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
    Nasa figures and simple mathematics prove that upward radiation from the earth's surface (including all resulting from feedback) has energy which is no more than about 30% of the original incoming solar insolation. The ipcc diagram shows figures which amount to 114%. Nasa shows that only one third of heat entering the surface is then radiated back upwards, the rest being diffused by conduction and then convection. This dramatically reduces the effect of feedback. You either accept nasa's estimates or the ipcc's exaggerations which are nearly four (4) times the actual. Prove me wrong. See http://earth-climate.com/ipccdiag.jpg
  2. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    My post 97 was censored without comment and for no reason other than the fact that it disproved IPCC figures. A screen capture of it is linked under 'NASA' in the leading paragraph at http://earth-climate.com Use this link to view it as a thousand visitors each day will do ... http://earth-climate.com/nasadata.jpg
    Response:

    [DB] Mr. Cotton, your post was moderated due to the use of all-caps, a Comments Policy violation.  All-caps is the web equivalent of shouting, which is a decorum issue contrary to said Policy.  An incendiary tone wins you no style points for argumentarie.  If fact, while I'm on the subject, you come across as a churlish 9-year old boy unable to carry on a dialogue with reason and wit.  In rhetoric, sir, you carry a failing grade.

    You will need to up your game to compete in this Forum.

    And before you complain yet again, complaining about Moderation is also subject to mandatory moderation. So please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.  If you are able to comply with these conditions, which the vast majority of participants in this Forum are able to do without great inconvenience, then your continued participation will be welcome.

    So, please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.

    You may consider this Strike 2.

