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  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  Next

Comments 77451 to 77500:

  1. The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    bibasir "Not true. When you are leveraged 30 to 1, a 4% decline in assets puts you in bankrupcy. What market doesn't decline from time to time?" The thing that doomed Northern Rock was to assume that the rest of the market was regulated properly. Their main assumptions were 1. Do not lend more than the house is worth or the borrower can pay. This policy has turned out to be vindicated by the Bad Bank continuing to make a profit. 2. If NR has a relatively clean mortgage book then pension funds and others who require a steady income will buy their scrutinised bonds. 3. That there will be a sufficiently liquid money market. It was point 3 that sunk the Rock. As explained above and subject to criminal investigations the hedge fund controlled by Goldman Sacks was given control over their mortgage arm. The hedge fund placed futures on a house market crash and went out of their way to make sure it happened. American AAA rated mortgage backed bonds were found to be worthless. Nobody was quite sure who held exposure to such junk the money market froze. HSBC refused overnight clearance of Barclay's credit(unprecedented) The rest is history. The problem that caused Nationalisation was that two other Hedge funds has virtual control over NR shares and would not sell to Virgin for a price rumoured to be 20p per share. As the chancellor Alistair Darling said on the say of Nationalisation. Northern Rocks assets were greater than its liabilities. Hence it was never in danger of being bankrupt. It had a major problem of liquidity due to market conditions
  2. Dikran Marsupial at 21:12 PM on 13 August 2011
    Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Salby hasn't even named the journal to which his paper was submitted, which given it apparently has already been accepted seems a little odd. So it isn't even possible to verify that his work actually has been subjected to peer review. Personally I think the journal will either be E&E or some non-climate journal where peer review is unlikely to include reviewers with a sound grasp of the workings of the carbon cycle.
  3. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Dale @4, to the extent that you find something presumptious in refuting an argument when we do not have access to the data, your chief concern should be with Salby. It is he who is trumpeting his "results" far and wide whilst with holding the data he used so as to prevent direct refutation. He has even gone to the extent of refusing to supply copies of his charts to interested persons on the basis that there is an "embargo" on their publication, while showing them to uncritical audiences, thus breaching the "embargo" himself. Frankly Salby's behaviour has been disgraceful. It's only merit has been showing, but the speed with which they have accepted his results as ground breaking and undoubtedly true without access to the supporting data, that the "skepticism" of many well known deniers is only a mask for refusing to deal with reality.
  4. Dikran Marsupial at 20:32 PM on 13 August 2011
    Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Dale No, it isn't at all presumptious. The fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is essentially anthropogenic is readily established by existing observations. I listened to Salby's podcast and he made no attempt to refute any of the existing lines of evidence and the mistake he makes (temperature changes modulate the growth rate) has been made by others before him (e.g. by Roy Spencer) and have already been refuted. It will be insteresting to see what is in the paper, it is not unheard of for scientists to make a press release that draws conclusions not mentioned in (or strongly supported by) the paper.
  5. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Bit presumptuous to try and refute an argument without seeing any of the data, working out or graphs.
  6. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #152 Tom: Three genuine questions this time:- (1) I have read several papers along the lines of your post (and do understand the reasoning) but I note references to temperatures around 275 deg.K, whereas NASA sea surface means are usually a little over 294 deg.K. Could you clarify the reason for the difference? (2) I would like from you a little more explanation of the conclusiom "the source of the rest of the radiation, warming." To explain why I am asking, suppose we note the temperature of, say, the top of the ocean in some location at 4am one day and then, after all the various iterations of the feedback cycle the next day, the surface of the water is warmed during the day and starts to radiate extra and, as it cools, "pushes up" the whole plot, still with its notches. What evidence do we then have from the plot that the ocean has not returned to the same initial temperature by 4am the next day? (3) What happened to the evaporation component, assuming the latent heat was released in the troposphere quickly that day?
  7. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    I do like these folk who spot the wobbles which ENSO puts onto both the temperature & CO2 records, then conclude that CO2 wobbles are driven by temperature change. Such nonsense has wonderful implications - no global Mediaeval warm period for instance, or any other warm period for the last few million years!
  8. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #155 Tom: You stated: "the UV energy absorbed by O2 and O3 in the stratosphere is dissipated as IR radiation by CO2 and O3 (ozone). Thus, in the stratosphere increased CO2 does have a cooling effect." Is there any reason why could not also state "the UV energy absorbed by O2 in the troposphere is dissipated as IR radiation by CO2. Thus, in the troposphere increased CO2 does have a cooling effect." ?
  9. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Relationship between variation in the inter-annual time scale of atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature was discussed by C.D. Keeling and co-authors in 1989. They suspected that the correlation is related to ENSO cycles. They did not consider that multi-decadal trends of CO2 concentration is determined by the same logic. C.D. Keeling, R.B. Bacastow, A.F. Carter, S.C. Piper, T.P. . Whorf, and co-authors, 1989: A three-dimensional model of atmospheric CO2 transport based on observed winds: 1. Analysis of observational data. In: "Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas" (Peterson D.H., ed., Geophysical Monograph, 55, American Geophysical Union), 165 - 236. In Japan, Junkichi Nemoto, a former long-range weather forecaster and a writer of popular essays about weather and climate, included the story of Keeling et al. (1989) in his book in 1994. He quoted a figure which shows that temperature leads CO2 concentration by about one year, or a 1/4 cycle period, of the ENSO cycles. Long-term trends have been removed before making the plot. Then, Atsushi Tsuchida, a staunch AGW denier, a former physicist, an anti-nuclear-power activist and a thinker who promoted the view of the environment in terms of concepts of non-equilibrium steady-state thermodynamics (I think that he should be praised for this achievement in the 1970s-80s) picked up the relationship and claimed that the growth of atmospheric CO2 content (since 1960s-70s till present) is a result and not a cause of global warming. Around 2006, he and Kuniaki Kondo, an engineer (by the way, there are many Kondos including able climate scientists), made some analysis. They found good simultaneous correlation between the annual increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (compilation by Scripps Institution of Oceanography via CDIAC, USA [link]) and the anomaly of global mean surface air temperature (compilation by Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), a previous version of what is available [here], where the base period was 1971-2000). They extrapolate the linear relationship and claimed that the change of CO2 concentration would be zero if the global mean temperature anomaly were -0.6 deg. C (base 1971-2000). Kondo and Tsuchida wrote a paper (in Japanese) and submitted to "Tenki", the bulletin of the Meteorological Society of Japan (MSJ). After peer reviews, the editorial board of Tenki rejected the manuscript. Their rejected paper and related materials can be found somewhere in a web site maintained by Kondo (Japanese only). Tsuchida sued MSJ claiming that rejection was politically motivated. The courts ruled against Tsuchida, but he tries again with modified claims. I think that MSJ would have passed their paper if they just mention interesting relationship between changes of CO2 concentration and temperature without making an egregious claim that the global warming is not anthropogenic. By the way, JMA has made more careful analysis. On one of their web pages, though the main text is Japanese only, there are figures with English captions. See "Fig. 2.1.2.3". The upper two panels are now well-known relationship between the CO2 increase and ENSO. The bottom panel shows simultaneous correlation between the CO2 increase and the mean surface air temperature over the tropical (30 S - 30 N) land area. The correlation broke down for a while after the volcanic eruption of Pinatubo in 1991.
  10. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #152 Tom: I would have considered ozone a GH gas as at least some others do. I was painting a hypothetical scenario in which all gases that acted like GH gases (able to emit in the IR range) were absent. But even if you leave ozone up there, and just had O2 and N2 where we live, they would absorb incident UV at all altitudes and we would frizzle in the absence of GH gases here in the lower troposhpere. ( -Moderation Complaints Snipped- )
    Response:

    [DB] If you wish to directly interact with Tom and the others by having actual dialogue (which involves asking questions, getting answers, pondering answers & asking more questions [which goes for either side]), then interact away.

    If you are going to ignore the feedback and correction of others & Gish Gallop away, then accept that moderation of comments is an accepted condition of participating in this Forum.  And moderation affects all, equally.  Defamation is not allowed (however, implying legal action such as you just did tells volumes about character).

    If you want to talk climate science, partake in the discussion and be welcome. 

    If you want a podium and a microphone, go away.

  11. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    If that has been your motive, Doug, you've gone about it in a very odd way. You're not taking into account basic science that engineering of every kind depends on. I understand you've spent a lot of time writing your site, and you've invested yourself in your ideas. I'm reminded of one of my students who spent weeks of skull sweat hashing out an argument only to find out that he had failed to consider the strongest counterargument. He spent three or four days trying to wriggle out of addressing the problem (which clearly required a re-write of the ten-page paper). He tried bargaining with me ("what if I just tack on a paragraph at the end -- what grade will that get me?"). He tried to buy a balance through extra credit (Umm . . . No). I did end up allowing him all of finals week to do the re-write, and to his credit he did a fair job of re-thinking his argument. Of course, you seem to have more at stake than my student. Your errors--the fundamentals upon which the currently crooked house is built--are public. Swallowing one's pride is difficult in some circumstances, but it should never be difficult when it results in a greater level of integrity. One thing I am certain of: if you ask questions and discuss responses without the subtext that the other participants are frauds, hoaxers, or idiots, no one here will bring forth a quantum of ridicule. For example, you finally arrive at a motivation in your most recent comment: a decrease in the rate of warming since 2003. Unfortunately, you buried that chocolate chip in a hard dough moistened by piss and vinegar. Perhaps it's understandable given the rhetoric that's been thrown at you. Perhaps. If you're still interested in discussing the science, start on a new tack. Rather than presenting your physical model as absolute and unquestionable truth, ask questions and discuss responses. Assume nothing. Ask for evidence. Don't decrease the probability of anything without clear reason. Keep an open mind. Work on one thing at a time. If this all seems condescending, take a good long look at your posts, both here and elsewhere. And keep in mind the patience Tom and others (not all others) have shown you. Finally, keep in mind that the regulars here routinely have to deal with some truly nutty crap, and so patience can be in short supply when someone refuses to engage and tinges everything with a knowing smirk and the suggestion of fraud.
  12. The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    suibhne at 02:02 AM on 13 August, 2011 "Northern Rock was a relatively innocent victim of the general banking crisis." Not true. When you are leveraged 30 to 1, a 4% decline in assets puts you in bankrupcy. What market doesn't decline from time to time? Excessive leverage is what got the U.S. banks and brokers too.
  13. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougC#156: "My motives have never been other than to try to find reasons... " Thanks, you've confessed at last. Your 'motives' should have been first to understand the science and only then formulate your conclusions. Given this admission, any 'true skeptics' here should be speaking up about now. ... anyone? Buehler?
  14. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    All right - one more reply ... ( -Snip -) But this is not about personalities. My motives have never been other than to try to find reasons for the clear-cut reduction in warming that has been observed since 2003 - and to play whatever part I can in helping to calm the unnecessary turmoil that global warming predictions have engendered.
    Response:

    [DB] Alright, now that you've had your say Mr. Cotton, you have no purpose here.  You are not here to learn: others have already pointed out the numerous fallacies and errors you have made thus far.  Indeed, the mistakes and gaffes you commit are legion in this comment alone. So learning on your part is not your goal here.  Please take your litanyous Gish Gallop elsewhere.

