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  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  Next

Comments 77351 to 77400:

  1. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    muoncounter: We have been using horizontal drilling for 20 years in North Dakota. The 5% of wells that fail, maybe out east, I don't know. IF we had 5% well failutre here we would know about it. We have a test well system checking the water supply throughout the whole state, not just in the oil fields. I only know what has been happening in the Bakken formation of North Dakota. It is working well here.
  2. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DCotton#204: Your borehole plot here is only 9100 m in depth. The radius of the earth, last I checked, was 6.36x10^6 m, so the borehole is a sample of 0.14% of the whole. If you want to go on forming opinions based on that sample size, enjoy. Seismology, however, constructs a thermal structure for the whole earth. Note the vertical scale; where would the 9.1 km borehole appear? Actual science does not support in any way extending the borehole down to the core with a straight line. Not to burden you with another paper to read, but van der Hist et al 2007 found the core's heat loss at a whopping global average of 50 to 100 mW m–2. Note the use of mW; that's milliWatts. BTW, how's the search for peer-reviewed research supporting any of your ideas coming along? Or are we still in the realm of your personal opinion?
  3. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DC - thermal flux from the earth is around 40-60mW/m2, ie trivial compared to solar. Your statements about interpreting the borehole data is not supported by physics (modelling temperature flow in sedimentary basins is what I do for a living - it critical for determination of when oil is generated). I can only assume you have made a truly gross error in your calculation. How about you show us your working for a 1D heat diffusion equation that can come us with a result so different from the oil industry scientists?
  4. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #199: The orbital effects are transmitted via variations in the total gravity of Moon and planets, which generates frictional heat in the liquid core and the crust itself. #200: There will be plenty of data in my paper confirming the correlations I have explained. This is hardly the place to post such. DB: The whole of this and my previous post is very much on the topic of "tracking earth's energy." I also asked a question relating to Trenberth's curved trend for seas surface data, as in this article, to which no one has responded.
    Your own bolehole plot proves my point that variations in core heat do occur and, in that particular case, caused a 1 degree rise in 500 years. It even shows a steeper "hockey stick" rise towards the year 2,000. I have studied numerous plots such as yours and some other such borehole data shows larger rises. Note that, 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, because that is the temperature 9,000 metres down that borehole. The onus is upon proponents of AGW to prove otherwise, because one of their assumptions is that there can be no other forcing agent that could have caused the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age. I say there can be another forcing agent, namely the heat within the core which can vary. Because the temperature gradient is fixed, only a very small percentage variation in the core is needed to produce 3 or 4 degrees variation at the surface. No one has as yet been able to show any other reason explaining why the underground temperature plot (calculated from data at depths not influenced by the Sun) extrapolates (at all latitudes) to temperatures which are very close to the stable base surface temperatures. Unless this can be debunked, AGW is not proven. And, with data now available from hundreds of boreholes, the probability of it being incorrect is one in billions.
    Response:

    [DB] "Your own bolehole plot proves my point"

    Quite the opposite, actually.

    "The onus is upon proponents of AGW to prove otherwise"

    Sorry, not in the business of disproving something that doesn't exist.  And the only business I'm in is the propounding of the scientific method and climate science.

    "because one of their assumptions is that there can be no other forcing agent that could have caused the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age."

    Straw man, to the point of incoherence.

    "I say there can be another forcing agent"

    As Lincoln said, calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.  You can say anything you want; doesn't make it true.

    "No one has as yet been able to show any other reason"

    You mean, other than the global borehole plot I supplied earlier which shows you wrong?

    "Unless this can be debunked"

    Been there, done that.

    "AGW is not proven."

    Straw man, no one said it was.  AGW stands the test of time due to the consiliance of multiple, independent lines of converging evidence.  All of which you'd have to overturn in order to have your hypothesis endure.  As such, it fails quite miserably.

    And we're back to this:  the onus being on you to produce any peer-reviewed, published evidence to support your hypothesis. 

    We're still waiting.