  3. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    scaddenp#98: "misconceptions about basic science which they will hold" Score! These folks inhabit a world with a totally different reality. If you peruse even the mildest skeptic/denier blogs, their basic assumptions are: a. there's no relation between temp rise and CO2 b. there's been no warming since ... c. Arctic ice isn't melting d. global warming isn't global because I can't see it at my house, etc. These are their givens: fixed, immobile 'facts' in their universe. This is a common problem in science education; pre-existing MSMs (multiple simultaneous misconceptions) tend to be very firmly entrenched. One of the quotes I ask my students to consider in the coming first week of AP Physics is this: "The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it - once you can honestly say 'I don't know,' - then it becomes possible to get at the truth." -- Robert A. Heinlein, The Cat Who Walked Through Walls Not his best work, but the point is supported in educational literature. Miller et al 2007 looked at strategies to deal with student misconceptions in a first-year physics class: ... students were randomly assigned to one of four online multimedia treatments on Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion: (1) the ‘Exposition’, a concise lecture-style presentation; (2) the ‘Extended Exposition’, the Exposition with additional interesting information; (3) the ‘Refutation’, the Exposition with common misconceptions explicitly stated and refuted; or (4) the ‘Dialogue’, a student–tutor discussion of the same material as in the Refutation. Students were tested using questions from mechanics conceptual inventories before and after watching the multimedia treatments. Results show the Refutation and Dialogue produced the greatest learning gains ... So DSL's 'pick one error and refute it' tactic is a good one. You can only drive out the MSM with very direct questioning leading to admission of recognizable paradoxes or contradictions.
  4. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    And Eric, you have failed to offer up any explanation of why the graphic is inaccurate. (Thereby adding further evidence to my previous point.)
  5. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Eric @ 10... I completely disagree. If there were a theory put forward that convincingly explained why CO2 would not be causing warming and provided a different mechanism that explained the vast array of observations that CO2 readily explains... I believe there are very few on the AGW side of the argument who would not accept it. The caveat being that it would need to be truly convincing and the scientific community would have to accept the explanation as accurate. This is where the difference between the two sides lay. The denier side will deny in spite of overwhelming evidence. The AGW side believes because of the overwhelming evidence.
  6. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Fair enough - though not so sure about your criteria. Claiming in an unpublishable paper to overturn science is okay, but root cause is usually have some misconceptions about basic science which they will hold to despite such misconception being at strong variance with empirical data. Refusing to stick to topic is merely violation of comments policy.
  7. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    95, scaddenp, As an added point, current moderation practice and probably policy involves a few warnings before posts are moved. A Climastrology thread (as well as a general tool for easily migrating any post to any thread) could simply be done without the need for any warning at all. This would actually help to keep threads cleaner, and more quickly avoid having them derailed.
  8. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Those who are firmly entrenched on either side are highly unlikely to swayed by any argument. Those who sit on or near the fence can be swayed (possibly multiple times) by reasonable and accurate arguments. An inaccurate argument by either side is likely to do more to sway them in the opposite direction. The graphic above is one of them.
  9. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    95, scaddenp, My main point is that right now, unless you adopt a policy of deleting comments from cranks, then things like those by Doug Cotton are just cluttering real threads and giving them more exposure. A Climastrology thread at least gives you a place to rationally deposit those comments using an objective criteria (anything that purports to overturn existing climate science, and either does not fit into or refuses to stick to the focus of a particular thread). The Bore Hole at RC does the same thing. Stuff that is just way out there gets shoved there. Anyone can see it, but many people don't bother (or don't realize that's where their own off the wall comments wind up). Such a thread that also allows comments by any visitor would allow that stuff to be ripped apart by people, but also be safely quarantined, probably with a header post that talks about crank science (I'd love to write that one!!!!). Anyone that goes to such a thread, reads the comments and then agrees with the Cottons of the world... well, you're never going to be able to teach people like that.
  10. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    A climastrology thread might be rather satisfying, but in terms of the mission of SkepSci, is it that useful? Crank sites like DougCotton's might be entertaining but the real question is whether other people might be taken in by them and in that case, does SkepSci provide an adequate answer to an inquirer? I dont think you have to go to far into the morass of misconceptions but perhaps pointers to relevant threads. RC tried a wiki of debunks and I wonder whether something simple could be created so it is easily searched by an inquirer, and the content is simply links to relevant existing arguments on this or other sites.
  11. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Not to drone on, but let's put this in perspective. If we have a sea level rise of 1m by 2100, that is mostly an economic problem. If we have 4 K of warming by 2100... Well, by most accounts, that will present a challenge that is more than just economic.