    If you wish to have a rational dialogue and actually begin to learn a bit about climate science, this is the place.  Thousands of posts exists with attendant comment threads, all with links to the primary literature.  You would do well to read at least some of it before you attempt to teach those who already have.

  15. apiratelooksat50 at 12:23 PM on 13 August 2011
    Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    DB at 7 Earlier I had a much longer reply to you, but lightning struck and knocked it out even with an APU> My Biology class (which I have been teaching longer) website was archived because I am not teaching it this year. It had links to pro and anti AGW sites. I am building my Env. Sci. site. Tell you what I will do - you (and any other active participants of this site) compile a list of website links that you would like to be added to my "teacher page". I will add them comment free. You can even come up with the heading (if I can add that). Just make sure your suggestions are balanced!
  16. apiratelooksat50 at 11:57 AM on 13 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    flan at 15 and TC at 16 I am not sure where the confusion is. The oft quoted 97% of climate scientists... represents 75 of 77 scientists who answered the poll. That was winnowed down from the total number of scientists who answered the poll to only include climate scientists to achieve that 77 number. According to the article we are commenting on, 99.9% of the signatories are not climate scientists. The opposite of that statement means 0.1% are. I've already done the math so no need to do again. They actually identify 39 as climate scientists compared to my 32 derived by mathematic calculations. Comparing 32, or 37, to the constantly championed 75/77, the gap is closer than most are led to believe.
    Response:

    [DB] Perhaps you have forgotten the Denominator: It is indeed what is best in life...

  17. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    What do I think it will say? The same thing that the IPCC thinks it will say. and the same thing that you think it will say. ( -Snip- ) John Cook may now delete this post. Right John?
    Response:

    [DB] If you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, why bother.  Right?

    Note:  John seldom moderates these days.  Those comments you have forced the moderators to intervene on and/or delete have been acted upon by others.

