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  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  Next

Comments 75801 to 75850:

  1. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    pbjamm: Hard to post about a large accident when there has been none. The safety record speaks for itself. That is what I am trying to show to Marcus. It is up to him to prove that what I post is in error. I am all for alternative energy sources where practical. So far, those alternatives have not proven to be practical. I would hope that within 10 years there is huge advancement in alternatives. I know of some very exciting things that are close to being introduced.
  2. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    General question. I am not sure how John Cook determined the point of his article. John Cook: "During the day, the sun warms the Earth's surface. At nighttime, the surface cools by radiating its heat out to space. Greenhouse gases slow down this cooling process." As the sun warms the earth's surface it starts emitting more IR based upon its temperature (which will be warmer than the air above it): "The temperature of desert sand and rock averages 16 to 22 degrees C (30 to 40 degrees F) more than that of the air. For instance, when the air temperature is 43 degrees C (110 degrees F), the sand temperature may be 60 degrees C (140 degrees F)." Source of desert quote. Since the ground is very hot it will emit a lot of IR during the day (much more than at night) and since the greenhouse effect returns this radiated heat back to the surface, the greenhouse effect will be more pronounced during the hottest part of day (more radiation to return, plug in numbers in the stefan-boltzmann calcualtor using the emissivity of sand). If greenhouse warming were the agent for DTR then it seems by logical conclusion of the physics involved that the DTR should actually increase. The daytime high should be warmer than normal caused by increased CO2 since more IR will return to earth during the hottest daytime temp. The night will also be warmer but the IR being emitted at night will be far less than that during the hot day. Point: Hottest time of day would have the greatest greenhouse effect and should be greater than the nighttime effect leading to larger, not smaller DTR's. Clouds explain this much better than CO2. Clouds cool the daytime but warm the night causing a smaller DTR which has been observed.
  3. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn@39 I never made any claims about the merits or safety of fracking. I have never even asserted that your position is wrong. My only contribution was to point out that you had not provided any evidence to support your position other than with anecdotes and personal opinion. That is not a very strong argument.
  4. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    muoncounter @107 Another point I would question: "And certainly there can now be no doubt that sensitivity is quite high, as there were measurable temperature differences for what must be considered a relatively small causal agent." I am not sure why you feel clouds are a small causal agent. Look at Trenberth's radiation budget. In it he has atmposphere and clouds reflecting 79 watts/meter Skeptical Science article by Trenberth. The amount of IR a doubling of CO2 will send back to earth for further warming is estimated in the 3 watt/meter range. I think a change in cloud cover may actually be much greater than the small casual agent you accept.
  5. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    muoncounter @107 I like your clever intellect and how you were able to determine so much from my post. Your post reminds me of the Missouri River flood of 2011. My thoughts were contained in the banks of DTR but yours seem to have topped the banks and entered a lot of other area. I would like to question your point. "To rephrase, increased clouds in the east resulted in less OLR, ie, more heat retained. That nicely rebuts such silliness as Spencer's magic clouds and the general desire to hang a negative feedback on clouds (largely because its cooler on cloudy days)." There is another possibility you should consider. It may be that more heat is retained but another strong possibility exists to explain the OLR. The cloud cover has cooled the surface of the Earth so there is less available IR being radiated. Stefan-Boltzmann calculator. To simplify I used a one for emissivity in both calculations. Here is one for you to consider. The area not covered with clouds could reach a warmer daytime temp. I used 80 F in the calculator (after converting to Kelvin) for the cloudless area. The earth would emit 457 watts/meter at this temp and an emissivity of one. For the cloudy sky I used 70 F. In this case the earth would emit 424 watts/meter. I am not saying this was the actual case for your point. I am only using this example to point out that the earth's surface temp has a considerable effect on the OLR measured.