  12. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Sphaerica, thanks for the interesting link. All analogies are flawed. I suppose I could argue that US politicians are experts on US politics because they got elected, but that would be beside the point. I was just trying to find an example to illustrate how people might react when they are presented with an argument from authority that they don't agree with. I agree that such arguments can be useful to budge people who are sitting on the fence, but an argument like "most experts agree with me" can also make the fence seem higher for those on the other side. We should recognize that this is a non-technical argument to convince people to change their mind on a technical subject. Nevertheless, it's probably good tactics, as Rob H suggested, to target the fence-sitters and write off the hard core deniers as a lost cause.
  13. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Andy @ 6.... You're right in that this graphic does little or nothing to convince a climate denier of anything. I don't believe the graphic is targeted at those people. There is really nothing that will convince such people, which is why they are deniers in the first place. This graphic is targeting people who are still learning about climate change. In that I believe it is a very strong visual representation of the current state of climate science.
  14. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    6, Andy S, The difference here is that politicians aren't experts in anything. You need an analogy equivalent to the famed "4 out of 5 dentists recommend" marketing ploy. It works, when the consensus is among experts who are trusted to know more than we do. You can argue about people not trusting climate scientists (because of the very well sown seeds of doubt thanks to certain anti-science interests), but that's another story. You will also find people wedded to denial, and certainly no argument works with them. But for people on the fence, or wondering whom to believe, a statement about "climate experts" should carry weight. I find this article interesting on trusting experts: Experts and Global Warming
  15. Christy Crock #7: People Need Fossil Fuel Energy (Part 1)
    The problem is the reverse to what Christy states. In fact he displays the typical anglo saxon arrogance in assuming that the 'West' knows best. How would fossil fuels stop Elephants rampaging through farmers land?? His solution I assume would be to shoot them? The alternative is to use bees around the farm, the elephants don't like them and the farmer has an additional cash product to sell. Low tech ideas are also the best way to go generally in our lives. Why force nature to do something when it is more productive working with it?
  16. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Relying on the consensus views of experts is a useful heuristic, a mental short cut, that we all use, most of the time, to make decisions when we don't have the ability or the time to research the problem for ourselves. To use consensus as an argument can be useful in swaying the opinions of the undecided (it also provides some confidence to the already convinced). The danger is that it's not a logically valid argument and there are famous incidents where it has failed in the past. Another shortcoming is that it can even act as a rallying cry to the dissident minority. Consider this bogus statistic that I have made up, just for the sake of argument. The effect that such an argument would have on me (I am convinced that carbon taxes are a realistic and even necessary public policy option) would be to say: To hell with them and their biased and smug opinions, that's what they used to say about civil rights! I'm going to call my representative right away! In other words, appealing to scientific consensus is probably counter-productive when arguing with convinced climate contrarians.
  17. Christy Crock #7: Expensive and inaccessible (Part 2)
    Energy efficiency can be revealed in part by a nations carbon footprint per capita, at least while fossil fuels still dominate. The US carbon per capita is much higher than other countries, with the exception of the middle east. This is also obvious visually as well in that American vehicles have always been bigger, homes less insulated, obesity on the rise, buildings spread out more etc. Some of this is due to cheap resources, make things cheaper and there is no incentive to be more efficient. Also, when considering fossil fuels, every bit of inefficient use means the energy wasted is literally lost for ever. If you drive a car that consumes 3 times more fuel than other cars, to travel from A to B, that energy is lost forever when it could have helped other people to travel from A to B, or used to do more journeys from A to B. Even if you don't like renewables, your making things even worse for future generations by driving gas guzzlers, by denying them (some of whom will be your offspring) what you had. It is quite bizarre to oppose renewables and use fossil fuels inefficiently. You can't really be more irresponsible by doing both.
  18. There is no consensus
    377, Eric the Red, You also avoided my salient questions from post 375:
    Either way, how does this in any way support your original contention that "scientists are placing too much emphasis on outgoing radiation effects in the atmosphere as opposed to convection"? Or are you openly withdrawing that comment?
  19. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    93, DB inline, That would be a generally useful tool for migrating any comment to where they belong, although a hardcoded "Climastrology" button (another good name choice for the thread) would also do the trick. It will be up to John, though, to figure out if this happens often enough and is important enough to warrant his time (and then to find the time). I'll make a post in the forum for the suggestion.
  20. actually thoughtful at 03:10 AM on 11 August 2011
    Christy Crock #7: Expensive and inaccessible (Part 2)
    Most analysis misses a few subtle points: 1) How is current society shaped by a monopoly provider of electricity and gas to each home (as opposed to each building providing its own energy)? 2. How are we shaped by using fossil fuels? Simple example: most people set the thermostat lower in winter to save money (energy). Renewable energy customers, to get the most efficiency out of their systems, spend most of the winter with a HIGHER thermostat setting. Buildings designed to not need heat/AC are even more comfortable yet. 3. How much of money does the average person spend, over their lifetimes, on fossil fuel? Renewables are always cheaper when you look at "lifecycle" costs (and I mean this in both ways here).
  21. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Sphaerica@92 I like the idea of moving what are essentially crank comments to a Climastrology or Looking Glass thread of their own. It would help de-clutter the threads, archive the nonsense for future reference and allow the discussion/debunking of it to continue. It might be a bit tedious for the Moderators though.
    Response:

    [DB] It would be only onerous to John, as he'd have to do the PHP coding.  For Moderators, all they would have to do is to select the appropriate thread to move it to (from a drop-down menu, presumably).  However, once coded the process would be straightforward.

  22. There is no consensus
    377, Eric the Red, Yes, we know. That's where we looked. That site is not only in complete agreement with Trenberth, but it got its data from Trenberth. Follow the citations at the end of the article. You have greatly misinterpreted what you found there. You need to read it much, much more carefully. And where exactly in that did you get your numbers from? I don't find your particular numbers anywhere there.
  23. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Tom Curtis had an interesting comment under the "Where have all the people gone" post. Tom's assessment of the overall situation is very close to mine (that there will be bigger problems than coastal flooding), for whatever that's worth. However, Tom proposes that rates of rise in the past provide our best estimate of what can be expected out of the future, and my thought is that we don't know if the paleoclimate rates were constrained more by the physics of ice, or by the rate of warming of the planet at large. Since we are on a path of warming faster than before, if the former, then Tom is right, if the latter, we just don't know. If memory serves, a couple of years ago there was a study of the Greenland sheet that constrained how quickly ice can be lost based on how fast it can melt and how quickly ice can flow over the topography. This constrained sea level rise to 'only' 1-2 meters by 2100. On the Antarctic side, there is also this paper Stability of ice-sheet grounding lines and this news story based on it Major Antarctic glacier is 'past its tipping point' This is interesting to me because it factored in the model how an increase in sea level will accelerate the loss of ice from Antarctic, which will increase sea level. Without specifying a rate, it remains that the rise will accelerate. RealClimate has several posts which might be useful if you search for Greenland and WAIS, not at the same time necessarily. In agreement with the conclusion above, the evidence is building that Greenland is more stable than may have been thought 10 years ago, and the WAIS less stable. Agnostic, You will find varying estimates. A good start would be to Google Scholar "Stefan Rahmstorf", "Mauri Pelto", and others referenced in the links above. I don't think it matters that we know what the rate will be at any particular point in the future because, under BAU, it will accelerate until the supply of sheet ice to melt is reduced. That almost guarantees the rate will be more than we can easily cope with at some point, and it will be one problem of many.
  24. Where have all the people gone?
    DB Comment on #24 Earth Abides (a great novel) was written by George R. Stewart, not George R. R. Martin.
    Response:

    [DB] You are very much correct (facepalms).  My bad.  My copy is missing from the shelf (I can't blame the kids because the oldest doesn't read despite a perfect GPA & top entrance marks to college & the other is but 8...), else I'd have caught that.

