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. Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
    Mandas is right. The possibility of persuading China, India, Russia and the US to actually cut carbon dioxide emissions is zilch. The economic problems in Europe and the well known difficulties they have had in carbon dioxide trading would indicate that they will be going nowhere fast, particularly if Germany continues with the threst to close down nuclear power - which I don't actually believe will happen once the flurry over Fukushima has faded out of memories. Obviosly what is really beeded is to maintain strong world economies which will be capapble of taking whatever appropriate action is necessary to prepare for any variations in the future, be they warming or as now apears more likely, a period of cooling. Adaptatation is the only sensible way to consider the future wihout needing to reduce the standard of living in these poorer countries. Australia's contibution from 5%, a mere 0.001 C as a worst case scenario is not going to help.
  2. apiratelooksat50 at 11:55 AM on 12 August 2011
    Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    AT at 3 I find your comment highly insulting. Critical thinking can be defined as: Reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. I push the envelope in my school district because I often diverge from the curriculum because I want my students to leave my class at the end of the year know how to "think" and express their thoughts. And, my students routinely score well on end of course testing even though I "don't teach to the test". When my students are researching any subject, I direct them to the source. Depending on the subject, that could be NOAA, USDA, USGS, USACE, HADCRUT, USEPA, University of Colorado, etc... I don't direct my students to WUWT or SKS. And, we prefer they don't use Wikipedia either. AGW is a polarizing issue and I would rather them study the real data and come to conclusions on their own. One site is pro AGW and one site is anti AGW. If they find either site on their own - it's okay. When I present the subject of AGW (or any other), I am very careful not to tip my hand to my opinion. They are shown resources, videos, and powerpoints both pro and con. Then they read, research and write. You may, or may not, know it, but I am in a personal e-mail dialogue with Sphaerica and he has actually changed my position on the anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the rising atmospheric concentrations. You can look at the list below and I can tell you that 1-6 came into play on that. A critical thinker: 1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives 2. Desires to be, and is, well-informed 3. Judges well the credibility of sources 4. Identifies reasons, assumptions, and conclusions 5. Asks appropriate clarifying questions 6. Judges well the quality of an argument, including its reasons, assumptions, evidence, and their degree of support for the conclusion 7. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position regarding a belief or an action, doing justice to challenges 8. Formulates plausible hypotheses 9. Plans and conducts experiments well 10. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context 11. Draws conclusions when warranted – but with caution 12. Integrates all of the above aspects of critical thinking So, before you toss off a flippant comment like that, please think twice about what you are saying. If I told my classes to research global warming on AGW only from WUWT, you would scream that it was biased. Just as the opposite is true if the only source is SKS.
    Response:

    [DB] "I am very careful not to tip my hand to my opinion."

    So you wouldn't dream of posting Inhofe's "A Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Glabal Warming Alarmism" but calling it "A Skeptics Guide to Global Warming" on your student's homework assignment page?

    Many such as you propound false equivalency.  "Blind guides" is a term for them.

  3. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Steve Case#17, Old news. You are referring to a report dated 2007. That would mean 4 years (at most) of data to substantiate this 'cooling.' Hardly what we call 'statistically significant'. Perhaps they meant 'instantaneous cooling.' Look at the graph; it's not cooling.
  4. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Tom. There is nowhere near enough empirical data on a world-wide, round the clock, year-round basis to confirm the magnitude of mean world-wide downward radiation which, by the way, should include O2 and N2 high frequency (high energy) downward radiation. (This is off the graph in your Figure 1, but if you look up the ratio of the frequencies at which photons can be emitted for O2, N2 and CO2 etc, then that will be the ratio of the energy in each photon.) So no one really can say for certain what the proportions are for radiation, conduction, latent heat etc for the heat leaving the crust. I prefer the 1998 NASA diagram with the additional calculations I have done for theoretical feedback. In that regard, I consider that there is no greater probability that those emitted photons that "get through the maze" will reach the surface than that they will go to space. The maze is thinner above, so maybe even more than 50% get to space. I know there can be a chain reaction, but it is the last emission in the chain that still has at least 50% chance of heading for space. My "two thirds" of the heat in O2 and N2 came from the NASA figures where I have assumed that the latent heat will nearly always end up in N2 and O2 simply because of the dominance of such molecules. And, yes, this energy will be released in the form of photons - how else can we get a balance at the top of the atmosphere? Your calculations on emissivity are irrelevant when there is an equilibrium state between the surface and the immediate few millimetres of the atmosphere, simply because if the ground is at the same temperature as the air it is not going to emit photons and make itself cooler than the air. (Strictly speaking, there can be an equal interchange of photons, but the net outflow will be zero.) You cannot apply blackbody physics when you are not relating it to the boundary of the blackbody but to an internal interface. It can only be applied when "looking" at the whole Earth system, including the atmosphere, from outer space. Finally, you will note in my calculations of feedback (linked above) that, if the assumption that 50% of photons go up and 50% go down is about right, then, when we consider a few iterations of "up and down trips" then 50% of all the energy transferred from the surface to the atmosphere will come back down again and start the second iteration. Then 50% of that comes down etc, so we end up in the limit with just double the amount going up. This applies no matter what the proportion of radiation, because half of whatever heat transfers to air molecules by other means will also be emitted back after each upward trip. You can see the simple geometric progression in my calculations. And the most important thing in all this is that the emissions from O2 and N2 (and about 50 other gases in the atmosphere I understand) need also to be considered.
    Response:

    [DB] Your comments would at least take on the semblance of an argument if you were to use paragraphs.  Just sayin'.

  5. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton#120 "pretty much like Singapore." Yes, Lake Victoria's thermal inertia is an apt analogy for that of the Pacific Ocean. "Boende 13' 0" South - where maximum temperatures range from 22 to 29 deg.C over the next 7 days" FYI Boende, Zaire is at 2N latitude, but why quibble over a few degrees? However, 7 days of data do not represent the average, which varies from 73 to 75F over the course of a year. The website I cite uses 14 years of data (what we expect to see when we are talking about climate). Taking 7 days out of a year, let alone 14 years, is known as cherrypicking - with a capital C. (Of course, you've already done that by basing your entire conduction/diffusion/thermal gradient idea entirely on Singapore - 1 data point. Even Steve G would be ashamed of that!) Yet again, at the equator the consistency of insolation dominates all other factors discussed so far. "The laws of Physics apply just as much in a room as in the small zone I was talking about a few millimetres above and below the surface of an ocean." Indeed: in this case, delta Q = m C delta T might be relevant. Experiments must be scaled: Small objects (balloons, buckets of water) have large surface area compared to the mass they represent and thus do not scale appropriately. Observations based on a bucket or a pot or a lamp do not represent what happens in the ocean or the atmosphere. I still do not understand this fascination with a few mm +/- sea level. But that is not relevant. Thus far, all data presented here (including some you've presented) contradict your views. And last I looked, it was still "a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." -- S. Holmes
  6. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Looks like my link doesn't want to work, but you can Google the AR4 Chapter 5 Executive summary easy enough It says: The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. Consistent with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0–3,000 m) has increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface. Two-thirds of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m. Global ocean heat content observations show considerable interannual and inter-decadal variability superimposed on the longer-term trend. Relative to 1961 to 2003, the period 1993 to 2003 has high rates of warming but since 2003 there has been some cooling.
  7. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected

      scaddenp at 09:52 AM on 12 August, 2011 "but since 2003 there has been some cooling." There has? Please see here especially Von Schuckmann and La Treon. muoncounter at 10:57 AM on 12 August, 2011 scaddenp#15, This particular meme needs to be aggressively rejected. Trends are 0.14 C/decade (UAH) and 0.17 C/decade (GIStemp); there is no such cooling. Tamino is far better at this; it would be nice if he updated his graph.

    Tell it to the IPCC:

    IPCC AR4 Chapter 5 Executive Summary

  8. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    scaddenp#15, This particular meme needs to be aggressively rejected. Trends are 0.14 C/decade (UAH) and 0.17 C/decade (GIStemp); there is no such cooling. Tamino is far better at this; it would be nice if he updated his graph.
  9. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    scaddenp @1117, the purpose is obvious. His claims are being refuted on the other threads very convincingly. He needs to thread hop so that he can hopefully gull some naive reader who does not see the counter arguments. No matter how much he thread hops, however, he still needs to answer some questions. Why, for example, does he assert that atmospheric radiation from O2 and N2 eclipses that from CO2 even though he has seen no data to that effect, and there is data to the contrary: And why does he insist surface radiation is so low that, given the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the surface emissivity for IR radiation must be 0.18, even though the surface is known to have an emissivity greater than 0.9 in those wavelengths? Indeed, the crucial question he needs to answer is why we are required at every turn in his theory to take his mere assertion in preference to well established scientific laws, and copious empirical observations that contradict it?
  10. Christy Crock #7: People Need Fossil Fuel Energy (Part 1)
    I would actually say at the bottom more energy = longer life. look at < 2 : 46 - 82 but 2-4: 1 country of 52 and then 64-82 I think this difference is things like small wind generators and basic sanitation.
  11. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Muoncounter #117: Not only do you link a site with mean monthly data, rather than individual daily ranges, but you pick Entebbe Airport about 3km from the large Lake Victoria and itself on a peninsula with water on each side - pretty much like Singapore. Try some in the middle of South America or the first one I picked today in Africa - Boende 13' 0" South - where maximum temperatures range from 22 to 29 deg.C over the next 7 days - fairly different from the 31 and 32 deg.C in Singapore every day of the year, even when cloudy or wet. http://www.foreca.com/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo/Boende?add=100218680 Regarding Galveston, you have not quoted air temperatures within a few millimetres of the top of the ocean as I referred to, and nor is it in the middle of a large ocean. The laws of Physics apply just as much in a room as in the small zone I was talking about a few millimetres above and below the surface of an ocean. Take a bucket of sea water into a room if you wish, heat it and measure the temperatures just above and below the surface if you want a closer simulation. The energy is transferred by conduction (which is basically the same as diffusion - see Wiki) as your experiment will prove. Obviously that leaves far less energy then to be radiated. Though you might like to say 80% plus or minus 20% by diffusion if you wish. (I am conscious of the fact that some readers may not have a scientific background and so some lay terms may make my website and these posts more understandable.)
  12. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton, as I pointed out in 110, for the Earth's surface to emit as little thermal radiation as you claim it does, it would need an emissivity of 0.18 in the 4 to 16 micrometer wavelength range. Perhaps you could point to the suitably low emissivities from the following common surface materials: Pleas note that with an emissivity of 0.9, at 273 degrees K, the surface would emit approximately 280 W/m^2 of radiation, of which at most 40 W/M^2 escapes to space. Would you care to explain what happens to the other 240 Watts? Or do you believe that is an unfair question in that your mere assertion is expected to trump all scientific data mounted against your theories? (Which seems to be the principle you operate on.)
  13. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton @113, you not only said that O2 and N2 do not emit many photons, you also claimed that they carried two thirds of the energy released from the surface, and that they emit that energy. Indeed, you where very specific:
    "Also, since two thirds of the heat energy in the surface/oceans went into other air molecules (outnumbering CO2 by 2,500 : 1) there is still about half of that coming back, eclipsing that from CO2."
    Further, you specify that O2 and N2 "... must release the energy in the form of photons at least when they get close to absolute zero". These beliefs form a mutually contradictory set with the laws of physics. In fact so does the belief that photons emitted by O2 or N2 at near absolute zero should have "... 100 times the energy of a low energy photon from CO2". And while your first sentence is not technically contradictory (I did misread "many"), for each of the two beliefs asserted in it, the probability of that belief being true given the other one is very low. Equally importantly, this is another of your evidence free assertions. Put simply, you just made it up. To demonstrate, consider this graph of the observed backradiation: The area under each peak gives the power radiated at that wavelength. I can clearly see the CO2 peak (and a secondary CO2 peak not labelled at a wave number of 800). Could you kindly point out the O2 or N2 peaks, or provide a similar spectrum which shows them. It should be easy to find as, according to you, there radiation eclipses that of CO2.
  14. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    "but since 2003 there has been some cooling." There has? Please see here especially Von Schuckmann and La Treon.
  15. Daniel J. Andrews at 09:52 AM on 12 August 2011
    The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    I also recommend readers click on the link to George Monbiot's article, which provides a rather devastating take-down of some of Dr. Ridley's other baseless claims.
  16. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Mr. Chris G. pointed to a paper by Katz and Worster at http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2118/1597.full.pdf+html which I found fascinating. They do a 3-D calculation of the effect of a narrow retrograde valley embedded in a prograde slope under an ice sheet debouching to the ocean, and they find that such valleys can destabilize the entire ice sheet ! Also they find that PIG is melting faster than their model indicates... sidd