  6. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Marcus: Please read if you will. Both of the incidents in 2008 involved well head......not casings. Marcus & pbjamm: Show me where one incident involved fracking, the casings etc. I am all ears. I know that you won't be able to do so. muoncounter: I agree. An accident is bound to happen at some time. The law of averages dictates this. So far, with supervision, an accident of merit has not happened. I hope this continues. As far as pipelines, we already have pipelines. In fact, there are two that go through the county I live in. As far as routing, where I live makes a great deal of sense. There are no major waterways. There was a rupture some years ago 15 miles from where I live. It was cleaned up. In fact, an interesting discovery was made in that spill. The original mitigation area was over 4 acres. Cleanup started, and the mitigation area shrunk because we seem to have bacteria in this area that thrive on carbon. The soil hauled away ended up being less than 1/2 the original amount thought required. I am all for the Bakken Play as it is called. At least this formation has numerous horizontal barriers so the potential of contaminating ground water is very small. The Keystone pipeline will be built, and it will carry Bakken Oil as well as Alberta oil. Right now the world runs on oil. There are no alternatives to provide energy density for large scale engines used in tractors/transportation etc. That is reality. I would much rather have the Bakken oil used, as the safety record of this field is very good, than some other source with the potential of environmental damage.
  7. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    @Badgersouth- 1... how so 2. see post #10. have you followed the various postings about the bogus curve fitting models from Spencer and Loehl?
  8. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn#34: "you are booted out of the state" How will that work with the Keystone pipeline in your backyard? Can't exactly pick it up and throw it over the state line. But accidents sure can come see you in the form of pipeline spills, production accidents, ruptured saltwater disposal systems etc. Any oil field town I've ever been in, from Valdez, AK to Houma, LA knows this. In Ponca City, OK, they used to say that having the refinery right next to town was a good thing - 'you could smell the money.' It's a messy industry; accidents happen. There was a long track record of safe deep water drilling until one night in April 2010.
  9. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    yes, pbjamm, Camburn seems to have nothing but anecdotes & a "trust me" approach to evidence. Muon has given several links to actual evidence of the major issues associated with Frakking, & Camburn has provided *NOTHING* of substance to repudiate that evidence.
  10. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    "IF there was ever a serious problem, it would be headline news....period. In fact, the one breach of fracking fluids because of overland flooding was headline news," Camburn-I trust *individual people*, I don't trust an industry with a long track record of poor treatment of the environment. Your *blind* trust of this industry probably goes a long way to explaining your willingness to accept the anti-AGW propaganda that this industry has also funded. The fact is that there was a serious *reported* incident back in 2008 which resulted in supposedly tougher regulations, but that these regulations didn't stop 2 major incidents in the space of 4 months. So I'd call *three* major frakking incidents-in a single State-to be a very serious issue, yet you just choose to dismiss it casually-it doesn't sound like the attitude of someone who is *serious* about protecting natural resources!
  11. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn, 'I know my neighbors and would have heard' is not evidence, it is an anecdote. Telling Marcus that he is wrong providing evidence that he is wrong is nothing but opinion. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
  12. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    I give in. I seem to be breaching the commentary policy by arguing that the basis for determining the energy input to a planetary atmosphere is important in determining the topic discussed here. I guess you will always oppose my point of view adn I will continue to oppose the factor of 4 reduction of insolation. But remember - energy cannot be created or destroyed merely transformed. Think about it.
    Response:

    [DB] The point that you are not grasping is that this thread is about Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect.

    You have given no indication of talking about that topic, despite able advice from others.  Other threads (nearly 5,000 in number) exist here at SkS on every subject imaginable that pertain to climate science.  Using the seach function in the upper left corner of every page here at SkS, search for that topic you want to hang your hat on and place a comment there (for example Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?).

    Dozens of regular participants here are ready to help you gain a better understanding of climate science.  So the choice stands before you:

    1. Continue in your present path of not listening to others and continuing to be off-topic, with the expected result of forcing the moderators to intervene
    2. Or follow the path outlined above

    Think about it.

  13. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    muoncounter @69 (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Off-topic snipped.  Continuing to perpetuate your intransigence in actually taking the time and bother to actually learn something about climate science has become intolerable.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  14. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    @Dave123 #26 No need for you to be snooty. Your phrase, "physical models" is a tad unusual.