  25. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    91, Tom, Wow. I haven't bothered to actually read much of his nonsense, but that's quite a looking-glass-in-a-nutshell you've got there. Honestly... Deleted comments should be used for Comments Policy violations, but RealClimate now has 'The Bore Hole' where certain comments can be simply moved but not deleted, and I think that SkS should have 'The Looking Glass' (or perhaps "The Aether and Other Phlogiston" or "Galileo's Descendants", except that's a huge insult to Galileo)... a place to send comments like these where they can still be seen, but unlike The Bore Hole, a place where further comments/replies can still be made. Basically, it becomes a stand alone thread for this sort of utterly made-up nonsense that may or may not receive refutation, and usually doesn't belong anywhere in particular (I'm not sure this is the right thread for arguments about basic physics, but neither is the 2nd Law thread, or anyplace else). The only thing the moderators would need is an easy tool (button) for migrating such comments to that thread (preferably leaving a placeholder comment behind, with something to the effect of "Moved to The Looking Glass" with a link to the migrated comment). I can think of scores of examples in the past months alone where such a silly place is exactly where such comments belong.
  26. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    I believe Doug Cotton's post number 77 deserves very careful consideration by anybody who thinks he may have anything worthwhile to say on any scientific matter. With the moderators indulgence, I shall quote it in full:
    "Thanks Jonicol. Yes I do realise O2 and N2 don't emit many photons, but as they rise and cool (perhaps eventually near the top of the atmosphere) they must release the energy in the form of photons at least when they get close to absolute zero. And the energy they carry represents about two thirds of the heat that came out of the surface as it cooled in the evening. The other third gets radiated back, about 70% of that being captured and half of that returning to the surface, then a third of that radiated up again etc. But each "return trip" is very fast and the radiated "feedback" is being reduced by nearly 90% each time. 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. This is why the heat of the day extends into early evening, but it usually cools by morning to (in calm conditions) the temperature supported by the temperature gradient from the core."
    (My emphasis) So, according to Doug Cotton, O2 and N2 release no photons, but do release photons, and in fact release photons with sufficient energy to represent two thirds of the upwelling surface radiation. Indeed, they release that energy when they are near absolute zero in temperature. In other words, Doug Cotton directly contradicts himself in the space of one sentence, and contradicts at least four scientific laws in the whole passage, including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzman law, Kirchoff's Law. Sphaerica and DSL, there is no need to worry about Cotton's thread pollution until he fully retracts this nonsense. In what ever thread he wishes to spew his garbage, we need only link back to his post 97 and request he resolve the contradiction. Anyone reading the thread with an open mind will recognize the reasoning of anyone who does not balk at contradicting himself is neither worth listening to, nor worth discussing.
  27. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Sphaerica#89: "such people will still litter as many threads as they can" That's exactly their intent (call it 'the dam--bel effect' or 'the Gil-- phenomenon'); sometimes it seems they come in waves, as if sent here by some unseen tidal surge. Unfortunately, without rebuttal, it appears to the casual observer that our argument is weak. I find it interesting to search key phrases in these posts. It is revealing that the same folks had the same arguments debunked two or three times - in some cases, years ago. Example begins here, but also look here.
  28. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    88, DSL, The only flaw that I see with that approach is that such people will still litter as many threads as they can with their "insights," which will then go unchallenged, and be taken as "very good points" by less informed and cognizant readers. But, to follow your approach, in #82 CBDunkerson made a fairly simple and indisputable case that Doug's syllogism wasn't valid... Doug put together two facts from which to draw a conclusion that does not in fact follow from those facts. Until he acknowledges that, the very foundation of Doug's entire position crumbles, and so nothing of any value can be taken from it.
    Response:

    [DB] Bags of hammers are like that.

  29. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    I suggest a new approach. Focus on one error in their presentation. Just one. Provide ample evidence for the existence of the error. Ask for recognition of the error. If no recognition is forthcoming, refuse to respond. Don't address any other posts. Don't delete posts. Respond to further posts by saying, "Recognize X, or you're simply not worth taking the time to engage." That having been said, DC seems very invested in his material. Admitting a mistake might be psychologically impossible. What price omniscience?
    Response:

    [DB] You and Sphaerica both make good points:

    Sphaerica "The burden falls on them to prove to us that it's worth taking two minutes of our day to discuss this with them."

    DSL  "Focus on one error in their presentation.  Just one."

    I suggest a combination of both will be ultimately the most effective.  Anything else will be unfruitful and ultimately a collossal waste of time, effort and precious electrons (and we know how finite those are).