  5. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    What is wrong with the exchange of ideas and analysis ?
  6. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Oh dear. 'Discussion' here is a bit (not very much, but a bit) like discussing an English or history topic at an educational institution. Reading the material first is an unavoidable requirement of talking or writing on the item in question. You've been given quite a few excellent references. Stop writing, thinking, discussing for a while and do some reading. You only need to choose a couple of those offered to start with. But you do need to get started.
  7. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    I hope you will consider posting this - it is an analysis of energy input to a planet's atmosphere that is surely a starting point for discussion. You wanted a concise analysis well this may meet your requirements. The solar constant TOA Earth is ~1368 W/sq m agreed ? The solar constant TOA Venus is ~1.91 times that ~2612 W/sq m agreed ? I will talk about earth initially because we have better knowledge. The sun's radiation is approximately parallel. When it hits an atmosphere at 90 degrees to the tangent it will be absorbed at the maximum. When it hits at an angle to the tangent some will be reflected and some will pass into the atmosphere. The maximum component of the radiation that enters at 90 degrees to the tangent is the cosine of the latitude of the point - hence at the mid point the angle is 0 cos 0 = 1. Let’s stop the planet rotating - the solar constant is still 1368 W/sq m. The earth presents approximately a hemisphere to the sun's insolation. At the midpoint of the hemisphere the tangent to the atmosphere is at 90 degrees to the insolation and the angle between the incident radiation and the normal is zero - at the poles the tangent to the atmosphere is parallel to the radiation and the angle to the normal is 90 degrees. The tangent to the atmosphere at any point North or South is the cosine of the latitude. The insolation at any point varies as the cosine curve of the latitude. So let’s stop the earth at midday on a point on the equator when the sun is vertical to the equator and consider a line from north to south. At the mid point the insolation is 1368 W/sq m minus the albedo minus absorption by the atmosphere. If not, why not ? If you consider any other point on the hemisphere the angle the sun's parallel rays make to the tangent is the cosine of the latitude. Therefore the factor to reduce the insolation incident on the atmosphere is the cosine of the latitude – that is it varies from 1 at the midpoint to zero at the “pole”. So at the equator the insolation is ~ 684 W /sq m - 1368/2 - additional source is IPCC - Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science P115 -"About half the solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface and warms it." This energy is capable of causing a maximum temperature of 331 K or ~58C which if my memory serves me well is approximately the highest temperature recorded. If the albedo were uniform over the earth - which it isn't - the maximum insolation should vary as a cosine curve from the midpoint north or south. For example consider Baghdad - ~ 33 N (why choose Baghdad ? - A well known desert location with "normal albedo low cloud and a well documented temperature record) - the maximum insolation is cos 33 x 684 = ~573.65 W/sq m. Maximum temperature for this insolation is ~317 K or 44 C. Meterological records show Baghdad's maximum temperatures are ~ 44 C in summer. So how does this even matter ? It demonstrates that maximum is different to average - obvious. It demonstrates that Earth and Venus may possibly receive more radiation and hence have higher temperatures than is calculated by reducing solar insolation to ~240 W/sq m to calculate the average temperature on Earth or to ~132 W/sq m on Venus. Again, I have not denigrated anybody's opinion simply proposed some discussion points.
  8. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    Ken#20: Edison made his first fortune by selling an improved telegraph to Western Union. Their money came from following the railroads, financed by the federal government. Marconi: A series of demonstrations for the British government followed—by March 1897, Marconi had transmitted Morse code signals over a distance of about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) across the Salisbury Plain. On 13 May 1897, Marconi sent the first ever wireless communication over open sea. I'd like to see some examples of the so-called free market actually solving a vast-scale problem, something like the Dutch Delta Project (government-run). The track record of 'free enterprise' includes great advances, but also such enduring gifts as air and water pollution, clear cut lumbering, mountain-top removal mining, oil spills, chemical waste, etc.
  9. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    No more fracking here in NZ, or there will be........trouble.
  10. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    Ken: Kindly show how that rambling, evidence-free comment @20 relates to the errors of fact made by Michaels and the incorrect inference he makes resulting from those errors. Otherwise I suggest you are off-topic.
  11. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    False analogy Ken, who were the Wright brothers competing with? Marconi? The system isn't working because it is destroying the natural environment, exterminating species and making human survival, in the future, less likely. It's also subsidizing the richest collection of individuals in the entire history of human civilization. What's up with that? At some point the irrational notion of infinite economic growth will dawn on most people. I would have thought the economic events of the past few years might open a few more eyes, but apparently not yet. As for the Spain green energy meme, see SkS post: Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
  12. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    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. Ask the Spain how green-energy and employment is working out.