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Doug, what are you trying to achieve here, by jumping to another thread and repeating the same assertions (that "NASA" and "IPCC" are in contradiction), when this has already been explained and referenced for you on other threads? We have measurements of DLR. Greenhouse theory predicts its magnitude and spectrum. What does your theory predict this measurement to be?
  18. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Albatross @29, thankyou! "Consilience" is the word I've been looking for. Multiple strands of evidence from varied sources all leading to the same conclusion, as opposed to 'our club members all agree with other".
  19. The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    Andy, Iloved your use of "hockey stick", "alarmist" and "hide the decline". So very, very apt.
  20. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougC#116 "Inland areas at the equator in Africa do not have steady temperatures " I suggest you look at some data before making any more unsubstantiated claims; at Entebbe Airport (0 latitude) in Uganda the minimum temp varies between 16-18C, with an annual average of 17C. The nearly constant insolation at the equator dominates. "Why is the temperature millimetres above the surface of the ocean just about the same as that of the first few millimetres of water just below?" Once again, we look to the data. Galveston, TX water temperature remains in the 80s F through September; air temperature begins declining a month earlier. If memory serves, I recall something about water having a higher specific heat than air. But the relevance of this particular observation is? "If I fill a balloon in a room with 80% pure nitrogen and 20% pure oxygen" You must stop conflating these room scale examples with atmospheric dynamics. Same mistake as RW Wood made with his salt greenhouse. Scale is everything here. "the outdated 1998 NASA chart." If it is outdated, why are you continuing to cite it? How can you base your 'skepticism' of the current (Trenberth) diagram on this outdated chart? "just like in fact does happen at the surface, using up probably at least two thirds" 'Probably at least'? Is this a scientific statement? And in what manner is energy 'used up'? No one claims that convection and conduction are not involved in heat transfer. But your 'diffusion prevails' argument is invalid; that takes anything based on that argument down as well. Integrity demands that you admit your mistakes here and retract these positions on your own website.
  21. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Muoncounter #115: Inland areas at the equator in Africa do not have steady temperatures like those seen on equatorial islands. It is, in fact, exactly as you say: "a large body of water at these locations moderates their temperature range." Why is it so? Why is the temperature millimetres above the surface of the ocean just about the same as that of the first few millimetres of water just below? According to the Tremberth diagram, the heat exiting the water does so 16.2% as latent heat which drifts up into the clouds before it has any effect, and 80.3% by radiation which can in no way convey the exact temperature of the water to the adjacent air molecules. Only conduction (diffusion) can do that. Is that the 3.4% in those thermals doing all that? It does leave me questioning the assumptions. If I fill a balloon in a room with 80% pure nitrogen and 20% pure oxygen the "air mix" inside will soon have a temperature matching the outside air, won't it, no matter how much I alter the air conditioner. Yet no GH gas inside, no radiation to speak of - just good old convection and diffusion - just like in fact does happen at the surface, using up probably at least two thirds of the outward heat flow as in the outdated 1998 NASA chart. What a difference a few years makes in consensus opinion.
  22. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR talking about "deniers" and "alarmists" as if he's in the middle. That's rich.
  23. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Eric... I'm with Daniel. Please present us with the compelling evidence because I've not seen it. Each time "skeptics" put forth some new paper that claims to contradict AGW it comes up extremely short of the mark.
  24. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 05:32 AM on 12 August 2011
    The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    Thanks for another enjoyable read. It is interesting to see so plainly that in quite a lot of cases, ideology is the main reason for dismissing climate science. Debunking such people is a thankless task, but one which will hopefully help in the long run.
  25. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR #35 wrote: "Well evidence has been presented, but it is claimed to be bogus based an any number of criteria." And you really can't see that to many of us this sentence describes YOU more than any other respondent above? You've been presented with evidence. You have ignored or dismissed it. I guess it all comes down to what one considers 'evidence'. Your objections about 'causing' vs 'significant contributing factor' and 'climate scientists' vs 'climate experts' as the very pinnacle of ridiculous semantic shenanigans over trivia having nothing to do with the scientific realities. You seem to think they are vitally important and revealing and dismiss all objections to the contrary.
  26. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Stephen, My complaint is that those who call "deniers" and those whom the deniers call "alarmists" refuse to budge from their established positions. I have heard some claim that they will shift positions, if evidence is presented to verify that change. Well evidence has been presented, but it is claimed to be bogus based an any number of criteria. To top it off, there are those who call anyone who is not in their own camp (denier or alarmist), as being a member of the opposite extreme, when their views in no way mirror that faction. I did not believe this until recently.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] I am more than willing to consider any evidence that can be a silver bullet that overcomes AGW.  Indeed, that's one of the main reasons I continue in my involvement here.