  15. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Tom Curtis @67 you think NASA would lie to Kids ? If as you say solar insolation is 240 W/ sq m over earth then the Stefan-Boltzman temperature tells you that Earth can never increase in temperature above 255 K. Again - The Stefan-Boltzman equation has 2 variables - radiative flux and temperature. When a surface is irradiated it reaches the temperature determined by that radiative flux. When a surface is not irradiated it will tend towards the temperature of its surroundings. For the moon with no atmosphere to distribute temperature around the sphere it is either irradiated by solar radiation and reaches an equilibrium temperature commensurate with that level of radiation (which has been measured as ~120 C or 393 K) - OR - it is not irradiated and begins cooling to reach thermal equilibrium with the erergy flux of free space which does not have solar radiation incident on it and that is a very low flux commensurate with the temperature of free space which is postulated to be as low as a few K. The extra energy postulated to come from Greenhouse gases to warm the surface of the Earth came from where originally ?
  16. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Marcus: I have no idea where your live or what your upbringing was. I think the tone of your responses indicates that you are not used to people being truthful, knowing their neighbor, in fact, living in a state with such a low population and a harsh climate that we all feel akin to each other. As an example, I can drive 50 miles, stop, and would know the person I was talking to through mutual personal contacts. In fact, I could drive 300 miles west and the same would happen. In fact, I know people from the west, and south throughout the state. I am not the only one like this. IF there was ever a serious problem, it would be headline news....period. In fact, the one breach of fracking fluids because of overland flooding was headline news, widely discussed, the enforcement of a large fine was publicly supported. As a result of this one incident, the state hired even more enforcement personnel, with the public demanding this action. I don't think you understand how serious we are about protecting our precious natural resources here. WE are veryyyyy serious and expect only excellent business practices. Anything less, you are booted out of the state.
  17. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn, muon linked to 2 serious accidents in North Dakota in the space of just a single year-yet you claim there have been no serious incidents. You claim there are only 2 digesters in the US, yet I've provided a link that shows there is more than 150. So on 2 occasions your claims & the facts have been at opposite ends of the spectrum-so odds are very high that your claims regarding the expense of the process are equally without merit. Also, you should learn to *read*-the organic matter isn't permanently removed from the soil. The waste is digested to obtain the methane, then all the remaining organic material is returned to the crop. Seriously, how can you claim any knowledge of the process when you clearly don't even understand how it works? So far I've brought one more link to back my claims than you have-if you want to be taken seriously, then evidence will help!
  18. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn, you claim that its the absolute truth that there have never been any problems in the Bakken. Really? Are you 100% sure? Big problems, like those muon has linked to, are usually large enough to get wide-spread press coverage, but minor leaks-though still dangerous-often won't get reported. The same is true with nuclear power-the big disasters like Fukishima get massive coverage, but the frequent leaks at the Sellafield reprocessing plant is something you really have to go looking for!
  19. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Marcus: Concering anaerobic digestion. I not only claim it is expensive, it is expensive. Prove me wrong, other wise my claim stands. What are my "bogus" claims? And what proof do you have that my claims are not correct? The unwillingness to prove me wrong is all to familiar from those who do not have a credible idea of real economic costs. Oh, there is no question that I am a farmer. The question is, if you are a soil scientist why you don't understand the effect of removing bio mass from productive land. That one floors me, and shows that your understanding of your stated profession is ...... [ - snip -]
    Moderator Response: [mc] Easy there, Camburn; no need to throw the ad homs in.
  20. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    TC#68: Rosco's moon has a low temperature of -233C and a high of 123C, both consistent with the color schemes in the LRO images (purple ~ 40K). It is his average lunar temperature that makes no sense. But consider this: If the lunar temperature is appropriate for its effective (non-black body) radiation balance, as you explain in #67, that means solar input really is driving planetary temperature. But that is in contradiction with Doug Cotton's temperature of the earth's surface is based on the core temperature fantasy. Since we can't have both, which one should we discard? Tom, you've disproved Rosco and Cotton in one shot - all in all, a nice day's work.
  21. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    once again, Camburn, you make a number of bogus claims without providing a shred of evidence to back yourself up. Seriously, where is your evidence that anaerobic digestion is expensive or unfeasible? Claiming it doesn't make it so. This unwillingess to provide evidence is an all too common failing of those who would "die in a ditch" to defend their beloved fossil fuel industry-even to the point of deliberately overlooking serious frakking accidents which might have permanently poisoned the ground water in your area- & yet [ - snip - ]
    Moderator Response: [mc] Easy there Marcus, this is a PG-13 science blog.