  13. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    18, Dikran, I'm sure he's well aware that 2/3s of his visitors don't even bother to read and will only look at the pretty pictures. Disinformation mission accomplished, and it's not his fault, is it? Just like it's not his fault that his paper got published and grossly misinterpreted by Forbes or that the reviewers didn't do a good job or...
  14. Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
    #15: Trains you say? I've heard stories about those. Must be nice living in some sort of futuristic utopia. I'd be happy with bus routes that didn't have a 40 minute detour and two different freeways to go 10 miles across town. I really like the vehicle-to grid ideas I've seen. Ignoring entirely the efficiency gains in swapping over to electric vehicles, our current power distribution and (complete lack of) storage system is getting a bit dated. #16: Excellent idea. One of Brammo's bikes may well be my next vehicle purchase... Unfortunately, all my errands are right next to my office. What I actually end up doing is taking a motorcycle on days when I'm not picking anything up, and a car on days when I'm grabbing groceries or the like on the way home. Swapping my current bike out for an Enertia Plus, or better yet, one of the new Empulse models coming out next year though, sounds... appealing.
  15. Dikran Marsupial at 06:01 AM on 3 September 2011
    Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    Sphaerica The "for entertainment purposes" is very dissapointing. You have to be a real geek to find fitting a polynomial entertaining (and have a poor grasp of the statistical issues), so it can't be that. Surely he must know that there will be some out there that will take it seriously even with the caveat. Now making a semi-serious attempt at a prediction and seeing if it pans out, that would be entertaining.
  16. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn#1: "Fracking has been used for over 20 years " The volume of frac fluid in shale gas wells is far greater than in frac jobs for tight gas sands that were done years ago. Pressures up to 15000 psi were used then as now, but the shale gas wells being drilled now turn horizontal. That requires much larger volumes of fluid to stimulate - upwards of 2500000 gals in the Marcellus shale play as an example.
  17. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    As expected, Dr. Spencer flavored this month's temps by pointing out a drop in sea surface temperatures, complete with a non-scientific downward trend line that he includes, but warns is only for "entertainment purposes." He further adds a polynomial fit to the tropospheric temperatures, purely for "entertainment," the implies that we have entered a cooling phase. Go see. It's great denial fun. While you are there, you can look at his response to the resignation.
  18. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    The UK Guardian has an article too, and John Abraham's quotes are well worth a read here
  19. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    jyushchyshyn @64 You said earlier that " they do not "give a damn about the environment." They do what they think is necessary to maintain a veneer of credibility. In reality they are very far from perfect when it comes to their environmental policies. I do agree that flaring is a problem, especially in regions like Nigeria. But this post this about the tar sands and the damage that they are doing and will continue to do, so can we please limit our discussion to the tar sands and its environmental, societal and ethical consequences. I'm afraid the rest of your posts @64 and @65 do not make much sense to me.
  20. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    14, muon, Of course. He is clearly stepping down because he was unable to squelch this landmark paper before publication. In fact, he's probably not even really resigning. He's probably being forced out because his bosses know how hard he did try to squash it. Clearly, the peer review process is broken. At the same time, last month was again one of the top 3 or 4 Augusts on record. I wonder if Roy will do what he did in July on his site, which is to spin things to completely ignore the troposheric record in favor of pointing out how cool the oceans appear on average compared to the previous decade. Can you pick up that other end of the goal post and help me move it a little further?
  21. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Typos? ... The Climate Show has released... ... to fill Gareth's shoes...
    Response: [JC] Fixed, thanks
  22. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    Sphaerica, You mean like this? With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements ... Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. -- emphasis addded Yep, I think that's a keeper. Bet this poor guy gets some heat from the 'skeptic' crowd.
  23. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Camburn: if I remember right, he mentions there are such problems in 5% of the sites, which is a pretty high rate given the consequences.
  24. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    11, muon, A very interesting article (readers should note that it is not behind a paywall, so go ahead, click the link, and read it all... it's not long, and has some interesting insights).
  25. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    Dana- I've done a reasonably simple exothermic reactor model and simulation that turned out to be extraordinariy accurate in a full scale production environment. So I can imagine in that circumstance (the reactor) a statement about how many Kcal produce what delta T in a reactor location at steady state operation. For reactor modeling that's not a particularly useful thing to know. You can extract the knowledge but it's not really telling you as much as other outputs from the simulation. The real issue is not to offer model exlanations that falsely imply that the models aren't physical and in fact rely on fitting fudge factors to make the model work. -Dave