    Could you please enlighten this one as to which evidence you have presented? 

    Please note, said evidence should be able to be reproducible, survive peer-review and be internally & externally consistent with the physics of our world.

    Look forward to it.

  27. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Stephen #33, "We should be talking about what we do in light of it's existence, not whether it exists." Exactly Stephen. However, "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW refuse to accept the evidence so that they do not have to take action, changing their ways frightens them. They also appear to be scared that by accepting the evidence they will be on a slippery slope, so best to dig their heels in early. That is probably one of the reasons why you rarely see "skeptics" and those in denial concede making errors or bothering to correct them. Rob @32, Yes, the psychology of denial and fake skepticism is fascinating and something I was naive about until two years ago. DB @27, "you [EtR] have ceded all semblence being an "honest broker" and have formally donned the mantle of denial" Is it not interesting that for the longest time s/he was trying to come across as a "skeptic", not a real one mind you, but at least not someone in denial. Well, don't I feel deceived/cheated.
  28. How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
    Given that the graphic has now been posted on both Climate Progress and Grist with links to this article, will we see a swarm of climate deniers posting on this comment thread?
  29. Stephen Baines at 03:24 AM on 12 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    I can't even figure out what EtR's exact complaint is. It can't be the "catastrophic" thing, because that wasn't even referenced in the question, AFAIK. To see that word there is to read into the question based on preexisting expectations. It can't be the cherry-picking of expert opinion over uninformed opinion. That would make no sense, unless he subscribed to the "consensus as conspiracy" thesis. This much I will say. The image is compelling - and therefore threatening to those who are committed to denying the existence of the overwhelming agreement among active climate scientists. That agreement is real. We should be talking about what we do in light of it's existence, not whether it exists.
  30. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    I honestly find the psychology of EtR fascinating. It's as if I've drawn a circle on a piece of paper and he's trying to say it's a square... because it's not exactly a perfect circle.
  31. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Has something gone wrong with the formatting of comments? I see unusual things going on following barry's comment.
    Moderator Response: [RH] See if that fixes it. There was a missing "/" in one of his blockquotes.
  32. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR @27, This is not a high school debate. You need to raise the bar. You are the one being presented with volumes of evidence and facts and choosing to cherry pick which ones you believe or ignore to support your beliefs. True skeptics consider the body of evidence.
  33. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Hang on folks, I think we have this back to front (or maybe I do). As far as I can recall it was "skeptics" and those in denial who initially claimed that "there is no consensus". They made the argument-- something along the lines of "we do not know everything , therefore we know nothing". This essay by Oreskes in Science supports that, she notes: "Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Confusion, uncertainty and delay are the tactics used by those in denial about AGW and "skeptics". And one way they do that is to make the strawman argument about "consensus", and then try pull the "science is not done by consensus" card when their strawman is addressed. So that misguided belief (i.e., that there is no consensus, or that there is a raging debate that we are even increasing CO2, or that the "greenhouse effect" is even real) had to be addressed, and it has been, a few times now. The fact is that when you speak to experts in the field, and by "experts" I mean people who are active in climate research and disciplines related to the climate system, then, apart from a few mavericks/outliers (who are found in every scientific discipline-- some medical researchers still believe that HIV and AIDS are not related!) almost all of them agree that 1) CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans are increasing almost entirely b/c of human CO2 emissions and activities, 2) The "greenhouse effect" is real (a misnomer, but the experts know that) and that 3) We humans have thus very likely caused most of the warming. Moreover, scientific societies and academies across the world agree with these statements. In fact, because of that we have not consensus but consilience. The 'skeptics" trolling this thread are doing themselves no favours by doing the very things that John has pointed out in the series of videos.
  34. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR #27: Yes, you have indeed proved that.
  35. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    It just goes to prove my earlier statement about those who are firmly entrenched refusing to be swayed when the inaccuracies of their arguments are presented. Thank you all for the confirmations.
    Response:

    [DB] And thank you very much for the most excellent Alice in Wonderland impression on this thread.  Most illuminating, the way you have ceded all semblence being an "honest broker" and have formally donned the mantle of denial.

