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  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  Next

Comments 76501 to 76550:

  1. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Scaddenp, What technological solutions do you feel are available, or could be made available in the next decade to reduce the consumption of either coal or oil? Political posturing aside, which technologies have the potential to be implemented?
  2. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon, I still disagree that the polls are indicating confusing among the general population. Belief in global warming is but one reason to support government investment in alternate energy. Energy independence from OPEC and the big oil companies or cheap alternatives to rising oil prices are some others. I do not trust the politicians or bureaucrats on either side of the debate when it comes to scientific understanding, and I do not believe that most other people do either (although I have heard people claim it is so because they heard it from whomever). Yes, Obama is moving towards the center. The polls show similar thinking from the moderate camp of each party through the independents in the center. Those outside this area will find difficult running come election time. Both Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats are outside this area and unless their constituents feel likewise, have election night struggles. Gerrymandering has create many districts which push towards both extremes allowing many of the politicians to get elected. The Texas heatwave is generally blamed on the strong La Nina. Passing it off as AGW influenced is the type of misinformation that is causing people to distrust climate scientists, as shwon in the previously posted polls.
  3. Dikran Marsupial at 21:47 PM on 25 August 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Dr Doom Point #1 Full equilibrium temperature is only reached after the thermal inertia of the oceans is achieved. That takes thousands of years. The estimate given by Schwartz is for short term perturbations of the climate system, e.g. due to volcanic eruptions, not long term changes in forcings due to e.g. a rise in atmospheric CO2. Schwartz certainly is not ignorant, but your interpretation of his work is clearly incorrect (further discussion of Schwartz' work belongs on the thread I linked to above). Your calculation may be in the range considered plausible by the scientific community, however the method used to obtain the estimate was based on faulty assumptions, as explained earlier in the thread. The fact that your result is plausible doesnt correct the error in the reasoning. In science it is not enough to get the answer right, the chain of reasoning by which it was obtained and the assumptions used must also be valid. Point #2 the fact that dy/dx tends to 0 as x tends to infnity does not imply that there is a meaningful limit to CO2 radiative forcing, at least not one that has any bearing on a discussion of climate. Point #3, as I have already explained, CO2 radiative forcing does not saturate, no logarithmic function saturates because as dy/dx tends to zero as x tends to infinity, at that point y tends to infinity. So if you really insist, you could say that a logarithmic relationship saturates at infinity. You write: "If there is, what is the limit?" I have told you repeatedly that there is no limit, other than the trivial limit you will get when the atmosphere is 100% CO2 and contains all of the available carbon and oxygen on the planet.
  4. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    100, les, Wow. I knew Motl was wrong on the science, but I didn't know he lived in such an angry bizarro opposite-world. He says (I still can't believe it... my fingers feel dirty just having done the copy/paste):
    So I started to maintain a list with names of the most notorious alarmists and the number of years they should spend in prison (not to speak about the separate "electric chair" list). You're encouraged to do the same thing.
    Anyone who can't see the difference between the post here at SkS and that sort of behavior needs a major perspective adjustment.
  5. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    # 243: "There is not enough time in the 2oth century to attain equilibrium sensitivity. 100 years are not enough?" Riddle me this: Is the atmospheric CO2 concentration in equilibrium? Has it stopped increasing? Therein lies your answer.
  6. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    55 Tom Curtis - "This is a witch hunt." Just for everyone's amusement, from the Dept. of fact-twisting... http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/john-cook-will-receive-lots-of-money.html
  7. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    I stopped reading the comments because the personal references continue. I’m not the subject of this blog so my knowledge or ignorance is irrelevant. What matters is the explanation why an argument is right or wrong. Point #1 There is not enough time in the 2oth century to attain equilibrium sensitivity. 100 years are not enough? If you start at the end of 20th century up to present, that’s 11 years. Still not enough? Mind you, Schwartz initially estimated the time constant at 5 years. Later he adjusted it to 8.5 years. Other estimates are 15 to 17 years. All are below 100 years. Are they all ignorant? My simple calculation of climate sensitivity is < 1.9C. In scientific studies, the lowest estimate is 0.5C. Various studies put the lower bound at 1.5C. IPCC claims < 1.5C is unlikely. But may I add not impossible. Gregory put it at 1.6C with 90% confidence level. Schwartz put it at 1.9C plus or minus 1.0C. Right smack my simple calculation. All these figures are within my estimate. Are they all ignorant? Point #2 As already demonstrated, a logarithmic function indeed as a limit of zero on dy/dx. Do you still need proof that this is true? Point #3 Is the CO2 effect saturated? Clearly my answer is no. Or else I wouldn’t be computing the CO2 sensitivity. I would have just said it’s futile because the sensitivity is zero. You misunderstood my point. My question was, is there a saturation effect as implied by the CO2 sensitivity which is logarithmic? Obviously it is not saturated now but will it ever be? If there is no such thing, dy/dx should not converge to zero. It should not be a logarithmic function. Let’s develop a non-logarithmic function. Hulburt did not falsify the CO2 saturation hypothesis. To quote this website: “the details of the absorption in the lower troposphere do not matter since heat "is spread around and transferred upward by convection". In other words, what govern the energy balance of the earth is the radiative balance in the upper troposphere and CO2 concentration there does matter.” So it’s the CO2 concentration in the upper troposphere that matters, not the lower troposphere. It didn’t say whether there is a saturation CO2 concentration in the upper troposphere. Definitely there is less CO2 molecules in upper than in lower troposphere. But if there is a clear cut answer, scientists should say that CO2 saturation is physically impossible. If so, it means CO2 can absorb more than the solar flux of 342 W/m^2. There is no limit. Not even by the finite solar energy. If there is, what is the limit? For those who wish to reply, please no more personal references of “ignorance” or whatever positive or negative personal attributes. Just address the arguments. Don’t be too defensive, I’m not trying to falsify AGW. I’m just interested in climate science.
    Response:

    [DB] Playing the "injured bird" routine just smacks of tone troll.  DM aready went this route with you, so please just focus on the science.

    Ignoring previous comments due to the perceived tone is specious.

  8. actually thoughtful at 16:59 PM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Eric the red - can you provide an example of thinking for themselves amongst those who are denying climate change? I assume we can rule out those that parrot the mindless talking points of the radio hosts. "Thinking for themselves" implies critical thinking. I am at a loss to come up with a widely accepted denier position that includes critical thinking; indeed it would appear most denier positions require a lack of critical thinking (take a look around this site for examples). There are certainly a few issues where more research is required (ocean heat content, my old favorite, for one). But were is that nuanced, critical thought and position amongst the right in the US? To my eyes it has been in steep decline for the last 10 years or so. The election of Bush (and rejection of Al Gore) seemed to mark an inflection point where the right began to support some pretty major departures from fact based science to form their worldview.
  9. actually thoughtful at 16:53 PM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    I find it highly ironic that Texas is suffering from an AGW influenced heat wave (as in loss of life, loss of business, agriculture losses) - as in SUFFERING. Yet the leader of that state is the biggest shill for it is not happening. Does he not know what state he represents?
  10. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    BTW, I emailed Gavin Schmidt suggesting a short feature at realclimate on this footnote in science history. I make the same request here. Ray Sorenson has replied to an email from me laying out a little detail as to how he came across the entry in Annual of Scientific Discovery, and another interesting item regarding a near-simultaneous discovery of the heat absorbing properties of CO2 by another researcher (1863). I've asked for permission to reproduce portions of the email and provided him a link to this thread. I'll update here if he has any issues with this.
  11. OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering

    second summary post

  12. OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
    @rjowens: Please clarify your point. From the post above:
    But, as we shall see in later posts, when atmospheric CO2 is high then more acidic rain causes more weathering and that consumes CO2 to lower the atmospheric CO2. Only problem is that this happens over a geological time scale.
  13. OA not OK part 18: Been this way before

    second summary post

  14. OA not OK part 17: Pumping currents

    second summary post

  15. OA not OK part 16: Omega

    second summary post

  16. OA not OK part 15: No accounting for taste

    second summary post

  17. OA not OK part 14: Going down

    second summary post

  18. OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon

    second summary post

  19. OA not OK part 12: Christmas present

    second summary post

  20. OA not OK part 11: Did we do it? Yes we did!

    second summary post

  21. OA not OK part 7: Le Chatelier not good enough for ocean acidification

    second summary post

  22. OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1

    second summary post

  23. OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)

    second summary post

  24. OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?

    second summary post

  25. OA not OK part 1

    second summary post

  26. OA not OK part 2: Thermodynamic duo

    second summary post

  27. OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home

    second summary post

  28. OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH

    second summary post

  29. OA not OK part 5: Reservoir dogs

    second summary post

  30. Ocean acidification: Coming soon

    second summary post

  31. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Camburn, sorry for hammering the point, but I am perfectly convinced that there are technological solutions of all sort. The problem is a political solution to get the change to happen. Sometime in the next 30 years, constraints on oil production are going to give sufficient price signal to change that. However, at the moment, the price of power from coal reflects only production cost (which are subsidized to boot) and there is a lot of coal left. If a government wants an end to coal, how would it change that? Don't say "support nuclear" - what support for nuclear that is compatible with your political values, would cause nuclear stations to be built instead of coal ones?
  32. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    OK. I used to be an advocate of wind, but experience with a wind farm has shown the realiability of wind at peak power need does not fit the bill. Soloar is much the same. When I think of solutions, I think of solutions that are reliable, will provide electricity on demand. I also look at cost. With wind, you have to have another generation system as backup. This is duplication of costs, and not an effective utilization of precious resources. The same applies for solar, altho to a less extent. I do feel there are areas of the world that solar would work well with little redundancy. When I say economics, I think of mankind as a whole. There are millions of people who have not enough food, no work, limitied ability to expand economically. Lifespan is short, life is hard. By using current tech, reliable tech, we will have enough resources to expand eocnomicially for the good of all mankind. As far as fossil fuel consumption for transportation, the swing to more economical cars is evident in the sales of said cars. They should all be diesel as well as that internal combustion engine is much more efficent than a comparable gas engine, and hence, produces less co2 and pollution per gallon of energy consumed. At this time, I can see no practicle alternatives to large horsepower requirements being met with elec or such. If someone knows of one, I am all ears. Innovation is also something that comes over time. Right now I am trying to get a grad student to do an economic analysis of using wind generated elec to produce h, and then to produce nitrogen for crops. This would be better than using ch4, but at this time I do not know the economics of this. To me, as an idea, this is well suited for wind as the generation requirement does not have to be 24/7. It is taking wind, producing a produce that is currently produced from natural gas, and producing it from water, wind, etc with no detrimental environmental effects. Might sound crazy, but it might work as well as N, which is required for crops, is getting extemelty expensive. Tired, as I am harvesting. Thanks for reading.
  33. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#33: "both the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are separate from the general populace, which is fairly consistent." The question here is not R vs. D; the question here is identifying what the general population of Rs say they believe vs. what their candidates are pushing at them. You say politicians listen to the polls; it's not happening. If anything, the R candidates are driving each other into increasingly radical positions; surely you are not saying that the general population of Rs is driving that? And of course, you miss the fact that President Obama keeps moving towards the center. "polls are saying that they are separate issues among the voters." Polls are saying that Rs are confused. They say they don't believe in AGW, but they support government investment in alternative energies. Their leaders would take solar panels off the White House (oh, they already did that one). "I don't not think they are being misled by those they trust" So do you trust Limbaug, Beck, Bachmann and Palin? Enough to go all-in with the climate hanging in the balance? But 'thinking'? Based on the repetition of the talking points by Rs whenever possible, there's no evidence of any thinking. Thinking is hard work.