  18. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    saddenp @153, a very good point. For anyone visiting this site who want's to learn, the UV energy absorbed by O2 and O3 in the stratosphere is dissipated as IR radiation by CO2 and O3 (ozone). Thus, in the stratosphere increased CO2 does have a cooling effect. This shows up in the graphs in 152 as the central spike in both the CO2 and O3 troughs, produced by the radiation in the stratosphere.
  19. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Tom#152: "But DougCotton thinks his 200 word verbal argument is more likely to be true than the years of detailed analysis by climate scientists of the facts Doug has just learnt." I doubt that Mr. Cotton actually learned anything from this encounter. What we witnessed was a very revealing look into the denier's mindset. He has a preconceived notion; neither fact nor theory will sway him. When shown that he self-contradicts, he ignores the error -- and then boasts of his logic. When challenged to produce data, he cannot -- and it does not bother him. When shown that his model is nonsense that violates all accepted theory, he makes up even more nonsense -- and congratulations himself for his cleverness. Very telling is the fact that not one of the regular skeptics here chimed in to support his position. Also telling is that not one of the skeptics here voluntarily said something to the effect of 'I have objections to the greenhouse effect, but I can recognize that you're way off base.' I think, however, that this encounter validates the strategy of powerful refutation of one specific point at a time. If nothing else, it produced some very clear explanation of what the actual science says. But there is a clear difference between working with those college physics students and someone like Cotton: the students actually want to learn. John Wooden, a legendary US college basketball coach put it this way: It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
  20. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    One thing about DC's "insight" - he is almost onto the reason why increasing CO2 causes cooling of the upper stratosphere - the smoking gun of GHG warming.
  21. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    Love the paper showing the trend in ocean CO2 absorption. The article needs a graph though.
  22. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    While Doug Cotton @150 clearly shows his colours as a man for whom is conclusion that the greenhouse effect does not exist is far more important than any scientific evidence or reasoning, it is important to understand what is wrong with his claims. Above is a IR spectrum from Earth at the top of the atmosphere. You can clearly see that the spectrum follows the curve for a black body radiation of about 270 degrees, but with some notches taken out. The most important notches are the large one at about a wave number of 700 due to CO2, a shallow but extensive notch at lower wave numbers due to H2O, another moderately deed notch at a wave number of about 1000 due to ozone, and another shallow extensive notch above wavenumbers of 1300 due to methane and H2O. The actual value of the curve depends on the surface temperature of the region of the Earth over which the observation was made, as is illustrated by this NASA graphic: It is not often appreciated by deniers and "skeptics", but these observations are absolute proof that green house gases warm the Earth. The reason for that is simple. In each of these observations, the total energy radiated from the Earth at the top of the atmosphere is equal to the area under the curve. It is obvious that the notches introduced to the curve by the absorption of IR radiation reduce the area under the curve. But if they reduce the area under the curve, ipso facto, they reduce the total energy radiated to space. As, on average the energy radiated to space must equal the energy received from the sun, if the area under the curve is reduced by the absorption of IR radiation by green house gases, then the area under those parts of the curve in which IR radiation is not absorbed must increase in order that the same overall energy output is obtained. And that can only be achieved by the surface of the planet, the source of the rest of the radiation, warming. What ever your thoughts on the green house effect may be, once these observations were made the only way to deny its existence was to deny the truth of the three governing laws of black body radiation that relate radiation to temperature - laws as well confirmed as anything in science. But what of DougCotton's scenario? If all the Sun's radiation intercepted by the Earth was absorbed by the surface, and there were no greenhouse gases, then the average observed IR spectrum from the Earth would be a smooth black body curve with no notches from IR absorption, and it would show a surface temperature of 255 degrees K, the temperature required for a black body curve to radiate the 240 W/m^2 average energy received from the Sun after albedo effects. (Actually it would show different values at different latitudes, but the values would average out at 240 W/m^2.) If there was not CO2 or water vapour in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere still absorbed 78 W/m^2 as shown in the diagram in the main article, what would happen? Well there would still be one molecule capable of radiating IR radiation, ozone. And ozone would need to radiate most of that 78 W/m^2. Somebody observing from space would then see something very interesting. They would see a standard black body curve from the surface showing a surface temperature of around 230 degrees K, with a massive spike of radiation from the ozone. This situation, in which the green house gas is cooling the atmosphere is well known to atmospheric physics, and sometime occurs on Earth over Antarctica, as in the following spectrum (see spectrum b): (Also see the second spectrum in (c) (Tropical Western Pacific) where the thunderstorm anvil shows a massive warming effect, reducing the effective radiation to space from a black body curve of around 290 K to that for 210 K, which is slightly compensated for by CO2. That is, in the absence of CO2 the thunderhead anvil would have an even stronger warming effect.) It is now clear what we should look for if CO2 had a typically cooling effect as claimed by DougCotton and Jonicol - the spectrums should consistently show a spike from CO2 instead of (as they typically show) the deep trough we have come to expect. Finally, let me point out the massive hubris of DougCotton. Atmospheric physicists know all of the facts I have pointed out and on which he bases his theory. After all, it is from them that I learnt those facts. They not only know those fact, but they have explored their consequences in the very detailed calculations and extensive sets of calculations that are called climate models, which have been tested against observation and shown a good fit between observation and predicted result (see 103 above). But DougCotton thinks his 200 word verbal argument is more likely to be true than the years of detailed analysis by climate scientists of the facts Doug has just learnt. Not even an Einstein would be likely to get correct on so little thought what the physicists have purportedly been getting wrong from so massive and careful an analysis. Of course, a true Einstein would not (an Einstein was not) be so prideful in their own reasoning.
  23. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Muon, I think you're being generous. What I see instead of a race car is a pile of car parts, washing machine parts, legos, a picture of a race car, a few bananas, and a yo-yo--all of which has the label "it's a race car, you idiots" attached to it. "The 'system' is working one way or another." Oh my.
  24. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    It is very important that you all understand the implications of what Tom has explained in #134 point (2). Put aside all your arguments about past comments and focus on this one point. As Tom explains, nitrogen and oxygen do not emit photons at atmospheric temperatures because the photons they have to emit (refer Quantum theory) are in the high frequency (thus high energy) UV spectrum - well over 100 times the IR values that green house gases both absorb and emit. You are aware of course that O2 and N2 absorb some incoming UV photons from incident insolation. So they are going to get warmed, both that way and by conduction/diffusion (ie contact with surface molecules) leading to the 5% convection that the 2008 NASA diagram shows - thank Tom for that too. So O2 and N2 work in the UV range and GH gases in the IR range. But GH also emit in the IR range - much more easily than O2 and N2 can ever do in the UV range, because it is nowhere near hot enough up there. So, in a nutshell, GH gases are the scavengers that collide with other air molecules (that can't emit radiation themselves) and collect energy from them (little bits at a time) and emit IR photons to get rid of the heat. In the absence of all GH gas, O2 and N2 could potentially reach extremely high temperatures as they keep absorbing some of the incoming insolation. They have no way of getting rid of it by radiation until they get very hot as Tom explained - and you should all be grateful to him. Yes, this is ground-breaking. But it is undeniable. See the big picture. We know the photons are getting to space and you must agree nothing of any concern has happened since we got past the big El Nino. The "system" is working one way or another and the "problems" that were unstandably perceived late last century were primarily due to the fact that the normal 60-year cycle was on an upswing (1970-1999) crossing over and going above the long-term cycle (itself rising from the Little Ice Age) which also peaked in 1999 and will just a little more in 2058-2059 before it starts a 450 year decline. Folks, I really have no more to say - take it or leave it. You cannot deny that GH gases can emit photons quite easily and O2 and N2 cannot. Surely logic says we need GHG to rid the atmosphere of heat. This really must be good-bye from me.
    Response:

    [DB] You are aware of course that most of the regular participants in this forum have either cracked textbooks in atmospheric physics and statistical analysis, gotten degrees in climate-science related fields, worked in those fields in a non-scientist capacity and/or are actually real, living & breathing climate scientists?  Condescension by you in this matter is thus the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

    So while you play the metaphorical version of alchemy, wielding 21st Century versions of eye of newt and wing of bat, mumbling incantations to conjure the skeptic's dragon's breath, real scientists in the real world have been studying, researching and quantifying the field of climate science for nearly 200 years. 

    In the absence of actual research you offer sophistry and mumbo-jumbo.  Good luck convincing the cognoscenti with that.  In this Forum you have presented nothing to be worth discussing further.  And logic says until you do that actual research & publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, you should be ignored.

    So, as a man of your word, let this be good-bye from you.  Really.

    To our regular readership: apologies for the abruptness.  Time for a beer.