  26. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    Yes -- the whole thing's worth a read. How will Roy and company spin this one?
  27. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    Fracking has been used for over 20 years where I live with no water issues as of yet.
  28. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    This certainly deserves a "Wow!" or even three. Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. -- emphasis added H/t to Michael Tobis for finding this.
  29. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DB#201: "Earth will be ripped apart ..." ... making climate change look like a walk in the park. Oddly enough, the expanding earth hypothesis lives on - but alas, does not have consensus. the scientific community finds no evidence to support the expansion of the Earth theory, and uses the following arguments to dismiss it Drat those scientists with their fancy-pants 'measurements' and 'evidence-based arguments.' Who needs consensus anyway? This doesn't phase those dedicated workers who hold to this view: ... the earth's core is a nuclear furnace like the Sun's and it was a critical mass attained in this thermal nuclear reaction around 200 million years ago that started to increase the volume of the earth's core, cracking and expanding the continent shell ... Being a core like the sun, there are well-known processes make larger and large atoms with immense heat and pressure inside the earth. Water, methane, and oil are produced inside the earth over time so there was less water 200 million years ago and lots of shallow lakes. This solves the big problem with plate tectonics of where water came from on earth - not from comets (which some say are fiery), but from within. Both larger and large atoms! They have a website; a blog will soon follow. Perhaps a petition as well. Someone should start a list of peer-reviewed papers.
  30. Dikran Marsupial at 03:06 AM on 3 September 2011
    Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Jonathon GISS is not the only surface temperature dataset that compensates for urban heat island effect, all of the major surface temperature datsets do this. Assessing and compensating for these sort of non-climatic issues are probably 95% of the work involved in generating the datasets. Just computing the area-weighted averages from the data from the global historic network is about a mornings work for a competent programmer. Whether something is a forcing does not depend on whether it will even out in the long run - it is a matter of the physical nature of the process. ENSO has a short enough period that it has fairly little effect beyond 30 years or so; that is why climatologists use 30 years as the default period for computing trends etc. it is long enough not to be too strongly affected by internal variability, but short enough to detect the effects of changes in the forcings. See KRs excelent explanation about the solar forcing.
  31. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DB: "One wonders how much longer before the Earth will be ripped apart from the convective temperature stresses induced upon it." 2012 -- duh! Mayans, etc. etc.
  32. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Jonathon - "The solar influence seems awfully small compared to other sources." That's because the forcings listed in that table are the changes in forcings that are then changing the climate. Solar energy is the driving force of the climate, but because it has not appreciably changed since the start of the industrial era, it isn't appreciably responsible for the changes in global temperatures over that period. GHG levels, on the other hand, have changed a lot, and those are the dominant influences on changing global temperatures.
  33. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Thank you Dikran, While urban heat islands are a small portion of the Earth's surface, they have an area-weighted averages (as you pointed out) much higher. GISS attempts to remove these effects from their temperature data, but I have not seen others to likewise. ENSO is not a true forcing in that it will even out in the long run. However, it can have large short-term effects in the temperature record. I probably shoudl have re-worded my question to the observed warming during the industrialization era (1880 - present). The solar influence seems awfully small compared to other sources.
  34. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Mr. Cotton would have us believe many fallacies about ocean heat content (OHC) and sea surface temperatures (SSTs), like SSTs are interchangeable with OHC, for one. Or that SSTs have declined since 2003. Since that first is patently rubbish, let's examine the second claim, shall we? First up, SST anomalies from 2003-2010 relative to 1951-2002 (from GISS/NASA): As expressed in zonal means: [Source] Mr. Cotton would have us then believe, logically, that the warming present in the data (as represented by the above graphics) comes outward from the core through the Earth's crust inequally. Note the special emphasis the Earth pays on preferentially delivering warmth to the North Atlantic specifically... One wonders how much longer before the Earth will be ripped apart from the convective temperature stresses induced upon it. Those wacky Pellucidareans need to turn down their thermostats...
  35. Dikran Marsupial at 01:59 AM on 3 September 2011
    Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Jonathon I see little reason* to depart from the forcings and uncertainties given by the IPCC: BTW, ENSO is not a forcing, it is an element of internal variability and if by "urbanisation" you mean the urban heat island effect, then urban areas are such a small proportion of the Earths surface that their effect on actual (rather than as estimated by raw area-weighted averages of surface station data) global surface temperatures is essentially insignificant. * There are other forcings not mentioned in the table, e.g. the GCR theory, however the current level of scientific undersdtanding (LOSU) and observational evidence do not suggest that they will substantially alter the overall picture.