  34. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    If the quotes are examples of their "thinking" then God help you if one these clowns become president. They are examples of ignoring evidence and going with what you hope is true. WoMD anyone? In what areas of public policy is this not going to be a disaster?
  35. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon, Your poll regarding Republicans is only ten percentage points higher than the general populace (62% vs. 52%). One could assume that Democrats are ~42%, which is a difference of 20 percentage points, and similar to other polls. As I mentioned earlier, both the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are separate from the general populace, which is fairly consistent. You are constantly trying to tie energy efficiency to global warming and the political parties. This is why you see it as inconsistent. The polls are saying that they are separate issues among the voters. Contrary to Bern's assertion, I don't not think they are being misled by those they trust, but rather thinking for themselves.
  36. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Bern#29: I've recently quoted Dr. Curry, of all people, for some psychological insight: “All else being equal, individuals tend to be significantly better at detecting fallacies when the fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they disbelieve, than when the same fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they believe. ... “As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases . . . “Over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation” --emphasis added And if you can't trust a skeptic blogger to know a bit about fallacy in argument, who can you trust? She's an expert in that department, after all.
  37. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    pirate#30: You cited a poll from 2010, as did I. See DB response to #18. However, I did give you a shout-out in #22.
  38. apiratelooksat50 at 12:24 PM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon Ignoring 20? I gave you what you asked for...
  39. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    muoncounter @ 28: I don't agree that they simply believe what they are told to believe - I think it's more nuanced than that. They believe what appears to be a sensible conclusion based on the information they have. Unfortunately, their chosen trusted information sources are right-leaning media, who tend to trumpet false 'facts' about global warming, and spread disinformation like it's going out of style. So it's not a matter of them doing what they're told, rather they are being misled by those they trust. The problem for the rest of us is to figure out how to convince these people that they are being lied to. Given the attack on the credibility of science in general, and climate science in particular, that's no small task...
  40. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    16 decades later I am excited for Eunice Foote. Raymond Sorenson, the author of the monograph, should be congratulated.
  41. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Thanks for the 2 part summary, Doug. It stitched the pieces together nicely and I now have some grasp of the process.
  42. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    I found the pdf on Eunice Foote seventh in the list on a google search, where the terms were the title of John Tyndall's 1859 paper: "Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies" I'd be curious to know if other people find the article close to the top, as I did. Suggests it's a popular link, doesn't it? Good news - you HAVE to love google and diligent librarians. I think this is confirmed. Check this link: http://www.archive.org/stream/annualscientifi02crosgoog#page/n169/mode/2up If you want to backtrace, I got that link from here, which I got from here. First search term was the title of the David Welles digest, "Annual of Scientific Discovery", and it was dead easy to do the rest. I think that has to be legitimate. Agreed?
  43. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Thank you so much for putting this series together. I'll be glad for the booklet to come out, too, for I'll be both reading and re-reading it, and sharing it with friends and associates.
  44. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#27: "I see no contradiction between the two surveys." Missing the point yet again? The table I posted above shows that clear majorities of Repubs are in favor of: - requiring increased energy efficiency - federal investment in renewable energy sources - mass transit - nuclear power You can pretend that this combination is just about efficiency if you want. But (except for nukes) these are neither Tea Party nor deep denial-type positions (see Heartland Institute or American Enterprise for those; AEI is even against energy efficiency!) Nor are they Libertarian Party positions. The (now) leading candidate (Guvna P) is diametrically opposed to the federal govt requiring or investing in anything (unless Texas needs the money). Well, he likes nukes -- and here's why: “We don’t have tsunamis in Texas.” The man's a genius! A separate table in the linked article shows that a majority of Repubs - don't see solid evidence of warming (it's not happening - 62%), - don't see warming as a problem (it's not bad - 57%) - don't believe science agrees on the anthropogenic cause (there's no consensus - 58%). My take on that internally inconsistent (and incorrect) profile is that they simply believe what they are told to believe by the disinformation industry.