  30. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    muoncounter, I have gone through this routine with co2isnotevil, RW1, and Joe Postma. The reality is that arguing with people like this is like trying to have an argument after stepping through Lewis Carroll's looking glass. There is no way to win, because they can argue that black is loud and white smells of fish, so of course the sun is square and filled with turtle poop, as it moves through a sea of x2 = pV / red + ∂Q. There's just no way to get anywhere with these people, because they are smart enough to create a collage of truths and equations that in no way belong together, but are so complexly interwoven that any effort at disentangling them simply gives them more opportunity to bind you up in some other variation of their nonsense. When you make a valid point, they simply ignore it and change the subject, or go back to arguing something that you've already proven to be false, as if the past conversation had never happened. Again... I think an MSM Hall of Shame is in order for these people, and a different approach is needed. One can't argue facts and details, because those are the culprits' weapons of choice (or, rather, are the source of their own confusion). Your last comment is, I think, the only approach: "...your arguments might have some credibility if you produced actual scientific research to support your positions. " Their own personal brand of logic and science shouldn't even be open to discussion, because it begins with their own self-deluding premise that they are magical geniuses and the rest of the human race (billions of people) and hundreds of years of prior science are all wrong (or, rather, are being woefully misinterpreted by all of those foolish, badly educated working scientists). Bottom line: The burden falls on them to prove to us that it's worth taking two minutes of our day to discuss this with them. Creating one's own personal website outlining a bizarrely fabricated world of math and "science" is evidence only of someone with too much time on their hands, and a proclivity to waste it instead of doing something productive (like learning the real science, and actually understanding what's going on).
  31. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    jonicol @ 75: "So without any carbon dioxide, the earth would be expected to be a warmer place." So, if we quadrupled CO2, we'd cause an ice age?
  32. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DC#83: "merely the climate following long term and short term cyclic trends" Here we go again about the harmonices mundi: distant planets influence earth's climate, but what happens on earth does not. All based, of course, on correlation being causation. With that, we drift off topic yet again. "it just wasn't caused by CO2" That appears to be your basic premise; you take that as a given and then attempt to explain what is happening. A scientific process would work forward from the evidence prior to forming a conclusion. Please stop referring to your site in every comment; not only is it tedious, but your arguments might have some credibility if you produced actual scientific research to support your positions.
  33. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    CBDunkerson (#82) Read #75 and #77 - and some Quantum Physics textbook. And my notes in the purple box on http://earth-climate.com/IPCCdiag.jpg Good night.
  34. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Oh here we go again about past warming prior to 2000 which was merely the climate following long term and short term cyclic trends, all of which I have covered in great detail on my site, with the possibility of perhaps 0.1 degrees at the most of unexplained warming which might have been due to 2,000 nuclear tests at the time causing greater conduction rates where damage was done to the crust underground. I totally and utterly acknowledge that such warming and melting did happen: it just wasn't caused by CO2 - not even the natural stuff. The temperatures will now start to rise very slightly until June 2013, then decline (with a few ups and downs) till 2027, then rise for 30 years and, after that, start a long-term decline for 450 years or so.
  35. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    muoncounter #76: "That would suggest that the figures are different because they represent different things." Which was precisely my point. Doug had suggested that the NASA and IPCC graphics/data conflicted. They do not. DougCotton #74: "If you read up on Quantum Physics you'll realise photons from individual molecules have very specific frequencies, whereas those from solids have full spectrum IR. So only those from the surface can be captured by CO2 which captures its own unique selection of frequencies, related to spectral lines." I seriously can't understand how you can even write something so clearly illogical. Let's break it down; 1: CO2 only 'captures' certain wavelengths of IR photons - True 2: The Earth's surface emits a larger range of IR wavelengths than atmospheric gases do - True 3: Therefor IR photons emitted from atmospheric gases cannot be 'captured' by CO2 - Not established by the facts stated and clearly false for any photons at the wavelengths CO2 interacts with. The source of the photons does not matter. Whether that source ALSO emitted photons at other wavelengths does not matter. CO2 will 'capture' photons at the wavelengths it interacts with regardless of where they came from. Many of those photons come from atmospheric gases. Ergo, CO2 does indeed 'capture' photons from the atmosphere and not just the Earth's surface.
  36. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Muoncounter #76: One further thing, a CO2 molecule only delays a photon briefly before emitting another which may or may not have the same energy. While it still has the captured photon it can collide with other air molecules, though the collisions are usually "glancing" ones rather than direct hits (as in solids.) Anyway, if you wish to say there is some warming then that means less energy goes back to Earth. Let's say, half as much. Then that "nearly 90%" becomes "nearly 95%" and the whole process diminishes even faster. You can't create energy so you can't have it both ways. If you have more questions they are probably answered on my website.
  37. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DC#79: "it won't melt the ice caps" Ignoring all the stuff about photons and timing and 'evening out' for a moment, perhaps you would like to read Perovich et al 2008 or one of many other papers on the subject of melting Arctic ice. Calculations indicate that solar heating of the upper ocean was the primary source of heat for this observed enhanced Beaufort Sea bottom melting. Please find one of many threads on the subject for further comments.
  38. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Muoncounter #76: My post #77 (written before I read yours) and earth-climate.com makes it clear that I understand "feedback" and I also point out the rapid diminishing of such (by nearly 90%) for each up and down "trip" as well as the rapid timing involved for radiated heat, so that CO2 might, for example, extend the heat of the day by perhaps a few minutes at most, whereas the photons returning from other air molecules (as they physically rise much more slowly) have much more total energy and can extend the heat of the day for a few hours. Yes heat will transfer between molecules, not as much in gases as in solids, but it will "even out" the temperature in the nearby vicinity. So what? That warm air will then rise, cool off and emit more photons, half to space. It will never drift down to the surface against both the temperature gradient and the pressure gradient, so I don't care how long it stays up there: it won't melt the ice caps.
