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  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  Next

Comments 75951 to 76000:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 ?
  3. 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."
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Sorry should have said 255 K or minus 18 C.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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"?
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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).
  36. 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'.
  37. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    muoncounter: This isn't a partial truth. So far in the Bakken, we have not had a problem. That is the actual truth. Marcus: The potential generation from anerobic bacteria is small, and very expensive. To get a large scale generation plant, the displacement of organic matter from the soils to a central point is large. The long term effects of taking organic matter from soils to a central location to generate energy does not justify this idea.
  38. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    The Jasper Kirkby CERN paper was published by Nature which I assume would have rejected the Spencer paper. So anti-AGW principles seem to be flexible. If Nature rejects a paper, there is a conspiracy, if a paper is excepted, the conspiracy is forgotten.
  39. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougC: Still haven't found any peer reviewed science in support of your pet theory? #204: "if the radius of the Earth were 9Km less, then, where the deepest borehole in Germany is located, it would be about 250 to 270 deg.C on the surface" That's a howler. The temperature gradient in the shallow borehole (9.1 km is shallow on the scale of the earth's radius) is linear. Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. In your slightly smaller earth hypothetical, 270 C at the surface results in much higher radiative loss, which therefore cools more quickly (unless trapped by greenhouse gases). Note: following are responses to points in a comment that was deleted (for good reasons) as I wrote this. These points do not violate CP. "effect of inflowing solar insolation is easily distinguished in the borehole data. The trend provides quantification." This is becoming Byzantine. Solar radiation at the surface flows into boreholes? Isn't the heat flow from the center of the earth, according to your postulates, a fairly large quantity in the opposite direction? Please explain that notion. "you are going to see Professors of Physics like Nahle rising up in unison." With due respect to Prf. Nahle (of the Mexican greenhouse experiments, said to 'confirm' the old Wood greenhouse-made-of-salt experiment), we do indeed have a small number of professors rising up against the AGW matter. However, none of their attempts at 'smashing' have succeeded and none of them posit that heat from the core has any impact whatsoever. These self-proclaimed 'bombshell experiments' only prove two things: a. small structures are a poor analogy to the earth/atmosphere system and b. the general public and self-taught pseudo-science 'skeptics' are easily swayed by hyped headlines. Then they go blog about it. Perhaps that last point is why you are having such difficulty finding any peer-reviewed research that supports your ideas. Until such time, you must agree that these ideas are merely your opinions. BTW, where is this article of yours published?
  40. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn#20: The Bakken is a naturally fractured shale. Horizontal wells drilled there years ago targeted these natural fracture systems; a horizontal wellbore has a greater chance of intercepting the more vertical fracture planes than do the conventional vertical wellbores. That is not the issue here. The massive fracs of the current round of horizontal boreholes that are under discussion here are a relatively newer application of older technology. Read the source you cite, which is dated January 2008: The third and current generation of horizontal drilling is a result of attaining much longer, deeper and more accurate placement of multiple horizontal well bores to exploit fractured source rocks (where it is coupled with new hydraulic fracturing technology) and heat injection wells (Canadian oil sands steam assisted gravity drainage) intended to boost both production rates and recovery factors. The present middle Bakken play in North Dakota and eastern Montana is an example of third generation horizontal drilling applications -- emphasis added Analogies: We had color TV sets 20 years ago, but we didn't have flat screen LCD. No one has 20 years of experience with flat screen TVs. We had particle accelerators 20 years ago, but we didn't have energies of 7 TeV until the LHC was finished. No one has 20 years of experience with such high energy. Moral: Merely repeating a partial truth over and over does not make it the whole truth.
  41. Models are unreliable
