarise the whole biological field as saying that: As with any rapid and large envionmental change there will be some winners and many losers. Yes, we have plans to return after a decent break with more. Yes, it is seldom talked about. It may not have been obvious but most of the posts were written to rebut the "science" behind a particular denialist meme without actually detailing that meme. (Something of a turnaround from usualy SkS approach). Denialist memes are like viruses (I know PZ Meyers will have at me for mixing evolutionary metaphors) and change their packaging slightly each time. Our science foundation approach should neutralise them all. Given this rationale, we will be focussing on observations more than projections.
  49. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Then again, maybe Hearlek is right. Salby may publish something very different after having the science of the presentation demolished in an unusually public (for him) way. To add to what Dikran said, if Salby has discovered any of these conditions, he should only submit to Nature or Science, as those discoveries would take many disciplines by surprise. I doubt if he has, though, because if he had, he would already have shared the information with his fellow climate scientists. He wouldn't wait for final publication. One wonders where Salby turned for feedback before he went public with the presentation.
  50. OA not OK: Booklet available
    Great resource. Thank you.

Prev  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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