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  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  Next

Comments 77601 to 77650:

  1. 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.
  2. 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!

  3. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Steve, I responded in more appropriate thread Ocean cooling corrected again
  4. 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?
  5. 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.]
  6. 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?.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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/
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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)
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton @129: 1) You may find the following two illustrations from NASA useful: Both where designed by Simon Loeb using flux estimates supplied by Norman Loeb from the CERES satellite. Both post date 2008, so can reasonably be viewed as current. You will notice that the first diagram is modeled on that by Trenberth et al, 2009 (Fig 1 in the main article above). The second cancels out opposing terms to show net fluxes. Thus the surface flux is the 117% surface radiation - 100% back radiation for a net 17% surface flux. Because they are sourced from the same person, and are transparently related, there is no question of any contradiction between the two diagrams. Given that it is worthwhile noting that the NASA diagrams show a net 58 W/m^2 surface flux, compared to the net 63 W/m^2 from Trenberth et al. NASA shows 17 W/m^2 for sensible heat and 85 W/m^2 for evapo/transpiration, compared to 17 and 80 for Trenberth et al. NASA shows 398 W/m^2 for the surface radiation compared to 399 by Trenberth et al. 2) O2 does apparently emit IR radiation, but it is very weak compared to the main GHG, and so weak it cannot be distinguished from noise in observed spectra of outgoing longwave radiation or back radiation. For the most part, it and N2 are warmed and cooled by collisions with the main GHGs. According to the equipartition theorem(PDF), the energy of a gas will be equally distributed between the various degrees of freedom of the molecules of the gas, where a degree of freedom is one of the three spatial axis, or one of the vibrational or rotational mode of the molecules of the gas. Importantly this is a statistical property, so that individual molecules may have a greater vector in the x axis than in the y or z, or have more energy in a vibrational mode than as kinetic energy. When CO2 absorbs a photon, one of its rotational modes has a surfeit of energy. Normally, in a short time it will collide with another molecule resulting in that excess energy being redistributed between the two molecules, and amongst their degrees of freedom. The net effect is that each gains kinetic energy, raising the temperature of the gas. This is true regardless of the molecule that collides, so that O2 and N2 can gain energy this way as well. Conversely, sometimes a collision will result in a rotational mode of CO2 having excess energy. When that happens the CO2 can emit a photon, effectively cooling not just itself, but the gas of which it is a part. It is in this way that the ozone layer is cooled, with energy being absorbed by O3, but emitted by both CO2 and O3 (which also radiates strongly in the IR). 3) Yes. Trenberth, Fasullo and Khiel 2009. In addition to developing their own energy balance, they cite the other major efforts to achieve the same thing, and list the other results in tabular form. 4) We feel warming effect of the sunlight because it's direct effect at noon in the tropics is approximately 1300 W/m^2, or nearly four times the average strength of the back radiation. More importantly, it is significantly stronger than the energy we radiate because of our internal temperature of around 500 W/m^2 (or perhaps a little lower, I'm not sure of the emissivity of skin). In contrast, in the cool of the evening, we would not be able to tell be feel if our hand was in direct sunlight because its effective radiation is much less. Likewise, we do not feel the 333 W/m^2 of backradiation because it is less than the aproximatey 500 W/m^2 we radiate, so the net radiation is outward, thus cooling us. 5) This question is based on the incorrect premise that the base figures from Trenberth can be simply compared with the net radiation figures from NASA. If you want to make the comparison, either use the NASA figures from my first figure in answer to question (1), or convert Trenberth et al's figures to net figures by subracting the back radiation from the surface radiation.