  22. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Muoncounter @65, a minor point - the regions that never see sunlight have temperatures below 35 degrees K. The 120 degrees K is the average night time temperature of the moon, with the poles maintaining a more even temperature during day and night of around 220 K, except at the bottom of craters where the temperatures are much lower. This is probably the best image to see that.
  23. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco @54, seriously, "Ask an Astronomer for Kids" is your source of astronomical information? Really? You could have at least tried the moon fact sheet from NASA, where we learn that the blackbody temperature of the moon is 270.7 degrees K. Let me see, 1366/4 * 0.89 (1-lunar albedo) = 303.9 K, or 33.2 K greater than the black body temperature of the moon. The reason for the discrepancy is well known - the divide by 4 approximation is only perfectly accurate for bodies with no temperature variation. Because radiated output varies with the fourth power of temperature, if there is temperature variability, the energy is radiated from the surface more efficiently, resulting in a lower temperature, as can be seen on the moon. That means the Earth's atmosphere and ocean, by redistributing heat do in fact warm the Earth, but they cannot warm the Earth to more than the 255 degrees K indicated by the usual black body approximation. Indeed, as they do not eliminate temperature variation from the surface (as they do on Venus), they warm it to less than that temperature and the total greenhouse effect is more than the normally stated 33 degrees K difference between 255 K 'expected' black body temperature and 288 K average surface temperature. As it happens, the actual black body temperature of the Earth is 254.3 degrees K, only 0.7 degrees K below the expected using the standard approximation, so it is a very good approximation. (I believe Chris Colose discussed this in more detail on this site recently, but cannot remember where.) The question may arise as to whether NASA know lunar temperatures well enough to determine the black body temperature of the moon. Afterall, determining that temperature requires measuring the Outgoing Long wave Radiation integrated across the entire moons surface and over the entire 28 day rotation period. Welcome to the Diviner mission: Lunar Temperatures by latitude and Lunar Hour: (Note, one lunar hour equals 29.53 Earth hours.) Lunar Day Time Temperatures: Lunar Night Time Temperatures:
  24. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    63, Rosco,
    I see we will never agree however the Stefan-Boltzman equation is either right or wrong.
    This statement is utter nonsense. No one is disputing Stefan-Boltzman, and nothing that is being explained to you is in conflict with it. Stop simply making things up!!!!!!!. The argument is about how to distribute the energy that arrives at the earth on only one side over the entire surface of the earth, a fairly basic bit of geometry that you appear incapable of grasping. You instead would like to pretend that this energy is simply divided among the two hemispheres of the earth, as if it were a flat disk... Oh!!! Now I get it... you're one of those flat-earthers I've heard about. But the earth isn't flat. The energy has to be distributed over the surface of a spherical earth, not a flat earth. Really, I can't believe I'm trying to explain things to someone who can't get past the first page of any introductory climate science text. Please, Rosco, please go do some reading. By the way, throwing the word Venus into your posts doesn't cut it. There is no connection whatsoever to your discussion and the GHE on Venus. It is long past time for this to stop.
  25. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco#63: "cannot explain the temperature on the moon" Your minimalist approach, picking the highest and lowest lunar temperatures and computing an 'average' for use in the SB equation, neglects a few important facts. Are you aware that the moon has negligible axial tilt, so that areas in shadow near the poles (where these ultra cold temperatures were measured) are hardly ever in sunlight? They never warm up, so they do not reach equilibrium with the illuminated portion of the planet. See the images here. The areal extent of these ultracold regions is quite small. What you have done with the lunar temperature range is equivalent to looking at a dataset consisting of {10,10,10,10,10,10,10,0} and concluding the 'average' is 5. Your conclusions about climate science based on that error are thus utterly incorrect. In short, if it doesn't 'fail for the moon,' it is valid for the Earth.
  26. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco, The geometric reduction is meant to explain the average temperature over the entire earth/moon, and of course it doesn't explain the maximum "daily" temperature. You are confusing the two concepts. The whole point of the simple radiative model is to provide an understanding of how greenhouse effect increase the average temperature of the planet. If you insist that it should reproduce the maximum temperature in a day/night cycle you are missing the point.