  39. Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    Greetings, I also started using SkepticalScience for a similar activity in my Science & Global Change course: http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/docs/ClimateMythsTakeHome.pdf
  40. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DC#77: "why the heat of the day extends into early evening, but it usually cools by morning to (in calm conditions) the temperature supported by the temperature gradient from the core. " Please support this notion with something more than the Singapore example you've given on a prior thread. Where I live, the air temperature often remains warmer than the ground temperature. This varies by humidity (and GHG gas content), due to something called radiative cooling.
  41. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Thanks Jonicol. Yes I do realise O2 and N2 don't emit many photons, but as they rise and cool (perhaps eventually near the top of the atmosphere) they must release the energy in the form of photons at least when they get close to absolute zero. And the energy they carry represents about two thirds of the heat that came out of the surface as it cooled in the evening. The other third gets radiated back, about 70% of that being captured and half of that returning to the surface, then a third of that radiated up again etc. But each "return trip" is very fast and the radiated "feedback" is being reduced by nearly 90% each time. 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. This is why the heat of the day extends into early evening, but it usually cools by morning to (in calm conditions) the temperature supported by the temperature gradient from the core.
  42. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    CBD#73: "Note on accompanying images: " Do you mean that 'there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect' simply because this particular wikipedia graphic omits it by design? Implying that 'net energy transfer' (wikipedia graphic) is not the same as 'global energy flow' (figure 1 here)? As if the word net means something important in this context? That would suggest that the figures are different because they represent different things. DC#74: "photons from individual molecules" Doesn't the energy of IR photons absorbed by greenhouse gases provide kinetic energy, which may either re-radiate or dissipate in collisions with other molecules? Isn't that molecular kinetic energy the basis (according to wikipedia) for 'temperature'?
  43. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    CBD No. 73 The absorption by and radiation from gases other than the Green House Gases is very small indeed at any atmospheric temperature (200 K to 360K) (and this needs to be recognised Doug - O2 and N2 play almost part in absorption or emission of radiation {photons}) The reason is that the first excitable quantum state of these molecules is very much higher than the energy (kT) involved in collisional excitation. But those small numbers which they do radiate are not absorbed by the green house gases as Doug has stated. However, Doug's other point is very imortant and often overlooked. It is that most of the energy entering the atmosphere from the earth (~80% in fact) is from the wind blowing over the land surface (conduction land to air) - about 20% and evaporation over the vast oceans, ~60%, while about 20% is actually radiated and captured in the main by GHGs betwewen the ground and the tropopause. Most of it absorbed within a few hundred metres in the main, strong bands. Heat which is then reradiated (see 333 W m^-2 on K & T 2009 diagram) comes from all sources - direct absorption of radiation and collisional excitation in warm air followed by radiation. So once in the air, there is no distinction - heat is heat, excitation is excitation. This fact though is important when it is claimed that without the high levels of green house gases, the earth would be a whole 33 C cooler is certianly not correct. The air itself acts as a blanket and just as the GHGs absorb the ground radiation, they are almost solely responsible for cooling radiation in the upper troposphere and beyond. At heights where water vapour is negligible, well above the tops of clouds, carbon dioxide is the main radiator which is why its brightness measured by the satellites is roughly equivalent to 220 K. (This is probably not quite correct either, since at higher levels, the spectral lines are very narrow and the resolution of the satellite spectrometers were quite obviously not high enough, as would be expected, to resolve the structure in which the peaks of the lines may well have shown that the radiation is from a higher temperature than is apparent. So without any carbon dioxide, the earth would be expected to be a warmer place. A second important matter is that of the back radiation, shown in diagrams such as K&T above and reported as increasing with increased carbon dioxide or other GHG. This is not correct either since a fairly straight forward calculation, both analytically and numerically, involving the re-radiation from the layers of air, shows that irrespective of the radiation frequency, the increase in absorbed radiation closer to ground arising from increased GHG, provides a lower energy source to be sure, but this is exactly compensated for by increased absorption in the atmosphere before it reaches the ground. The intensity coming back to ground level is always I(0)/4, no matter what the absorption coefficient K might be where I(0) is the initial upwards radiation from the ground. Similar analysis of the transfer of excitation energy follows a similar pattern, even without taking convection into account. This of course is why when upwards measurements of radiation spectra, looking particularly at CO2, the intensity or brightness is consistent with the local ground level air temperature, as is also found by radiosonde measurements all the way up to the tropopause. Similarly you don't walk out in the afternoon from under the eaves and find yourself suddenly hit with 333 Watts/m2. What you experience iss radiation from molecules not very far away, many from only a micron or so in fact, very nearly in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding air, even though all of the radiative interactions are only via GHGs while the O2 and N2 molecules in much larger numbners, maintain collisional thermal equilibrium satisfying the Stefan-Boltzman Law. John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com
  44. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    Yes, as explained on my site, about 7% (out of the 15%) come back to Earth, and within seconds about a third of those (2.3%) get radiated up, and 70% of those (1.6%) get captured and 0.8% go to Earth, then a third (0.27%) get radiated back up etc - doesn't explain "5.46 times". And it's all over in a few seconds and off to space or warm air rising. If you read up on Quantum Physics you'll realise photons from individual molecules have very specific frequencies, whereas those from solids have full spectrum IR. So only those from the surface can be captured by CO2 which captures its own unique selection of frequencies, related to spectral lines.
  45. apiratelooksat50 at 21:25 PM on 10 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    If even just 0.1% are qualified climate scientists, then 0.001 x 31,487 = 31.487 climate scientists who have signed the petition. We can then compare that to the 75 out of 77 who were deemed worthy of contributing to the oft reported 97% figure of climate scientists who support the AGW theory. 32 vs 77. Maybe, just maybe, things aren't as cut and dry as some would like them to be.
    Response:

    [DB] You should seriously rethink your maths here. 

    The phrase not even wrong comes to mind.

  46. Dikran Marsupial at 21:16 PM on 10 August 2011
    It's the sun
    Soons paper sounds to me like the results of a search for statistically significant trends and association with solar forcing region by region - which of course invalidates the test of statistical significance (unless multiple hypothesis testing issues are properly dealt with).
  47. It's the sun
    And besides,the paper was about *China* and about the 20's and 40's for some reason. It's not as if he's discovered something controversial about the *globe now* is it? Cheers.
  48. Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change
    DougCotton wrote: "This 30% simply warms the air molecules which then, as they rise and cool, emit photons which cannot be captured by carbon dioxide." Why can't they be 'captured'? Are they magic photons? :] As to the 'alternative energy budget' you present. You might want to include the disclaimer from the page in question; "Note on accompanying images: These graphics depict only net energy transfer. There is no attempt to depict the role of greenhouse gases and the exchange that occurs between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere or any other exchanges."
  49. It's the sun
    I've read the abstract of the Soon paper you linked to Eclipse. The temperature trends observed in China seem consistent with what is known about the 20th Century temperature trends in general IIRC - as a result of global brightening and dimming. So he may have that part right at least.
  50. actually thoughtful at 17:32 PM on 10 August 2011
    Skeptical Science Helps Students Debunk Climate Myths
    Maybe "A pirate" should take a hint from Professor Mandia and teach critical thinking.

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