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  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  Next

Comments 75851 to 75900:

  1. 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  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online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.

  2. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    @Dave123 #26 No need for you to be snooty. Your phrase, "physical models" is a tad unusual.
  3. 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 ?
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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!
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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:
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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 ?
  17. 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."
  18. 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?
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Sorry should have said 255 K or minus 18 C.
  22. 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.
  23. 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?
  24. 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?
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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?
  28. 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.
  29. 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?
  30. 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"?
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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?
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Interesting comments by Robert Grumbine on how the peer review system is supposed to work, and what can make it fail.
  40. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Following comments on other sites on this topic, will Fox News, Lou Dobs, and others retract their coverage of a blantantly false paper. Will any apologies be heard from the right wing media? ..........................................................................crickets,,,,,,,tumbleweeds
  41. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Spencer in press releases makes unsupported claims (see Albatross's link above). Other blogs pick up on those same claims, essentially that short term feedback to radiative forcings is small or negative and that somehow implies climate sensitivity is low. But SB11 actually says: "We conclude that the fundamental obstacle to feedback diagnosis remains the same, no matter what time lag is addressed: without knowledge of time-varying radiative forcing components in the satellite radiative flux measurements, feedback cannot be diagnosed from the co-variations between radiative flux and temperature." Forster and Gregory (2006) also hint at one such component: "Another possibility is that internal variability in the climate system produces fluctuations in cloud cover, causing cloud forcings, especially in the shortwave, that will be seen in N and produce a lagged response in (delta)Ts and cloud feedbacks." But FG06 also makes a stronger claim: "The years 1995 and 1985 span the range of global (delta)Ts anomalies seen in the time series. Figure 7 shows that the change in surface temperature between these two years has a pattern that is a little like that of both the observed long-term surface temperature trends (e.g., Houghton et al. 2001, their Fig. 2.9d). Furthermore, Fig. 1 shows that the 1985–97 temperature changes are occurring throughout the troposphere, in a similar man- ner to that expected from long-term climate change. Therefore, we argue that the Y values we derive from the regression are likely to be representative of those due to longer-term climate change." I don't think Trenberth et al (2010) addresses these broader claims, rather it points out the errors in LC09. So I don't think Wagner is correct that the scientific basis for rejecting SB11 is supported by Trenberth's refutation of LC09. But instead Wagner points to the improper interpretations by blogs, press releases by Spencer, etc. along with the evidence of warming like sea ice. In short the "comparable" (Wagner's words) "refuted" studies like LC09 are in fact not comparable and were refuted for different reasons. For more see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity-from-satellite-measurements.html
  42. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct. The only argument I have seen is that Professor Wagner was pressured by the scientific community to make this statement and resignation. Nevertheless bad science is vigorously supported in the right wing media.
  43. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DC#210: " from a "small structure" experiment " That's interesting; I didn't realize the IPCC existed in the mid 19th century. "congratulated by Prof Nahle" Great! No doubt you will soon hear from other such luminaries as John O'Sullivan. Have you read Pratt's version of this so-called bombshell? First it is documented so sketchily as to make it impossible to duplicate faithfully. Second, it contradicts the understanding of a century of physicists who preceded Wood, starting with Fourier in 1824. Third, calculation of the quantity of heat that should be trapped by the glass window in Wood's experiment shows that fully two-thirds of the heat entering the box fails to be transmitted back through the window, ... Wood makes no attempt to reconcile his one observation with this elephant in the room. Still waiting for any peer-reviewed research that supports in any way this core-heat-means-we-can-ignore-the-sun idea. As I frequently remind my students, if you really think you have found something new in physics, please let me accompany you to Stockholm. But before you buy your plane ticket and rent a tux, check your work.
  44. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Good article by Ashley linked in Albatross' comment #8, by the way. I particularly like the link to Skeptical Science :-) But it's a very good overview and easy to follow.
  45. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    Has anybody heard the names of the three peer-reviewers for Spencer and Braswell's paper? Wagner said all three were probably "skeptics." It would be helpful to know who they were.
  46. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    I believe Ken's argument about "green energy companies going broke and walking away with our tax money" is based on the solitary example of Solyndra. Let's face it, once this news broke we all knew certain parties would exploit it to pretend it's the norm for all green tech companies. I'm sure it's all over Fox News.
  47. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Apparently there is fear of a virus on our group site which is not the case, and no documents need to be downloaded anyway. To save posting a link I have copied this page which answers objections and explains why it is the Sun's heat which warms, not the trickle of heat from the core. It also explains the inflow of heat into the core. [snipped]
    Moderator Response: Don't post lengthy content that is available via links.
  48. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #208 I have replied but it's gone - you know where to look for answers to your objections. #209 Of course you haven't found anything else on my as yet unpublished work - because it is original research. I have been congratulated by Prof Nahle though. The IPCC got their original idea that carbon dioxide might cause warming from a "small structure" experiment - the very one which Prof Nahle debunked.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The last paragraph is complete nonsense. The basic theory of the greenhouse effect was worked out by Gilbert Plass over 60 years ago. It has been well known going back at least that far that the "greenhouse effect" doesn't work in the way that Prof. Nehle debunked. Do yourself a favour and go and read Spencer Wearts book (online version here) and catch up with the last half-century of research on this topic.
  49. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn#28: Once again. The partial truth you keep repeating is 'we have 20 years of experience.' The graphic below shows the history of the US part of the Bakken play. So I will say again: yes, there were horizontal wells 20 years ago. But the red vertical line explicitly shows the onset of the recent boom in horizontal drilling. The reason rig counts and production spiked up during this boom? Massive fracs during the last 7 or 8 years mean better payouts (spiking price of oil helped with that as well).
  50. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    DM #66 and KR#68 The forcings shown in the table from IPCC AR4 are all at 2005 referenced to year 1750. This makes all the forcings except Solar both relative (changes) and absolute numbers because there were assumed to be zero anthropogenic effects in 1750. Not so with Solar. We cannot assume that the Solar forcing was zero in 1750, because that would imply that the planet was at equilibrium - neither warming nor cooling. Hence the 0.12W/M2 'change' from 1750 is not effectively referenced to zero as are the other forcings. For example if the sun was warming the Earth at a rate of say 0.5W/M2 in 1750, then the absolute value in 2005 would be 0.5 + 0.12 = 0.62W/M2. It could be a negative number if the Earth were cooling in 1750 but the liklihood is that it was warming out of the little ice age. In my example the 0.62W/M2 should be added to the total forcings and not the 0.12W/M2. Dr Hansen is saying in his latest paper that the Aerosol cooling is about -1.5W/M2 which reduces the above IPCC totals to about 1.3W/M2 and the climate responses are about -0.7W/M2 which makes the net imbalance about 0.6W/M2. The solar forcing effect is therefore minimized in the IPCC table and could be more significant, particularly given the low LOSU of the aerosol and other forcings.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] We're now solidly off-topic. Please take solar forcing discussion to a more appropriate thread, such as the intermediate version of 'It's the sun'.

Prev  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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