  25. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton#136: "I have a bit more to add to my site this weekend" That's unfortunate, as you've been shown many areas where your base premises are completely unfounded. And now that you know that you are incorrect, adding even more based on those errors would be ... Well, the Comments Policy prevents me from saying what that would be. Any standard of scientific integrity demands that you produce some data and actual research that supports your positions; otherwise they are just your opinions. Consider this bit of wisdom: It's ironic that this comes up just as school is about to start in my part of the world. As a physics teacher, the grade that the totally undocumented, unsupportable 'racecar on a train' idea would get is an F.
  26. It's too hard
    We should probably wave goodbye to Ray Anderson of Interface, who passed away recently. I'm not exactly pro-capitalist, but Ray's story is uplifting anyway. His death is rather the opposite.
  27. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    "That's the problem; you never started from a position of skepticism." That and as far as I can see, never bothered to open textbook on atmospheric physics before leaping onto the web with an irresponsible website and laughable claims about climate science.
  28. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Steve Case... Denier is an appropriate and descriptive word. When people are presented with overwhelming evidence and still reject the accepted conclusions of the experts... what are we to call them? They are clearly in denial of the problem. They clearly deny the evidence. They are not the least bit skeptical. They aggressively pounce on every tiny bit of information that might seem to contradict the consensus without applying even minimal research. Regardless of how they might dislike it, I honestly can't think of a more apt term.
    Response:

    [DB] Please do continue to engage Steve as long as he stays on-topic, but please do so on one of the more appropriate threads dealing with denial (you know the drill).

    Thanks!

  29. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Steve, I responded in more appropriate thread Ocean cooling corrected again
  30. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Continuing from here Steve, the IPCC reports on published science up to cut off date for the report. When the IPCC report for 2013 (or 2014) comes out, what do you think it will say on OHC given the data available now?
  31. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    146, Composer99, It's funny, but Doug's problem appears to be the same one enjoyed by most Galileo-wannabes. Co2isnotevil wants to apply EE feedback control theory to everything to the exclusion of all else. I've seen people do the same with physics, computer science, thermodynamics, raw mathematics, and more. The basic recurring theme seems to be that they have an overconfident grasp of one approach (the hammer), and so assume that it applies perfectly to climate problems (the nail) with no revision or expansion whatsoever. The idea that their perspective is too limited and inadequate never seems to even cross their minds, even when it is pointed out to them. co2isnotevil recently did this with Gavin, of all people, over at RC. It was just dismissed out of hand that his over emphasis on feedback control theory where it didn't belong was leading him astray. Instead, from his point of view, it was the well known and respected professional scientist who'd been sucked into the wrong way of thinking, and he was right and adamant about it. [Doug, if you've bothered to read this, the lesson is not that there are more out there like you and the climate scientists have it wrong. Read this comment over and over until you begin to get some idea as to how you can improve your own approach to understanding, instead of everyone else's. You're not going to get anywhere with us, or most people, until you convince others that you have a good understanding of the problem, instead of a predetermined disposition and a really complicated but ultimately failed way to make it appear to be true.]
  32. Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    apirate: The first source for scientific information on climate science rightly ought to be the relevant peer-reviewed literature. Since we are not all of us practicing climatologists, we must often rely on others to interpret & represent the peer-reviewed literature for us. So the question becomes, who to trust on this count? The answer is, whomever can be demonstrated to be most accurately interpreting & representing the literature for their audience. I do not find it a stretch to conclude that Skeptical Science is far superior at this task than is WattsUpWithThat?.
  33. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Then maybe John Cook ought to stop using the term denier. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Denial-Video-4-favourite-weapon-deniers-cherry-picking.html
    Response:

    [DB] I originally deleted this due to just being an off-topic drive-by link, but so many of you responded I'm reinstating it.

    It is considered good form, Steve, to provide more explicative commentary when linking.

    Please also note that this is waaay off-topic for this thread.