  27. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    "The examples of free-enterprise are all around you..." Most had initial funding from governments or states: 1. Flight - Da Vinci and Langley were state funded. 2. The Internet - largely an idea to develop secure communications for the state military. 3. Web Browser, HTML, HTTP - designed by Tim Berners Lee whilst employed by state funded science programmes at CERN. 4. Electronic Computers - developed by governments to de-crypt enemy communication in WWII, Babbage was government funded as well. Most of Turings work had no commercial value, but was exploited later when technology was available. The mistake you make Ken, is to think commercial success equates to original thinking and research. It doesn't. Original thinking is not ideological. Ken said: "Then compare this with the central production of the power we need to produce the efficient power we have today." Efficient??? Power stations are extremely inefficient, even by ignoring the fact that most of the embedded energy of coal is never realised, the thermal cycle of a power station limits it's efficiency a great deal unless the heat energy is used for heating homes and businesses locally. Also, centralised power stations are just as much a socialist idea as anything. If you want free enterprise and individual responsibility, then renewables meet those needs. From a defence and security aspect, the renewables also come out on top due to their distributed nature.
  28. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    No - if the earth rotates once in 24 hours and every point on the earths surface is luuminated then the whole area of the arths is illuminated and not the area of the disk which has the same diameter so the factor of 4 used to reduce the solar "constant" of 1368 W/sq m TOA to 342 W/sq m TOA is invalid. I see we will never agree however the Stefan-Boltzman equation is either right or wrong. Climate scientists use it all the time and the way they apply the geometrical manipulations cannot explain the temperature on the moon. We can argue all day about planets where the atmosphere plays a significant role but the simple indisputable fact is if you apply the geometrical reduction to the moon you cannot explain the maximum temperature there. If it fails for the moon why is it valid for Venus, Earth or anywhere else ?
  29. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    60, Rosco, No, you are discounting albedo. The energy which is reflected is not absorbed. Note that the maximum temperature on the moon is 120C... that is, the spot on the moon that actually receives 1368 W/m2, for the brief period it does so, can achieve a temperature of 120C (if it hits something black). Really, Rosco, you're tying yourself in knots trying to prove what you misunderstand, when you should be stepping back and saying "whoa, everyone here says something else, and all of science says something else, maybe I better reconsider my position, open my mind, and read and learn instead of posting nonsense."
  30. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    50, Rosco, Your statement is nonsensical. The time over which the energy is distributed is irrelevant. Your inability to understand the factor of four is astounding. If you wish, lets use a day's worth of energy. As you stated, a Watt is measured in Joules per second, or an amount of energy delivered per second. As already stated, the total energy received by the earth in one second is 1.748310 x 1017 W. There are 86,400 seconds in an earth day, so if we multiply the two we get the total amount of energy (in Joules) received by the earth in 24 hours. 86,400 seconds times 1.748310 x 1017 W... or rather, 86,400 seconds times 1.748310 x 1017 J/sec gives 1.51053984 x 1022 Joules. If we divide that by the total area of the earth (again, from before, 5.1120196 x 1014 m2) we will get the average energy per square meter delivered to the earth in one earth day. So 1.51053984 x 1022 Joules / 5.1120196 x 1014 m2 gives us 2.9548788 x 107 Joules/m2. That is the amount of energy in Joules per square meter delivered to the earth in one earth day. But we'd like to get that number in J/sec/m2 (which is W/m2), so we'll divide by the number of seconds in one earth day, or 86,400 seconds. 2.9548788 x 107 J/m2 divided by 86,400 seconds is... you guessed it, 341.999862 J/sec/m2, or rather 341.999862 W/m2. Happy?
  31. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Properly applied physics says that the temperature is proportional to the radiative flux - Stefan-Boltzman. It is a simple equation with only 2 variables ! 342 W/sq m = ~278.68 K or ~5.5 C Maximum. 1368 W/sq m = ~394.12 K or ~ 121 C Maximum.