  36. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DC#112: "In Singapore the minimum temperature above ground is also either 298 deg.K or 299 deg.K every night of the year" Using only one data point to represent the entire globe (the ultimate cherrypick!) proves nothing. Singapore is at 1 N latitude. Locations that close to the equator have nearly the same solar radiation input all year long; their temperatures don't vary much. source Try again at higher latitudes (all values from weather.com): Wellington NZ (41S), nighttime annual range 7 - 14C Amsterdam (51N), nighttime annual range -1 - 12C Note: I chose cities near sea level for comparison to Singapore. One could also infer that the presence of a large body of water at these locations moderates their temperature range. Try the high desert, noting that elevation difference is insignificant (since you are starting your thermal gradient at great depth): Phoenix (33N) nighttime range 7 - 27C (the largest range, validating the ocean-as-moderating influence suggestion). Your 'diffusion will prevail' argument fails.
  37. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Eric @ 16... Come on, bub. Think about the statement. Put it together. "Of Climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change 97.4% of them said they think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." That is perfectly consistent with the statement that "97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming." The 82% you refer to is the measure of "all respondents." It's a measure that is fairly meaningless because of the breakdowns of the various respondents. And not only that, Anderegg 2010 came to essentially the exact same numbers using different methods. That suggests the results are robust.
  38. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Doug, there are direct measurements of DLR all over the place. Use scholar.google.com. Here's one: http://www.meteo.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~emde/publications/wacker2008.pdf
  39. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Tom, re #91: I did not say O2 and N2 don't emit any photons. Re-read what I said: .."don't emit many photons." I said this because the number of photons emitted by, say, an O2 molecule is a lot less in number than the number emitted by a CO2 molecule which is capturing and emitting all the time. So it was "not many" in relative terms. Note also that the photons emitted by O2 are high energy and so (very roughly) 1 such photon may have, say, 100 times the energy of a low energy photon from CO2. All molecules will emit photons when their energy drops suddenly to a lower quantum state. I don't see any contradiction in what I said.
  40. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Eric the Red @22, it strains credulity that you do not want to consider the group of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change as not being expert on climate change. If we are not to consider the actively publishing (and hence researching) specialists in a field as expert in that field, then we have evacuated the notion of expertise of all meaning.
  41. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    In reply to all comments: Some don't appear to acknowledge that I did calculate feedback at http://earth-climate.com/calculations.jpg and, yes, I based it on a similar diagram to the one referenced in #111, albeit 1998. The link again is http://earth-climate.com/ipccdiag.jpg . The 20.7% becomes 33% assuming all photons are captured and all energy re-radiated - so no warming of atmospheric molecules. Both these extremes are unlikely, so I reduced the 33% to "< 30%" - this comparing likes with likes regarding the IPCC diagram. Show me if you can what is wrong with my calculations as they stand taken from the data on the diagram, whether or not the diagram is correct. My reasons for selecting the NASA based diagram were several. But firstly, I would like to see physical measurements of low frequency radiation coming down from the atmosphere. If anyone can point me to such, many thanks. It seems to me that such radiation could still be expected to continue when the sun is behind a cloud, or when one stands in the shade of a building late afternoon, and even immediately after sunset. How can this radiation have about double the energy of direct sunlight? If it does, block it with an umbrella and see if the difference is noticeable. The second reason goes like this. There is an underground temperature gradient inversely related to the conductivity of the rock, clay etc. German borehole measurements found 270 deg.C at 9,000 metres - let's call that 540 deg.K. Now, at the equator for example, underground temperatures are about 298 deg.K. In Singapore the minimum temperature above ground is also either 298 deg.K or 299 deg.K every night of the year. If this temperature of the air were only controlled by radiation (at night) how on Earth does it "fluke" the same temperature? I suggest it can only do that if the main (if not nearly all of the) heat transfer is by diffusion, which is like conduction and happens between solids and gases by molecular collision, and which creates equilibrium. Now, over the whole globe, winds will cause more radiation when they lower air temperatures enough below surface temperatures to allow quantum energy level falls within molecules - which is when photons of radiation are emitted. But, in calm conditions, diffusion will prevail as in the lamp cover experiment on my site: heat at the side goes straight up. http://earth-climate.com/light.jpg Finally, refer to the Mexican Professor of Physics who (in May this year) showed that when a box has a lid which is transparent to both high and low frequency radiation the air still warms due to contact with the hot walls and base, not "trapping" of radiation. A lid that acts like a GH gas still leads to the same temperature rise. Just as good old Prof Sumner-Miller (Sydney Uni Physics Dept - 1960's) taught me to ask, "Why is it so?" I ask likewise of any and all readers.
  42. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    I would have difficulty answering the question because of the word "factor." Lose the warming from CO2 and water vapor is largely removed from the atmosphere. That makes CO2 a pretty big factor. Water vapor, though, is clearly the dominant GHG at any given moment in the recent atmospheric composition. What would you answer, EtR?
  43. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Regarding thermal inertia, the executive summary of the IPCC's Chapter 5 that tells us that over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C ... but since 2003 there has been some cooling. Sounds to me like the heat build up isn't very much and not very consistent.
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    If you look up the Second Law of Thermodynamics in Wikipedia for example you will see that it requires an "isolated physical system" which the atmosphere is not. Furthermore, one of the results of it acting is, not only that it produces uniform temperature, but also uniform pressure. Neither of these is seen between the top and bottom of the atmosphere. The pressure difference causes warmer air to rise as is well known. That said, the theory relating to the "greenhouse effect" recognises that we are not supposing that warmed air is physically being trapped and somehow warming the surface. Instead it is all about radiation. Incoming high energy radiation passes straight through GH gases, whereas low energy (low frequency infra-red) radiation which comes from a solid or liquid surface can be captured by GH gases. The photons are delayed and then others emitted. If, and only if, the ones emitted have less energy than the ones captured then the GH gas molecule will be warmed a little. This will mean that it is more likely to emit its next photon sooner, with consequent cooling, and/or it may pass on some of its heat to other air molecules. The issue is, to what extent does this happen? There are two very different sets of figures - one used by the IPCC and the other sourced from NASA. The NASA based diagram shows much more heat being transferred by conduction from the earth surface to the adjacent air, and less by radiation. When feedback calculations are applied to the NASA based one the results relating to radiation feedback are less than 30% those that the IPCC claimed. In fact, the IPCC figures indicate radiation coming down out of the air from GH gases far exceeds the radiation received from the sun. This means that, just after sunset, you should shield yourself with an umbrella to avoid feeling the heat. ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Endless self-promotion of website snipped.