  36. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Wow. As I read #193 I found myself wondering what part Pyramid Power and Hagbard Celine had to play in this hypothesis. Doug, you are attempting to overturn 100+ years of science without showing a single equation or data point. That might get you a special on the (now ruined) History Channel following Ancient Aliens but the scientific community is not going to take you seriously.
  37. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    KR, that makes sense. What I was thinking of was the processed silicon that companies like Solyndra needed to buy. But now it looks like I could soon be wrong: http://www.solarpoweradelaide.net/the-end-of-the-silicon-shortage.html and that would be a very good thing.
  38. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Cotton: "In effect, the empirical data debunks the concept that climate is forced by factors involving solar insolation and atmospheric gases." Long-term orbital cycles, then, should have very little effect on temps, and certainly not the effects shown in the established long-term temperature record. Low-latitude glacial deposits should be impossible, despite the historical evidence. And stratospheric cooling with tropospheric heating -- well, it must just be a long-term cycle with some other explanation. Locked in, this one.
  39. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    I am curious as to what everyone would say is the contribution to the industrial-era warming and uncertainties from the following forcings: CO2, urbanization, solar, ENSO, volcanic activity, and albedo (feel free to add others as deemed appropriate).
  40. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    Correct Dave. Model inputs are things like changes in GHGs and solar irradiance, and the physics of how much of a radiative forcing these cause. The resulting temperature change, and thus the climate sensitivity, are outputs of the model. Or I guess more accurately, the sensitivity is built into the model, and can be determined by seeing how much the temperature changes in response to a given forcing. That's my understanding anyway - I'm no climate modeler.
  41. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougC#193: "There is further empirical support ... empirical data debunks the concept that climate is forced by factors involving solar insolation" Your conclusions based on this very limited empirical exercise were shown to be completely incorrect the last time around on this very thread. On further inspection of #193, your earth-heat-lunar-tides idea is utterly unsubstantiated as well (and in my opinion, patently absurd). The challenge made there still stands: show data and research from credible sources - peer reviewed whenever possible - that support your 'diffusion will prevail' model. Until you can meet that challenge, your ideas remain merely your personal opinion. Until you can meet that challenge, all of your pronouncements must be read with the preface, 'in my opinion.'
  42. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    scaddenp#63: "Uncertainty cuts both ways." Would that it did, but 'skeptics' have absolute belief in their myths. They know that natural cycles, for example, are more important than greenhouse gases could ever be. How they know this is of course unclear, but it doesn't seem to matter. The skeptical 'its a natural cycle' must therefore be met with a resounding 'how do you know that?' and 'what is your uncertainty?' If there could be a rational answer to those questions, then we could have a slightly more level playing field.
  43. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Again, a Climastrology button is needed for Rosco. These sorts of creative science perception discussions need a thread of their own, because they really don't belong anywhere, and hence tend to wander about willy-nilly. Rosco barely met the requirements of this thread by rather randomly throwing the word "Venus" into his post. This sort of Alice-through-the-looking-glass discussion has been happening just far too often in recent months.
  44. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Again, a Climastrology button is needed for Mr. Cotton.
  45. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Eric (skeptic) - "Silicon for solar does not have economies of scale as far as I can see. What does have economies of scale is large FF and nuclear power plants (perhaps unfortunate but it is a fact)." From what I understand, Eric, the economy of scale for solar power (PV at least) is in the production of the solar panels. A number of commentaries on the recent Solyndra bankruptcy (here, for example) noted that they just couldn't reach the production numbers required for their panel prices to be competitive. I can't find the reference right now, but they had recently dropped production levels, and saw their panel prices double to ~$3.80/watt - when $2.00/watt was their break-even price. Low production numbers for solar panels just aren't economically viable. Meanwhile, Chinese panels (slightly less efficient than Solyndra, but...) were coming in at a price of $1.20/watt. Solyndra just got out-priced.
  46. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    Rosco, did you read the paper I linked to? Did you? I recall you saying, "I'm more than open to listen." Reading is "listening" when writing is the primary means of communication. You are not arguing from a physical model. You're arguing from what seems to be right to you. If you accept "seems to be right" as an argument, then we are at an impasse, because then my word becomes as good as yours, and we're all right. If you don't accept "seems to be right" as an argument, then start describing your physical model. Everything you've said so far suggests that you don't believe that CO2 absorbs and emits at specific frequencies (broadened by pressure). That might be a good place to start understanding. What are the emission/absorption spectra of Earth's (or Venus') ten most populous atmospheric gases? If you don't know, then you're not prepared to enter the discussion. While some here might tell you to go away (either directly or in tone), I won't.
    Response:

    [DB] "While some here might tell you to go away (either directly or in tone), I won't."

    I think you speak for everyone in that our sincerest wish is for Rosco to be able to express himself more ably by addressing the science directly, uncomplicated by feelings and fuzzy thinking.

  47. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    To both: I assumed you knew where to find NASA data at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ where you can select "Sea Surface," then tick 2003 and 2011 and 'redraw." The above borehole plot over hundreds of years is irrelevant because it was probably at shallow depths where solar insolation had an effect. Note the yellow linear trend line on this, the deepest (9,000 metre) borehole, and note the intercept at the surface around 10 to 12 deg.C.
    Now you can see similar plots for hundreds of other boreholes using the link in (d) at (-link snipped due to antivirus security threats-) Suppose (-Off topic Gish Gallop snipped-)
    Response:

    [DB] Last warning about being off-topic.

    BTW:  Borehole data is at depth to avoid surface temp contamination of the data.  Which you would know if you had bothered to actually look at data that might confound your perambulations and not just cherry-pick the little data which may through happenstance support you.

  48. Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    30, Rosco,
    There has never been any demonstrated mechanism of trapping heat
    False.
    Even the stars have an energy input through gravity
    Misleading or misunderstood. See Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale. See nuclear reactions, the true source of energy in stars. But in a nutshell, for the potential energy of gravity to be converted to another form, work must be done, meaning the object must compress, which it cannot do indefinitely (for a star, it would "burn out" in mere 18 million years). Otherwise it is a perpetual motion machine that is creating energy and violating the First Law of Thermodynamics.
    ...there must be some source of heat that we don't know about.
    False
    I think...
    Fuzzy thinking of no value. What you think does not make it true. It does not create facts or truths, and is not a valid argument.
    We would still have the sun's input...
    Yes, about 241 W/m2 of solar input, which would bring the planet to 255K, when it is in fact at 288K. The question is how do we get that extra 33K? Answer: The Greenhouse Effect This is all very, very basic science. Please follow the links and read before posting further comments.
  49. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
    Dana- So sensitivity is something models calculate...rather than being an input into the model. I can't see a reason offhand why I would need sensitivity as a term in a model...what I need is the solar in, IR out and terms for where the heat goes.. ( so much for ice melting, so much for heating the oceans, so much for heating the near surface air, accounting for water vapor movement and circulation and so forth) and at the end what is left shows up as an increased global average temperature... from which you can calculate "a" as a convenient understandable number?
  50. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Fourier already knew of the internal heat of the earth and noticed it was negligible. Two centuries ago.

Prev  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2026 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us