  32. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Eric @19, Re my comment that "S&B state that one cannot (with the current observations and observation system) disentangle the two (i.e., conduct a feedback diagnosis), but then go on to repeatedly and very confidently claim that ...." You are, of course correct, what I mean to say is that ".....Spencer repeatedly and confidently claims that clouds are a negative feedback". One does not have to look very far to find confirmation of this. From his latest blog post: "As I have challenged Dessler to do, if he really believes that is happening, then he should do LAGGED regression to estimate feedback…that is, adjust for the time lag in his regression analysis. And when he does that, his weak positive cloud feedback diagnosis will suddenly turn into a negative feedback diagnosis. I’ve done it, and it is what Lindzen and Choi did in their recently published paper, which resulted in a diagnosis of strongly negative feedback." That is but one of several examples of Spencer arguing that the cloud feedback is low, and he is at least consistent in that sense, since one cannot argue for a climate sensitivity for doubling 1.5 C without the cloud feedback being zero or negative. And it is very troubling that he is citing Lindzen and Choi at truth, when it has been thoroughly debunked, and that paper does deal only with the tropics. The reality remains that multiple, independent studies have found evidence for a positive cloud feedback, as discussed here at SkS. Another example of a weak positive cloud feedback is the warming over the Arctic (and a strong positive WV feedback) leading to increased cloud cover which at those high latitudes leads to further warming (see Screen and Simmonds, 2010): "Changes in cloud cover, in contrast, have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the atmosphere during summer and early autumn." 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.
  33. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Sorry should have said 255 K or minus 18 C.
  34. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    All of this has everything to do with Venus. How does the mean daytime temperature get to 380 K on the moon with no atmosphere but the earth, irradiated by the same irradiation, is minus 18 ? What does the mean temperature on the moon have to do with anything ? It is either illuminated (`1368 W/sq m) and hot or dark (~0 W/sq m) and cold.
  35. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    @Badgersouth- You've got to be kidding! Do you think the equations are just pulled out of the air, or are random polynomial expansions fitted to data? Let me give you a really simple example- the amount of temperature increase of an given amount of water exposed to a given amount of heat is governed by the heat capacity of water (fresh and salt water have differing heat capacities). The energy required to melt ice is a physical constant. Thus the rate of ice melting is governed by an equation based on this constant, the initial temperatuer of the ice and the amount of energy delivered to the ice. Each of these appears as an equation among many in the models. Insolation and heat retention are measured by satellite and become initial values and in part boundary conditions. Again- I've done this in industry, models are based on physics and chemistry...and they work when properly done. Mine did and there's check long since spent and hunk of crystal in my china cabinet that reflect the real world applicability of models. Pardon my confusion, but how could a model be any more physical?
  36. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    56, Rosco, No, it's temperature is 5.5C or less due to the moon's albedo. Of course, the moon has no atmosphere, so there is no opportunity for a greenhouse effect. The mean daytime temperature is 380K. The mean nighttime temperature is 120K. The overall mean temperature is 250K. This corresponds to an energy input of 221 W/m2, which is not surprising. It suggests an albedo of 221/342 or 0.65, which certainly fits with how bright the moon appears at night. Simple, properly applied physics. What does this have to do with Venus, by the way?
  37. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    Ken Said: "Does anyone remember, if you ever knew, that the Wright Brothers, Douglas, Ford, Marconi, Edison, et al, developed needed products without government subsidies. Yes, early models will cost more, but if the eventual payoff is apparent to the public, they will buy the products and free-enterprise moves on. We need to stop playing with a system that works." When is the 'market' going to take into account that CO2 emissions cause warming and hence long term damage? When that happens, then you would be correct. Economics has to change. But you are cherry picking in any case. There are a vast number of inventions that were government financed/initiated and are successful because of that initial backing. There is no ideology that is correct, sometimes public money does the trick, sometimes others sources are better.
  38. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    You miss the point - once equilibrium is reached the only way to increase the temperature is to increase the energy input - simply pumping in the same amount simply maintains the temperature. So if the moon is irradiated by 342 W/sq m as is claimed for Earth its temperature is ~5.5 C - Simple indisputable physics.
  39. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco, You're comparing the average temperature of earth that has a day/night cycle of 1 day, to the max and min temperature (not even average max or min temp) of the moon where the day/night cycle is 29 days. And it is a surprise that they differ?
  40. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Well sorry about the link in the previous post. It worked in June. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/moontemp.shtml - works. Google it and you'll find it is a little bit more than ~5.5 C. Draw your own conclusions. As I said - We have an anomaly that I find very interesting.
  41. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    TC - you are doing DC's homework! DC - do you get the same answer and if not, where is your working?