  45. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DCotton: The graphic you cite (wikipedia) is hardly a scientific source document. That image seems to be a derivative of the graphic shown here, a web page written in 1998, which shows this '30%' reflected to space. In that page, the image is linked to NASA's Langley archives, but no original version of the image (after all, it is at least 13 years old). Is this graphic the basis for all your subsequent calculations? If so, it was clearly pointed out by CBDunkerson starting here that you've misinterpreted the numbers and by Tom Curtis that you've ignored more modern source material. Until you provide appropriate citations for your sources, use the most recent data available and correct the errors already identified in your comments, no one here will take your claims seriously.
  46. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    First skim - The tentative results are non-intuitive (to me), specifically regarding biodiversity at different temperatures. I would have thought that life would flourish more in a warmer (stable) global climate, like microbiological cultures in the lab, but the work indicates otherwise. Fascinating stuff. I'll re-read and follow up on the references. And I'll refrain from digressing here any further. Thanks for the allowance.
  47. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    EtR#22: "If you want to convince people" Eric, please. You are losing all remaining credibility by standing on this particular issue. If you want to convince people in our world, tell the biggest lies you can get away with. FauxNews proves this, as does the 'petition project,' '800 peer reviewed papers' (Not!) and so on. Search cherrypicking (or Goddard) for more examples.
  48. apiratelooksat50 at 22:03 PM on 11 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    DB @ 13 Please explain. If 99.9% are not climate scientists, then 0.1% are. From there it is simple math.
  49. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Bless you, Rob. Just the thing. Making time right now to read.
  50. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Barry - There are papers suggesting that global biodiversity was diminished during "Greenhouse' periods. Contrary to James Inhofe's elementary school recollections of the time of the dinosaur. Such as this study: A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record - Mayhew (2007) Kinda makes sense for the marine environment. The oceans were uniformly warmer from pole-to-equator, and from the surface to deep ocean, therefore oxygen levels in the ocean would have been greatly reduced.

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