    Eclipse @386: 1) Doug Cotton is certainly not in a position to judge this (see point 4), and indeed is completely wrong. Specifically, climate models very accurately predict the change in radiative forcing due to changes in greenhouse gas levels. To give you an idea how accurate line by line models are in those predictions, here is a comparison of model data (dotted line) and observed data (solid line) over the Gulf of Mexico: Global circulation models are not quite that exact, but more than exact enough to narrow the expected temperature rise per doubling of CO2 to the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Copious physical evidence from diverse sources narrows that still further to 2 to 4.5 degrees C, with a most probable value of 3 degrees C. 2) An as yet unpublished paper that refutes a well established theory is worth no more than the paper it is currently printed on. In fact,from clues about the contents of that paper Cotton has left on this website, the paper is not only unpublished but unpublishable as it shows no knowledge of basic physical laws, including those relating to thermal conduction (the theory on which the paper is supposedly grounded), but also directly contradicts well determined measures of heat flux from the core to the surface. (I have linked you to my posts, but other posters have equally effectively rebutted Cotton's nonsense.) 3) Cotton just made that 99% figure up. In fact, the reduced rate of global warming is not unexpected given high aerosol emissions by China, a recent solar minimum lower than anything since 1910, and three strong La Nina's in just four years. But China is curtailing its emissions, La Nina's come and go, and the Sun is now well into its next solar cycle so expectations of anything but renewed warming are just wishful thinking. 4) Curiously I am responsible for this belief by Cotton. He came on this site saying the majority of thermal emissions from the Earth's atmosphere were from oxygen and nitrogen. This is an absurd falsity. When I demonstrated to him that he was wrong, he without pause or consideration switched to this new theory. He had just made a massive change in his theory but it made no difference at all to his conclusion, ie, that global warming is false. It is safe to conclude that Cotton want's to retain that conclusion, and no near detail of fact or logic will be allowed to prevent him from doing so. He is one of those unfortunate people of whom it can be said that he is always in error, but never in doubt.
  42. Models are unreliable
    DB inline @386, if only Doug Cotton where so succinct, and so sane in his theories.
  43. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DouglasCotton @208, in the Analytic Theory of Heat (1878), Joseph Fourier proved that if heat is conducted between a warmer and a colder surface, regardless of the difference in temperature between the two, the temperature gradient will be linear. The proof only applies between parallel surfaces, but for the Earth, the surface and a sphere 100 miles within surface approximate to parallel surfaces, so for practical purposes it applies. The immediate consequence of this is that if you find, in your bore holes, a near linear temperature gradient from the interior to the surface, all that you can conclude is that the temperature of the interior surface and at the surface are near constant, for that is a sufficient condition to generate that linear pattern. As it is known that within a few meters of the surface, diurnal and seasonal temperature variations are smoothed out, no further mystery remains for explanation. As Science of Doom puts it,
    "The basic equation of heat conduction is: q = kA . ΔT/Δx (see note 1) where ΔT is the temperature difference, Δx is the thickness of the wall, A is the area, k is the conductivity (the property of the material) and q is the heat flow. To make things slightly easier we consider heat flux – heat flow per unit area, q”: q” = k . ΔT/Δx"
    Very importantly, the rate of heat flow is directly proportional to ΔT/Δx, the change of temperature with distance. A very slow change of temperature with distance shows a very slow rate of heat transfer. A temperature gradient of 0.0276 degrees K/m (as detected in the KTB borehole) shows a very slow rate of heat transfer, inconsistent with your theory. The normal conductivity of rock is between 2 and 7 W/(m.K). Taking the high value, a 0.276 K/m thermal gradient represents a heat flux of just 0.1932 W/m^2, clearly inconsequential compared to the global average 240 W/m^2 received from the Sun. Your analogy of the coffee mug is clearly only applicable where the ambient external temperature is lower than the temperature the surface would be raised to from internal conduction alone, something which is clearly not true of the Earth. Again, and obviously, if it where true, the temperature gradient between equator and poles would effectively vanish.
  44. Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
    I've already seen comments around the blogs that are citing this as 'evidence' that the Great Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists have 'gotten to' the editor, forcing him to resign. Mind you, the same commenters are claiming that it's obvious & readily apparent that Spencer is completely correct, the other 98% of climate scientists are completely wrong, and furthermore that recent CERN paper 'proves' that CO2 doesn't cause warming! All this and more is apparently quite obvious if only you 'read between the lines' to see what those scientific papers really mean...
  45. Models are unreliable
    This was my (rather embarrassing and ill informed) tentative reply. *** I'm no scientist Doug, but isn't it the case that thermodynamics states heat energy can't move from a hot source to a hotter source? Doesn't heat always travel 'down' temperature grades? If greenhouse gases are emitting IR heat that they've prevented from radiating out into space, then surely the GHG's are the ones warming the other gases, not the other way around?
    Response:

    [DB] "isn't it the case that thermodynamics states heat energy can't move from a hot source to a hotter source?"

    The 2nd Law refers to Net heat exchange...

    "Doesn't heat always travel 'down' temperature grades?"

    For convection, yes.  Back radiation is 360 degrees...

  46. Models are unreliable
    "The Conversation" has a sceptic asking the following. Anyone got an answer? Doug Cotton starts with this... < quote > Speaking of error bars, Michael, in this paper http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2003JD004457.shtml Zhang et al claim to "reduce the overall uncertainties from 10–15 to 5–10 W/m2 at TOA and from 20–25 to 10–15 W/m2 at SRF." Now, empirical data appears to suggest that the difference between upwelling and downwelling flux at TOA tends to range between about plus and minus 0.5% of total incoming insolation. It seems to me that those error bars are, in most cases, too large to even confirm with certainty whether the net flux is positive or negative, that is, whether we should expect warming or cooling. < end quote > Then claims this: < quote > Doug Cotton Doug Cotton Maths and Physics university tutor Score: +1 insightful + report abuse • unconstructive - I don't think that is really the case Michael. The post below was just deleted within an hour from today's thread about media reporting. Yes, I agree there is a "consensus among scientists" but history is full of examples when "the science" of the day, or "the medicine" of the day has ultimately been proven wrong. Majorities are not always right. So why should the media block out those who put forward legitimate questions about the science? Without such questioning (which should not be equated with scepticism) nothing will ever change in this world and errors will be perpetuated. There are four main areas, as I see it, which need careful consideration in the climate debate and which I, for one, question: (1) The degree of accuracy in the models used by the IPCC and others is simply not sufficient to prove that warming should be happening. In general, they determine the difference between downwelling and upwelling radiation and it is only this difference which (depending on its sign) indicates warming or cooling. But the difference in fact is rarely more than 0.5% (plus or minus) of the total incoming solar insolation. The error in the figures used to determine such a difference is greater than that. Hence there is no valid proof from the models than we have +0.5% rather than, say, -0.5%. (2) An as yet unpublished study of temperature data from hundreds of boreholes (being prepared by myself and colleagues) reveals that there is a very strong correlation between surface temperatures and the temperatures determined by an extrapolation of the underground temperature plot determined only from measurements more than 200 metres underground which are well beyond the influence of solar insolation. The probability of this happening at random is absolutely infinitesimal. Hence we can deduce that underground temperatures supported by heat flowing out from the core are the forcing factors, rather than any processes relating to solar insolation or gases in the atmosphere. (3) Trenberth's trend (shown at the top here http://climate-change-theory.com ) shows a curved line now past its maximum and starting to decline. Adding data to 31 Aug 2011 shows that downward trend continuing. (Sea surface temperatures (using highly accurate NASA data) are probably the best indicator because about 90% of heat above the crust is stored in the oceans and sea ice.) The gradient of this curved trend is now statistically significantly different from the lowest gradient of IPCC projections. This proves such projections incorrect with 99% probability. (4) The role of greenhouse gases in radiating away heat obtained by collision with non-greenhouse molecules would not appear to be considered in the models. Oxygen in particular is a very stable molecule which radiates very little itself at atmospheric temperatures. Nitrogen is a close second. Quantum mechanics shows why molecules can only radiate the frequencies (wavelengths) which they can also absorb. < end quote > And this: < quote> "Yes, we know IR radiation is captured by GH gas molecules, and further photons are then re-emitted. The emission of even more photons takes place as the GH gas molecules (including CO2 of course) cool off. Some of the radiation goes back to Earth, then heats the Earth and more conduction and radiation occurs as a result. Heat is carried upwards partly by radiation and partly by physical movement of molecules - ie convection. Eventually, between 99.5% and 100.5% of all incoming solar insolation is radiated to space. So yes, GH gas can delay the process by a few minutes, maybe an hour or two, but it can also speed up the process of cooling 98% of air molecules. Who knows which dominates? By night nearly all heat will escape, except in local summer when the oceans will warm, but lose their extra heat again by winter. The models appear to "overlook" the above potential cooling effect. But, even if I'm wrong on that (and someone else show me where) the models are still not accurate enough to be able to determine whether it is 99.5% or 100.5% and that makes all the difference between warming and cooling. The world has been misled by bad statistical accounting for margins of error. You simply can't take a difference of two numbers each over 300 (with errors about plus or minus 5) and prove that the difference is +1 rather than -1 for example. " < end quote > Anyone got any papers on this?
    Response:

    [DB] Eclipse, Mr. Cotton feels his own special pet hypothesis, using as-yet-undiscovered physics, proves that the Earth is warm due to heat escaping from it's core. 

    Thus, he (Mr. Cotton) is right despite a lack of any published studies to support his position.  And therefore hundreds of years of research by hundreds of thousands of scientists is wrong, despite an overwhelming amount of physical evidence to the contrary.

    Dialogue with Mr. Cotton is thus impossible, as science says that 2+2=4.  Mr. Cotton says it equals 16 and also that on Tuesdays water flows uphill, the sky is green and the Moon is actually made of cheese (Edam, I believe...as we could smell it from here if it was Limburger).

  47. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn, according to this site: http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/002318.html there are over 150 anaerobic digesters in the US, not 2 as you claim. Though the majority of them are associated with sheep & cattle farms, advances in the understanding of enzymes that break down cellulose (like those in Pandas & Termites) will allow crop waste to be increasingly used as a feed-stock. Also, the by-products of digestion are sufficiently rich in nutrients for them to be useful to crop & pasture farmers. My point is this-why defend a fairly risky technique for extracting non-renewable sources of gas when we have perfectly acceptable sources of gas which can be obtained in a far more benign & sustainable fashion?
  48. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    Ken @ 26 -"The Wright Brothers were competing with Langley" Unless either of those two parties were massively wealthy, and receiving massive subsidies from the government, your analogy is a false one. " If it bothers you that people are getting wealthy with government subsidies, we are on the same page..." No, different chapter, perhaps even a different book. What troubles me is that a 100 year old industry (older actually if you include coal and gas) is still receiving handouts at the taxpayers expense. How is that in any shape or form connected to free-market ideals? And, of course, what really concerns me is the incredible damage being done to the environment, not only through the extraction process itself, but the the long-term climate effects of fossil fuel combustion, which are largely irreversible on human timeframes. "so I just designed and had manufactured a one-of-a-kind telescope mount prototype.... Good for you Ken, but how is that going to prevent the oceans acidifying and all but eliminating coral reefs from the planet for instance?
  49. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco @47, I have explained it in steps so small a grade 9 education is sufficient to follow, as proved by my explaining it to my daughter (who will no doubt have a good laugh if I show her this conversation). If you have not understood it, read again with care. It is not too hard. 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.
  50. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn, I find it highly offensive for you to question my knowledge of soil science when all you've given us to back yourself up so far is very weak anecdotal "evidence" to back your claims, both in relation to the "safety" of frakking & the "dangers" of anaerobic digestion & capture of fugitive emissions as a viable alternative to frakking. The desperation with which you deny global warming & defend the coal & oil industry leaves me with very valid questions about what you *really* do for a living.

Prev  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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