  26. Two more reviews of Climate Change Denial
    OT but for those interested in seeing some of the most common denialist memes 'in the raw', go to this website. They are trying to find the most popular climate change questions from the public: The Climate Agenda Andrew Bolts' minions have hijacked the voting (predictable) but the interesting thing is the comments attached to each question (yes tinfoil hat required).
  27. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    To all: I do want to say that I really do appreciate the time you have put into writing posts in response to mine. I'm the first to admit that I have learnt things from some of these, and can appreciate the position some of you are in and the fact that there appears to be a wealth of peer-reviewed papers and claims that data fits the models etc. But I want you to understand why I am still very much in doubt about the projections of future temperatures, if nothing else. So I list these points and would genuinely welcome any well thought out answers that are clearly based on Physics. 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. Such cycles are overlapping (eg 934 year, 60 year, 11 to 13 year and 39 month and correlate with planetary orbits) and they can at times all rise at once, which is what happened leading up to El Nino, itself probably caused by the simultaneous maxima. 2. The cycles are fully sufficient in themselves to explain the observed rises (and falls) last century, as well as the current significant reduction in the gradient. 3. The very regular patterns (nodes) in NASA sea-surface temperatures at the same times in each of the last 7 or 8 years show that climate is tightly controlled (within 0.2 degrees on a world-wide daily basis) and so the data does not indicate random noise from a somewhat higher upward trend. This year (2011) looks like it will certainly have a lower mean (at sea surface) than 2003 eight years earlier. Two end points don't make a trend, but a full year's data at each end does let me say there has been no accumulation of heat evident in this data in 8 years. 4. For long-term warming, heat has to build up somewhere. The models do not show where they expect such a build up. But it cannot have any effect on sea temperatures if it happens in the mid or upper atmosphere, and it cannot last up there anyway because any warmer air will cool quite easily. 6. So, if it is to build up, it has to happen in the oceans and continental crust somehow. But I now don't see any way that this is likely from solar insolation. Instead, I say the temperature gradient from the core can affect both land and ocean temperatures if the core temperature varies even just a few degrees out of about 5,700 deg.K, or if frictional heat from crustal Earth tides varies. It would be too much of a coincidence that the projection of that gradient (starting at least as deep as the start of the liquid core) just happened to "break out" at the surface at about the observed temperature on a calm night - all over the world. I say it is supporting the temperature and physics can show that you don't need a high rate of heat flow to do so - just low conduction rates as in rock etc. 7. Basic physics and experience tells me that the near-stationary layer (say 1mm in height above the surface) is always very close to the temperature found just underground in calm conditions late at night. This could not be achieved by radiation and so does require conduction / diffusion (call it what you like.) If the temperature is the same, net upward radiation is restricted, if not temporarily halted. 9. I don't observe (nor do others) any physical evidence of back radiation of the order of double that of direct sunlight. I cannot explain with physics any reason for more than 50% of the emitted photons returning to the surface in each iteration, and the limit of 1 + half + quarter + .. is of course 2, meaning at the most feedback can only double the initial upward radiation. 10. ( -Snip- ). So try proving something for yourslef: place a thermometer in the long shadows of a building late afternoon where it can capture most radiation from the sky. After measuring, shield it with a sheet of plywood covered with aluminium foil. Measure again; remove the foil and measure again. Repeat the experiment in the sun and compare. I am going to try it soon. Are you prepared to do likewise? Then explain the results. Again, if anyone can objectively answer any of the above concerns, I will read with interest.
    Response:

    [DB] Your number 10 is in complete violation of the Comments Policy.  Out of respect to Tom and others who are engaging you, I merely have excised the offending portion rather than deleting the entire comment.

    Since you admit you cannot show with physics where the misunderstandins lie, you also cannot then attribute differences of opinions you have with established tools like models (which are built on established physics) to malfeasance on the part of others.  Beyond what I have already written, it shows ideology rather than science is propelling you and reflects poorly upon your reasoning abilities.

    Since I'm sure your intent on being here is to either teach others science or to learn science from others, please try to keep personal ideologies from colouring your comments. Future violations of this nature will cause your entire comment to be deleted.

  28. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    flandestiny @15, no. He is trying to suggest that 32/31,487ths is approximately half of 75/77ths by carefully excluding the denominator.
  29. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #121 (continued) The link to the image (at the end) was for a plot of nasa sea surface data showing every day for the period from January 2003 to June 2011 with all years overlapping so that you could see the constant temperatures very nearly the same on corresponding days in each of the 7 or 8 years. You can do the plot yourself on the nasa site of course.
  30. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    are you seriously comparing 32 vs 77 in your "math" experiment?
  31. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton@129 I have just edited the Wikipedia page on Earth's Energy Budget to include your numbers on O2 and N2 radiation. So configurations, your theory is now substantiated. Much easier than having it in reviewed journals.
  32. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    #126: 1. The assumptions about the split of the heat transferring from the surface to the atmosphere are clearly set out - even more so in Wikipedia who still treat them as current. Maybe Trembert should get them to accept his figures. 2. They do clearly include a reasonable figure for the diffusion I believe does happen: "7% is transferred back into the atmosphere by heated rising air, called Sensible heat flux" (Wiki) 3. I am questioning the Trembert evaporation figure which is discussed in #129 (5)
  33. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Re #125: Tom: 1. I know you don't like Wikipedia, but they do at least set out the NASA data (which they still treat as current it appears) in an orderly fashion. If you have a similar example for the net figures for the Trembert diagram it would help avoid some ambiguity therein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Radiation_Budget 2. One thing they say is "15% is transferred into the atmosphere by radiation, then reradiated into space" and "atmosphere" here would surely include O2 and N2. If, as you appear to say, O2 never emits even a single photon at a time, there how exactly can it get cooler? What happens to the energy it carries? There has to be some O2 in the very cold layers. 3. Is there any review paper combining all radiation data and coming up with a world mean close to that 333 figure for backradiation? 4. I also want to know why it is that we apparently cannot feel the back radiation which has about double the energy of direct solar insolation. 5. The NASA data indicates that 45.1% (23/51) of the heat transferring to the atmosphere from the surface/ocean does so by evaporation. In contrast, the corresponding figure for Tremberth is 19.4% being 80/(396+17.) What has caused such a dramatic change in data these last few years?
  34. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Re #121: Mouncounter: We will have to agree to disagree on some things such as whether diffusion occurs between water surfaces and the atmosphere. I feel you miss my point regarding temperature variations: one exception is sufficient to prove that exceptions can happen. Maybe you'd like to explain why, with varying CO2 levels and varying weather conditions Singapore still gets up to at least 31 deg.C each day. The extra warmth must be from solar insolation (above the 25 deg.C ocean and underground temperature) but why does that maximum never vary from being about 6 to 7 degrees above the minimum, never 4 some days or 9 on others? Why are the minimums also only ever 25 or 26 deg.C, never 23 or 28 on any day ever? And, finally, you still haven't explained why the temperature of the air just above the ocean (sea) surface is so constant every day, not just in monthly or annual means. -snip-
    Moderator Response: You have been asked before to stop with your shameless promotion of your web-site. SkS is concerned with educating and informing people about climate science, not misinforming them. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
  35. Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    So, you would suggest that students find out about the energy balance of the planet by reprocessing the original data rather than reading Trenberth et al 2009? You must have some pretty impressive computer power at school. I dont think of either Skpsci or WUWT as sources of data but one is a good index to the published science papers on climate subjects and the other is index pseudo-science "papers" and blog rants that most certainly could never be published. It would be a mistake to see the sites as simply expressing different sides of the argument. My earlier assassination of the English language (why I dont write much) was meant to highlight that in science questions, opinion is conditional on data and changes when data changes. This is different from non-scientific questions like "should murderers face capital punishment" where the mode of argument and belief are different. I think it is extremely dangerous to use thought-modes from this kind of discourse in science inquiry and would hope students learnt that distinction.