  42. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    @Dave123 #24: What do you mean when you say, "The real issue is not to offer model exlanations that falsely imply that the models aren't physical...?" Climate models are nothing more than a vast set of interlocking mathmatical eqations. How are they "physical"?
  43. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    scaddenp @51 Certainly - you cannot argue with accurately measured observations. If the energy input is 342 W/sq m which results in ~5.5 C check out the temperature on the moon which has no atmosphere. NASA provides all the facts - here is a link -http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/kids/moon_temperature. "During the day the temperature on the Moon can reach 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius), while at night it can drop to -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius). The Earth, which has an atmosphere, has a much more comfortable range of temperatures." As I said - We have an anomaly that I find very interesting.
  44. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Tom Curtis @ 48 says "You have not raised any interesting questions about the moon. You have merely cited a vaguely remembered maximum temperature. Apparently you base all your reasoning on the assumption that the maximum temperature is the only relevant temperature, but I am disinclined to follow you in that absurdity." But this is precisely what the Stefan-Boltzman formula relates - the temperature for a given radiative flux - well actually it is the reverse if we're being strictly correct - it gives the radiative flux for a given temperature.
  45. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco - how do you find out who is right? You measure it. See which number matches reality. Do you accept that this is the way science questions are settled?
  46. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    That arguement is simply wrong. It takes 24 hours to distribute the energy over the earth and during that time the earth has completed one rotation and the whole of the earth is irradiated. Therefore reducing the insolation by a factor of four is not valid. Remember, a watt is a joule/sec so considering any point on earth at a single point in time is valid. If a watt did not involve time the geometric analysis, though simplistic, may have some validity. Tom Curtis @ 48 says "You have not raised any interesting questions about the moon. You have merely cited a vaguely remembered maximum temperature. Apparently you base all your reasoning on the assumption that the maximum temperature is the only relevant temperature, but I am disinclined to follow you in that absurdity." I think we can agree that 342 W/sq m results in ~278.7 K or about ~5.5 C. Obviously you insist the geometrical analysis is the correct analysis. The moon has no atmosphere and is obviously about the same distance from the sun therefore exposed to the same radiation level. The moon's temperature during the day is not ~278.7 K or about ~5.5 C. Obviously we have an anomaly that I find very interesting.
  47. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Albatross, you say that S&B "then go on to repeatedly and very confidently claim that clouds are a forcing mechanism (without providing a sound physical mechanism), that the cloud feedback is negative and that as a result that climate sensitivity is low". True about the forcing claim (and mot describing a mechanism) but I don't think they claim cloud feedback to be negative. S&B state: "We hypothesize that changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate system. As seen in Fig. 3b for the ocean-only data, the signature of radiative forcing is stronger over the oceans than in the global average, suggesting a primarily oceanic origin." Sounds like strictly ENSO-driven forcing, not feedback. It's hard to directly answer your question about correctness. Spencer's main empirical claim (explained here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/radiative-changes-over-the-global-oceans-during-warm-and-cool-events/) is that he measures a higher rate of energy gain (or loss) of energy in the time leading up to a temp max (or min) than the models. Following the temp max (or min) he measures a higher rate of energy loss (or gain) than the models. That is "correct" but it is not very meaningful It is telling that about 19 months after the temperature max (or min) the loss (or gain) goes negative. It's pretty clear he is measuring the start of the next El Nino or La Nina at that point, not a feedback response of any sort. But then he then says "Now, if we assume that the radiative changes AFTER the temperature maximum (or minimum) are mostly a feedback response, then one might argue that the satellite data shows more negative feedback (lower climate sensitivity) than the models do." That is pretty clearly a wrong antecedent, the gains and losses must be mostly forcings to change sign the way he shows. Therefore the conclusion that the models show higher climate sensitivity than satellite is not supported. In that claim he is incorrect. OTOH, I don't think FG06 can support their claim that I quoted above. Their model is linear, contains no lag and ignores cloud forcings (assumes they are all feedback). With such gross oversimplifications on both sides I can't help but think Spencer is arguing about nothing. I have not looked at Dessler lately, but I will give it another look now.