  34. The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    Alexandre, you might add to that: 5) Responsibility is limited by knowledge. If one has no foreknowledge of an outcome of one's actions, then one is not ethically/morally responsible for the outcome. Morality, then, becomes an exercise in tightly controlling the knowledge one accepts. Doubt becomes a highly desirable commodity. People are willing to pay for it, yet its utility only serves the bottom line; it is not understood as true skeptical doubt, the servant of progress.
  35. The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    I have engaged a few times in debates with far-right near-anarchist ideologists, and basically they come down to these disclaimers: 1) whatever the market does, it is the best realistically possible outcome. 2) If something bad comes out of it, it's because people chose that outcome, and therefore they deserve it. (the Tragedy of the Commons is a "choice" here. Fishermen "choose" to deplete the resource they depend on) 3) whatever the government does, it will only worsen item 1). If the same action was done by a non-regulated private agent, then it's again the best possible outcome. 4) if a government existed around any bad outcome, it's a prime escape goat to explain it. I love the free market. I depend on it to live. But diffuse externalities are not well delt by uncoordinated agents. That's a limitation its fans refuse to see. At the end of the day, it looks more like blame-shifting than helpful ideological guidelines.
  36. The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    Northern Rock was a relatively innocent victim of the general banking crisis. This can be shown by the decision of the Government to split the Nationalised Bank into two parts. 1. A good bank 2. A bad bank The bad bank contained virtually all the mortgages and bond commitments. Two years ago most people thought that this part would lose money and could not be sold. Recently however the "bad bank" has been making a profit while the good bank is still making loses. Northern Rocks model was to borrow against its existing mortgages. But when the AAA rated American Mortgage Obligation Bonds was shown to be worthless nobody would lend against mortgage backed credit. Several of the major banks were technically insolvent because they held large quantities of these by now worthless bonds. One choice fact for those who believe in conspiracies. The British Government was paying for advice from Goldman Sachs about what to do with Northern Rock. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs had a massive hedge fund which was betting an a housing bond crash. Goldman Sachs have been forced to pay compensation to other Banks because of this chicanery. Northern Rocks mortgage book was always relatively clean as is now proved by the "bad" bank making a profit.
  37. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton:
    Perhaps it's my almost life-long involvement with studies in Nutrition and Natural Medicine that led me to an analogy with antioxidants cleaning up free radicals.
    Attempting to impose such knowledge as you possess regarding chemical reactions between free radical compounds and anti-oxidants onto atmospheric physics via analogy is, I dare say, an activity fraught with peril.
  38. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug Cotton: "I have, almost from the outset, been totally convinced that there is solid evidence that CO2 is not causing warming." That's the problem; you never started from a position of skepticism.
  39. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton @140, the Mexican professor's experiments completely failed to control for back radiation, which rendered his experiments incapable of testing the claims he thought he was testing for. As for the rest, please take CBDunkerson's excellent advise at 137. You have been, and demonstrably, clearly misinformed about climate science. That you respond to actually learning something new by simply restating your old argument in a new form shows that for you the important thing is not the truth of the matter, but the conclusion you desire to reach. The proper thing to do in your position, having realized the extent to which you have been misinformed, is to take down your web page and become properly informed. If after that you are still a skeptic, fine - but at least your theories might be interesting to rebut (or even, though the odds are not good, unrebutable) rather than simply tiresome as they are now.
  40. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Dougcotton @136, I am a bit tired so I am not going to give a full response. Suffice to say that climate scientists actually model the processes you are talking about using known radiative properties of the atmosphere and known physics and come up with very different results from yours. The fundamental reason for the difference is that you assume the atmosphere is optically thin for IR radiation, ie, that most IR radiation emitted upward from any portion of the atmosphere will escape to space. In fact in the significant wavelengths, that in which CO2 and H2O absorb and emit, the atmosphere is optically thick, with IR radiation not escaping to space around the 15 micrometer wavelength band unless it is emitted with an altitude of around 8 kilometers, and for H2O relevant wavelengths, around 6 kilometers. I refer you again to my 103 for a demonstration of the sort of experimental accuracy obtained with these models. Against that your hand waving calculations simply do not cut it. Your are in fact trying to perform the same sort of calculations as are performed in the models (even if you do not know it), but without their precision or comprehensiveness. And of course those models show back radiation of the order shown by Trenberth et al. Now, seeing as I'm tired, I will now simply refer you to a series of posts by Science of Doom where he explains some basics of atmospheric physics, and develops a climate model in the process to demonstrate the concepts, and enhance understanding. It is highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand climate science and can cope with a little mathematics. I particularly recommend that your read the entire series right through, including the comments (which are often very informative). If you have genuine questions, ask SOD over there (he is a very patient instructor) or ask them here. At the end, you should be able to answer for yourself what is wrong with your post here. The first Post is http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/23/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect-part-one/
  41. Dikran Marsupial at 23:40 PM on 12 August 2011
    Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug IIRC, the Mexican profs experiment only shows that the greenhouse effect does not work in the same way that a greenhouse works. However the explanation of the greenhouse effect accepted by skeptic climatologists such as Spencer, Christy, Lindzen etc. is the mechansim first coherently expressed by Calendar and Plass, not Tyndall. The example of Tyndall was put forward to show that the conspiracy theory about AGW is laughable, and I suspect nothing more. If you want to make a revolution in climatology, it is the work of Plass (and his successors) you need to overturn, not Tyndall.
  42. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug, Your statements: "So CO2 both slows the cooling process (for those photons it sends down) and speeds it up for those from oxygen and nitrogen that it sends to space. And the net effect is nothing in terms of net delay in the nightly cooling." and " At the most, it probably only delays the cooling each evening by less than 10 minutes, simply because the iterations of photon "trips" up and down are at the speed of light. There will be perhaps a few seconds delay before the extra heat into the surface "turns around" and exits as another photon, but after half a dozen iterations numbers are down to less than 1% because they reduce by 50% each time" are false (they contradict each other) because you do not understand the basics of atmospheric physics. Each time a photon is absorbed it is delayed (a lot) in its transit up to space. This delay causes the atmosphere to warm. In addition, the increased amount of CO2 in the air causes the height at which the photon is finally released to space to increase. This increase lowers the temperature at which the photon is emitted, causing it to carry less energy away. Please try to learn some basic physics and chemistry before you try to overturn decades of established science. If you ask questions about what you do not understand we will help you learn.