  36. Stephen Baines at 13:36 PM on 12 August 2011
    Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Tom, phil and muon, I'm glad Trenberth does not have to deal with what you guys deal with. I am sorry, however, that you do have to deal with it! Sometimes I think he should step in just to see what it's like! Still, you guys show amazing patience here. Mind blowing actually.
  37. Christy Crock #7: Expensive and inaccessible (Part 2)
    Energy does not get lost. Old term for unusable energy is more appropriated: Anergy. And that can be catch by processes like ORC nowadays. Any truly RE source (that is, the device could be made with the help of RE generated energy and is fed by a replenishable source or very long term source like a sun) might be inefficient in its first instantiation: it is not going to harm anything except some (man-made) economical systems.
  38. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Dc - I think you will find the most people here and all climate scientists are very familiar with the concept of conduction thank you. This is well covered in textbooks like "Global Physical Climatology" or "Principles of Planetary Climate". These would be a good place to start for what climate scientists actually take as given, rather than what you seem think climate scientists assume. Now perhaps you might like to explain why you prefer the outdated 1998 NASA diagram rather than the most up to date data in 2009 paper from above using the latest NASA data?
  39. apiratelooksat50 at 13:02 PM on 12 August 2011
    Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    scaddenp at 6 Your syntax is a little off (it happens - I do it often enough), so I am not sure about your first sentence. When one studies an issue and forms an opinion, then you are choosing what to believe. They aren't tasked to believe an opinion from another site such as SKS, the are tasked to develop their own opinion from the original data source. That was plainly stated in my earlier post. SKS and WUWT are both sources of links to original data.
  40. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton @122, we are making progress. You have retreated from confident assertions of falsehoods in despite of the data to pure obscurantism. It follows, of course, from nobody knowing, that you do not know, so your claims on your website have now been admitted by you to be without basis. However, you are wrong in your assertion that nobody knows, and that there is not enough data. As I have previously indicated (see 110 above), there are large data bases of measurements around the world of both the IR back radiation and the IR surface radiation. These have been made under a large variety of surface, weather and climactic conditions. They have been compared with model predictions, and the models have performed well. There are also large databases of the radiative properties of various gases (Hitran) and surface materials (see 119). These can be combined with known surface conditions to predict both the surface radiation and back radiation, and indeed have been in the models I just mentioned. Consequently these values can be known, and are known within a range of plus or minus 5% (according to Trenberth et al 2009). They are certainly known in sufficient detail to show that your claims about the IPCC are simply false. And as you have just tacitly admitted, you made those claims not based on evidence but simply on prejudice. Nor is your obscurantism justified with respect to O2 and N2 emissions. The full range of the spectrum has been scanned by various instruments and the emission peaks you claim to exist do not. Here is a shorter wavelength range of the spectrum, including the range needed for photons to have 100 times the energy from the peak CO2 band at atmospheric temperatures (0.15 micrometers): You'll notice the complete absence of an O2 or N2 spike. In fact, the only contribution by O2 is an absorption band in the incoming sunlight. As can be seen from the following black body radiation curves, in order to radiate at that wave length, Oxygen would have to be at a temperature of several thousand degrees Kelvin: At typical atmospheric temperatures, radiation at that wavelength is effectively non-existent: So, not only is their direct data refuting your claim that radiation by O2 and N2 eclipses that from CO2, but your claim is in direct conflict with the laws of black body radiation. The last diagram was generated a now obsolete, but publicly available version of Modtran, which will calculate the radiation flux upwards or downwards at a variety of altitudes for a variety of conditions. It is obsolete (circa 1990 version) and so is only accurate to about plus or minus 10%, but it will give you a far better idea of what actually occurs than you are so far managing. It does not, for example, restrict itself to a single layer atmosphere model as you do in your absurd calculations.
  41. apiratelooksat50 at 12:54 PM on 12 August 2011
    Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    DB at 5 First, it is not a student's homework assignment page, it is a link to a pragmatic representation to combat the one-sided media coverage they are exposed to via the local newspaper and internet sites. Second, most students never visit a teacher's website (at my school at least). The website is a district requirement. Most of my students do not have internet access at home. We are a district with a high poverty level and the host of issues that go along with that and broken families.
    Response:

    [DB] "it is a link to a pragmatic representation to combat the one-sided media coverage"

    Pragmatic? One-sided? The words are English but from your usage it is obvious you have little understanding of their meaning.

    This is truly a momentous day.  First, EtR abandons all pretense of honest broker and reveals himself for the dissembler he is.  Now you.  You try to defend your relabeling of Inhofe's "A Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Glabal Warming Alarmism" as "A Skeptics Guide to Global Warming" under the weak pretense that "most students never visit a teacher's website"?

    You are entrusted with your students' minds, can you not see how utterly bereft of moral certitude and integrity your position and excuse is?

  42. Christy Crock #7: People Need Fossil Fuel Energy (Part 1)
    I would replace "coal-belching power plants" by smoke belching power plants. Building a "char-coal belching" power plant would actually have a negative carbon emission per kWhr generated energy. at #1 Paul I would say appropriated technology, not low tech. Low tech is associated with poor efficiency. Most of the simple technology (cookstoves, fine bladed thin saws to name a 2) is available in a a form with much higher efficiency thanks to better understanding of the physics involved. Devices are just a very little bit more complicated or in some cases even simpler. at #3. Catprog. Access to energy means also access to (western like) health services. I think that has more to do with longer life than anything else. Statistics are nice if the model is obeying a certain distributions, otherwise linking up parameters the statistical way is more like educated guesswork.
  43. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Steve, note the publication date of V&L. Note that it covers 0-2000m and note that covers period with Argo fully deployed.
  44. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton#123: "Why do you keep talking about means?" Your diffusion model was based on a geothermal gradient, was it not? Surely that is fairly constant over more than a few days; after all, that was the rationale you gave for Singapore's year-round constant temperature. Now you look at just 7 days of data from another location and conclude that a difference there is significant? Unacceptable by any standard. What I have done is present evidence that it is the near constancy of insolation that dominates: Locations near the equator have the same annual temperature range (empirically demonstrated) because they receive nearly the same amount of solar energy year round (accepted fact; a moderately sophisticated calculation that you can do on your own). If your diffusion model made any sense whatsoever, high latitude locations would have the same annual range because they must cool by diffusion from the same subsurface temperature -- and most certainly you must agree they do not (again empirically demonstrated). "Perhaps now when you understand the small scale of this" Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to 'experimental scale.' Of course, molecular collisions take place in very small spaces; that does not at all mean that the ocean responds in the same manner as a bucket of water. Mass does not scale in the same manner as linear distances, that is why thermal conductivity may dominate for 1 kg of water in a metal bucket while it does not for an ocean. Here is an example from the field of thermal engineering demonstrating the importance of both radiation and conductivity in scaled experiments: The effect of radiative heat transfer between walls was studie[d] and shown to be similar to the effect of heat loss from the burner to its ambient. It is important that the models must include radiative heat transfer when calibrating a macroscale models which will be down-scaled to small scale devices. You will notice that when I present data or information that are not in common knowledge, I cite the sources. I do not appeal to wikipedia if I can find a more authoritative source. I challenge you to show data and research from similarly credible sources - peer reviewed whenever possible - that support your 'diffusion will prevail' model. Enough with these bucket and balloon analogies; they prove nothing. You cannot overturn solid scientific research with the photo of a lamp. Until you can meet that challenge, you have very little to add to this discussion.
  45. Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
    Getting serious action anywhere is mostly inhibited by an electorate on the US which is prepared to believe almost anything rather than the implications of the published science.
  46. The Ridley Riddle Part Three: Like a Northern Rock
    As the collapse of the bank shows, the assets that were growing could scarcely be said to be high quality.
  47. Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    I would be horrified if you were directing science classes to get make their minds "on what to believe" (awful choice of word) in a science question on the basis of opinion expressed anywhere. This is not the same as forming an opinion on a political matter. Instead, I would hope that science students make up their minds on the basis of reading published science papers. Skepsci is a good index of these, WUWT is not. That is the difference between the sites.
  48. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Steve Case, It is really not clear what you are trying to say or how it pertains to the post in question. Are you trying to argue that the global temperatures has not warmed as much as expected since 1900 or so? But if you are claiming that, you would have to use a period of time which means that the trend over that cherry-picked time window would not be statistically significant. So a no win for you. Let us deal with your claims about global temperatures first, and then we can address your attempts to argue your case by misinterpreting and cherry-picking the the OHC data.
  49. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Mouncounter #121: Having lived 20 years of my life close to Sydney Harbour (though well back from the coast) I can assure you that even the Lane Cove River had a moderating effect on shore temperatures. And flat ground such as an airstrip with water on both sides would get plenty of cross wind. We are obviously talking about light breezes blowing air from not too far away over the water. Why do you keep talking about means? In Singapore the maximum is practically never outside the one degree range 31 to 32 deg.C. So I only have to show a variation of, say, 7 degrees the maximums in one week somewhere else to demonstrate my point. Obviously inland cities get affected by winds blowing from different directions such as from a desert area. And yes I do refer to even just 1 mm from the interface of ocean and atmosphere because that is exactly where diffusion happens - look up "Heat Transfer" on Wiki - 2nd paragraph where it refers to 1mm. Diffusion (or "conduction" if you prefer) is a mollecular interchange as energy from electrons in one molecule transfers to the other (cooler) molecule due to a physical collision, albeit it usually a "grazing" brush past when gases are involved, rather than direct impact with the nucleus. It has to happen, simply because molecules will collide. Perhaps now when you understand the small scale of this you will see why it happens the same way in a balloon, a bucket of water or with my hot lamp cover in the photo on my site.
  50. 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.

Prev  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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