  48. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    You still have not demonstrated how the solar constant is reduced from 1368 to 342
    Rosco, this is very, very, very simple. The amount of energy that strikes the earth is 1.748310 x 1017 W. [1368 W/m2 times the area of the earth that intercepts the sunlight, or 1.2780049 x 1014 km2]. Because the earth is rotating, this energy is distributed over the entire surface, not just one hemisphere. [Due to the geometry of a sphere versus the relatively linear approach of the sunlight the energy is not distributed evenly, but that issue is not yet a factor and is addressed later, we're only looking for the average energy per square meter. Note that your lengthy previous discussion of cosines and angles was wrong, and should be abandoned.] Albedo is not yet a factor. That is also considered later. We are simply looking for an average W/m2 to use for trivial calculations. The surface area of the earth is 5.1120196 x 1014 square meters. So we can compute the W/m2 as total energy received divided by total area receiving that energy, or 1.748310 x 1017 W / 5.1120196 x 1014 m2 = 341.99986 W/m2. It has now been explained to you. If you are incapable of following this simple logic, then you should simply stop posting. If you feel that you can dismiss this simple logic, merely because you want to but without a valid reason, then you are in serious denial and should perhaps apply some introspection to evaluate the cognitive dissonance that prevents you from rationally using your faculties to solve the very simplest aspects of the problem at hand, the foundation of which is accepted by every single actual climate scientist on the planet, including those who are also in serious denial about the final conclusions.
  49. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Tom @16, Thanks. that is a very thoughtful article by Grumbine. I particularly like the quote he provides from Feynman: "Richard Feynman's comment about fooling yourself is commonly quoted: We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. "Cargo Cult Science", adapted from a commencement address given at Caltech (1974): Sadly, Spencer is not only fooling himself, but fooling and misguiding many many others.
  50. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Eric @14, "So I don't think Wagner is correct that the scientific basis for rejecting SB11 is supported by Trenberth's refutation of LC09." I am in broad agreement with you. But Spencer and Braswell (2011) [S&B11] do in fact speak to the impact of ENSO on global temperatures, that is where Trenberth et al. (2010) comes into play. How did you miss that? Regardless, you seem to forget the pretty thorough refutation of S&B11 by Trenberth and Fasullo over at RC-- they have identified many problems with S&B11, as have Barry Bickmore and Arthur Smith. Did you read the article by Dr. Ashely? And this is all before what will probably be a thorough debunking OF S&B11 by Dessler next week. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here-- can you be clear do you think S&B are correct? Do you think that they used the correct methodology? Do you think that they adequately quantified the uncertainty in their analysis and data? Is Spencer's continued use of his clearly flawed simple model acceptable/appropriate for this study? Is his model physically realistic and plausible? I agree with S&B11 that disentangling and identifying the cloud feedback is tricky-- Dessler and Trenberth and FG06 seem to agree. But do you not see the obvious logical fallacy here Eric? S&B state that one cannot (with the current observations and observation system) disentangle the two (i.e., conduct a feedback diagnosis), but then go on to repeatedly and very confidently claim that clouds are a forcing mechanism (without providing a sound physical mechanism), that the cloud feedback is negative and that as a result that climate sensitivity is low. That is playing games Eric, that is clearly not science, certainly not good science. Spencer sees himself as some omniscient maverick who knows the truth while everyone else you disagrees with him is an idiot and/or part of some grand conspiracy led by Al Gore and the IPCC to suppress his genius. Well, the problem is that he does not have a sound track record, previously he has made brazen assertions that have turned out to be incorrect. Worse yet, the physics and data do not support a strongly negative cloud feedback or low climate sensitivity-- at least when analyzed correctly. Now feel free to hitch your horse to the Spencer et al. drama bandwagon (I hope that you do not) but should you choose to do so, please do not expect others to respect anyone who does so, especially when they are aware of the real facts. Clearly, Wagner had many very sound reasons for rejecting S&B11, and what he did was the difficult, selfless and honourable thing to do. By doing so he has called 'skeptics' on their game of sneaking seriously flawed papers though the peer-review process, something they have been doing since the early days at ClimateResearch with soon and Baliunas' bogus paper. Ironically, to this day, 'skeptics' cite that incident as a example of alleged "gate keeping", when in fact it was the 'skeptics' who were behaving badly and undermining the peer-review process. Same tricks by 'skeptics', just a different decade and a different journal.

Prev  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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