  43. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #137: Frankly I'm a little surprised that you refer back to that experiment because if you click "here" you can read how a Professor of Physics (thought he) debunked it in May this year. But even I do not place much emphasis on lab experiments like this, because in a lab the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies (approximately) whereas, in the atmosphere it does not because it is not an "isolated physical system" and the two "results" of the law, namely uniform temperature and uniform pressure cannot of course happen. The reason neither experiment is totally correct or totally wrong is that, in the real world, we have both radiation and conduction sending heat from the surface. So, any lab experiment which, in effect, says it's all one or the other, is not painting the full picture. So I suggest you keep away from recommending either experiment. Roy Spebcer pointed out how winds and air currents would greatly reduce the effect of CO2 (to about a third) and that it would then be not worth worrying about. I have not read of anyone who has considered the implications of the "clean up" job that CO2 can do with air molecules. This became almost immediately obvious when I understood and accepted that oxygen, for example, in a sense has difficulty emitting its photons. So unless there were scavenger CO2 molecules to clean up, gather the energy by collisions and then emit photons (that I was assuming O2 and N2 would do themselves) we would have a stalemate. Perhaps it's my almost life-long involvement with studies in Nutrition and Natural Medicine that led me to an analogy with antioxidants cleaning up free radicals. You must remember too, that, as explained in #133 (1) (2) & (3) I have, almost from the outset, been totally convinced that there is solid evidence that CO2 is not causing warming. At the most, it probably only delays the cooling each evening by less than 10 minutes, simply because the iterations of photon "trips" up and down are at the speed of light. There will be perhaps a few seconds delay before the extra heat into the surface "turns around" and exits as another photon, but after half a dozen iterations numbers are down to less than 1% because they reduce by 50% each time. Besides all that, we now can see that CO2 actually speeds up the cooling as well, which is sure to compensate for any warming. There really is nothing more to think about it. It is obvious and it does match the data, but don't start me on that one again. Just study the first three points above. Cheers everyone! Doug (Sydney)
  44. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton @133: 1) Actually the evidence for most proposed "cycles" of short duration is very weak, for a couple of reasons. The first of these is that few of the proposed cycles are in fact cyclical. Most are quasi-periodic like the ENSO "cycle". That is, they have a characteristic return period, but the actual length of any given "cycle" can vary by 50% or more of that return period. Second, the evidence for long term periodicity of these cycles is very weak, often failing any reasonable test of statistical significance, as Tamino shows for the AMO. Third, the short term periods may appear significant over the validation period, but frequently fail on past temperature indications as soon as they leave the validation period. That for example is the fate of Loehle and Scaffeta's recent attempt to find a cycle in the temperature record. Finally, and this carries us into 2), cycles are by their nature an ad hoc explanations. They themselves are unexplained unless they have a clear physical basis (such as the Milankovitch cycles). And as they are unexplained, if we explain something else by them we have merely shifted the burden of explanation, not resolved it. In fact, it is worse than that, for by postulating a cycle, you assert that a particular pattern has existed for an extended period, longer than the initial pattern you are trying to explain. Because that pattern is more extensive, it imposes a greater explanatory burden upon us. If there is very clear evidence of a cycle, this extra burden may be happily accepted, for it may also provide a clue as to its resolution. But absent clear evidence of such a cycle (and that evidence is absent in the majority of cases), it provides no clues and just increases what we need to explain. Now as it happens, the combination of changes in GHG and aerosol levels together with known natural forcings provides an excellent and physically grounded explanation of the changes in global mean temperature over the last 600 odd years. That explanation is exclusive of any except a very minor possibility for cycles. Therefore in accepting cycles as explanation we are rejecting a well grounded physical explanation for an unexplained, improbable series of events for which we have neither a physical explanation nor compelling grounds to believe in its existence. That is not good science. 3) Somebody may want to tackle this one more directly, but for me by choosing such a short time period you appear to be cherry picking. 4) For long term warming, heat has been building up somewhere - the ocean: It has also been building up in the atmosphere, which has been warming as well. (Note, there are several thread on ocean heat content on SkS, and if you wish to discuss it, you should move that part of the discussion to one of those threads.) 6) I am not going to discuss this theory of yours which is physically implausible and has no supporting evidence. Instead, let's remain concentrated on the greenhouse theory. 7) Of necessity, all energy entering the atmosphere from the surface by conduction must do so through the first 1 mm of air above the surface. In contrast, IR radiation emitted by the surface may not be absorbed for hundreds of meters above the surface. The result is that while all 17 W/m^2 of sensible heat transferred to the atmosphere is absorbed in that first mm. In contrast, only about one millionth of the 390 W/m^2, or 0.00039 W/m^2 transferred by radiation is absorbed in the first mm. Naturally the conductive transfer dominates in that first mm, but that tells us nothing about overall transfers. 9) See my 134 (4), and following response. Finally, your experiment will show greater temperatures in full sunlight for the simple reason that in full sunlight, it will be exposed to both back radiation and sunlight, while in shade it will only be exposed to the back radiation. Note that your shielding arrangement is inadequate in that all warm bodies emit thermal radiation, including aluminium foil, so while placing the foil across the top of the box will shield the thermometer from back radiation, it will replace that back radiation with thermal radiation of almost the same intensity because it is at room temperature.
  45. Dikran Marsupial at 23:15 PM on 12 August 2011
    Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug Cotton wrote "1. I am still convinced, even from my basic knowledge of statistics, that the statistical evidence for natural cycles in the climate records is compelling. " In that case, your knowledge of basic statistics is rather lacking. Firstly correllation is not causation; you also need to have a physical mechanism that can explain the strength of the observed effect. This is almost completely lacking for explanations based on planetary orbits (other than that of the Earth). Secondly such arguments based on statistical evidence assume that the datasets used were the only information we had on the physics of climate. However that is not true, there are multiple lines of evidence for example for the existence of the greenhouse effect, which is accepted by both sides of the scientific community in climatology. There are multiple forcings that act on the climate, such as solar forcing, radiative forcing from the enhanced greenhouse effect (that all skeptical scientists agrre exists) and aerosol cooling. For the hypothesis of natural cycles to be correct, then your theory must be able to explain why observed changes in aerosols and greenhouse gasses (etc) have not affected the climate. The statistical arguments fall foul of many known statistical pitfalls such as confounding; and demonstrate a considerable degree of statistical naivete on the part of those promoting them. Your posts on these threads demonstrate a substantial lack of self-skepticism. If you want to prove the scientific community wrong, good luck with that, it is what all scientists desire (almost) most of all. The difference between a good scientists and a crackpot is an even greater desire to scrutinise their own work for errors and to review all of their assumptions constanty.
  46. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Why was my post deleted? Because I said I was skeptical of the ARGO adjustments? Or some other reason?
    Response:

    [DB] The moderator deleted the comment due to insinuations of academic fraud:

    "The ARGO floats initially reported some cooling. Since then the raw data has been adjusted and now shows warming. I am skeptical of the validity of all that."

    If you wish to wish to re-post the comment sans offending phrase (or restructure it to comply with the Comments Policy), then please do so.

    Note that recent literature examines Argo data & finds coverage since 2005 to be the most robust.

  47. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug, stop a moment and examine your methodology. You have just learned something new which contradicts things you previously advanced as clear and immutable facts. Would not the logical outcome of this be to step back and re-examine your other assumptions and the conclusions ostensibly built on this incorrect 'fact'? If the fact was wrong then surely some of the conclusions it led to could be as well. Instead, you seem to have jumped to looking for new assumptions which will allow this recently learned information to support your end conclusion. In short, you have established your conclusion as correct and are seeking to build arguments which support that. This is not science or reason... it is faith. You choose to believe that CO2 cannot possibly be warming the planet and from there you build a mish-mosh of half understood concepts into a protective shield around this belief. One of those concepts proves incorrect... you just replace it with a new unfounded belief to preserve the barrier between outside reality and your foundational belief. Also, answer me this... why would John Tyndall have faked experiments showing that CO2 DOES cause planetary warming back in the 1850s? What possible motive could there have been more than a century before the great global warming 'debate' began? And why have scientists the world over repeating and refining those experiments continued to claim the same conclusion for 160 years? Do you realize that even the 'skeptic' scientists like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, et cetera ALL say that CO2 does indeed cause significant surface warming? All of them. Even complete [snip] like Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton do not deny this fact. How can such a huge 'conspiracy' exist... stretching back more than a century before there was any reason for it? Why do even scientists who claim that global warming will be mild or is mostly natural accept this supposedly 'false' information?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No accusations of dishonesty please, the comments policy applies, no matter how well founded the accusation is considered to be.
  48. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #134 Tom - genuine thanks. Now I do have one more for you: If O2 and N2 lose energy to CO2 by collision then their energy is in part transferred to CO2, and so there is still going to be the same energy radiated back (and to space.) Hence the net result is the same - you have to count the energy in the O2 and N2 and expect half of that also to produce extra feedback, just as if it had been radiated directly by the O2. Hence, every molecule of any gas that leaves the surface will, as it cools, in effect keep radiating both up and down, even if it does it indirectly by first transferring energy in collisions to CO2. So, for every photon that CO2 emits back it also emits another to space, the latter helping to cool the atmosphere faster. Of course I appreciate that the 50% figure could be out a little, but as a mean it must be fairly close to the mark I suggest. I can see no reason for the probabilty of downward emission being greater than upward. If anything, because of the angles from high altitudes, there should be slightly less than 50 going back to Earth. Now we also need to include the 23% coming in to the atmosphere because they add energy that also has to be radiated out. Adding the surface bits: 25 + 5 + 17 - 12 and getting total of 23 + 35 = 58%. Then we double that because of the geometric progression 1 + half + quarter + .. = 2 and we get 116% in total going up. (cf 117% above) - Then take off the first 17% going up to get 101% coming back (cf 100% above) so all within 1% - I'm happy with that. Who needs computers? So CO2 both slows the cooling process (for those photons it sends down) and speeds it up for those from oxygen and nitrogen that it sends to space. And the net effect is nothing in terms of net delay in the nightly cooling. Yes that satisfies me completely and fully explains why we are seeing no warming from CO2 (anthropogenic or otherwise, now or in the past) and the climate is indeed just following cycles. CO2 is both a helper and a hinderer - equally. Now everything gels with the observations and I have a bit more to add to my site this weekend. Have a good one. Over and out.
  49. The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    This has been a great series to read and covers pretty much what I've been thinking after reading Rational Optimist and Ridley's blog. It is a shame for me as I, like many others, have enjoyed his other books. I saw his 'When ideas have sex' talk at the Life Centre in Newcastle, but people were mostly wondering whether he would mention Northern Rock or not. Excellent series though.
  50. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug: With questions and statements like: "O2 never emits even a single photon at a time, there how exactly can it get cooler? What happens to the energy it carries?" (the energy is transferred to carbon dioxide by molecular collisions, and then radiated away) and "I don't observe (nor do others) any physical evidence of back radiation" (you have been provided with this data above, it is easily measured at home with the correct type of thermometer. Your experiment above is wrong because you are using the wrong thermometer) you obviously do not know anything about atmospheric physics or chemistry. Why are you so adamant arguing about something you admit you know nothing about? If you ask questions about how the atmosphere works, the people here will explain it to you. Making up explainations on your own, based on no data, will not replace the understandings of thousands of scientists over the past decades. You are clogging up the entire web site with your ignorant rantings. Please try to learn something about atmospheric physics so you can join the discussion. You have to learn the basic background information before you can explain how the atmosphere works. Ask questions and "all" will help you to understand more.

Prev  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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