  45. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    Wow, nice find barry! I wonder if Tyndall heard about this piece of work? If this is correct, Eunice Foote certainly deserves to be mentioned as Sphaerica says, a further demonstration of the antiquity of this branch of science. And in its day a major coup for a female scientist.
  46. Greenhouse effect has been falsified
    I don't believe it is generally agreed that falling temperatures with increasing altitute are the result of the GHE. The term is actually called the adiabatic lapse rate. Howere, I think this needs more consideration. For instance this paper by Verkley and Gerkema is relevant: “A column of dry air in hydrostatic equilibrium ….. bounded by two fixed values of the pressure, and the question is asked, what vertical temperature profile maximizes the total entropy of the column? Using an elementary variational calculation, it is shown how the result depends on what is kept fixed in the maximization process. If one assumes that there is no net heat exchange between the column and its surroundings—implying that the vertical integral of the absolute temperature remains constant—an ISOTHERMAL profile is obtained in accordance with classical thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of gases” http://www.nioz.nl/public/fys/staff/theo_gerkema/jas04.pdf If that would not be the case, it would be possible to build a machine that makes mechanical energy from a single source of heat. This goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The natural intuition that the temperature must be warmer at the bottom, because molecules gain energy, when falling, is wrong because it’s exactly compensated by another phenomenon: Those molecules that have little energy cannot go up as well as those with more energy. This is not to deny that the sudden imposition of a gravitational field on a column of gas would indeed set up a temperature gradient. It would – but it wouldn’t persist. It would quickly be homogenized and the column would become isothermal. So if a column of gas behaves this way would a GH free atmosphere behave the same way too? Without the driving force of IR radiation from the upper reaches of the atmosphere there would be very little net heat flux in our column of air. There would be no re-radiation of course and very little convection. A GH free atmosphere would be very different from our present one and approximately much more closely to an isothermal state. So if this is the case, then we can show that the GHE has not been falsified simply by climbing a mountain and noticing that it does indeed get colder.
  47. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    muon, I see no contradiction between the two surveys. The error is in assuming that energy efficiency and global warming abatement are linked. The surveys indicate that most people want to do something about energy independence and efficiency, but not necessarily global warming. These numbers are similar to those in the survey to which I linked earlier. Also, you will notice that there is no difference across the politcal spectrum from moderate Republicans to Democrats. The only difference occur at the extremes.
  48. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    EtR - as stated in the article, efficiency gains by themselves are incapable of making much difference - slowing the rate of increase at best. Look at breakdown of where energy is used, look at maximum possible efficiency gain and see what total you can get. I can highly recommend MacKay's "sustainably energy without the hot air" as a starting point. I think constraints on fuel supply will reduce FF use in transport sector, but coal is the real issue. There enough coal left in the world to really damage the climate. You need to propose policies that will end coal use.
  49. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @Rob #24 I forgot to say what browser I am using: it is FF 3.6.17 under Fedora 13 with NoScript installed. And now I see that you are right: the visible text actually does form coherent sentences with no missing words. But there should be a margin (or padding) between the text and the graphic; there is none, creating the appearance that words are covered up.
  50. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @quokka, #10: Hunstman is a breath of fresh air among the Republican dunces. He even appeared on the NPR show, "Wait, wait, don't tell me", showing that he not only has a brain, but he isn't afraid to use it;) Knowing that, I think it must pain him greatly to see how the Republican party simply refuses to look reality in the face, instead insisting on a reckless path to devastation of the whole biosphere, all for the sake of profit.

Prev  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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