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  1619  1620  1621  1622  1623  1624  1625  1626  1627  1628  1629  1630  1631  1632  1633  1634  Next

Comments 81301 to 81350:

  1. Bob Lacatena at 01:11 AM on 28 June 2011
    Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    55, Ken,
    TSI does not have to vary over the short to medium term...
    Yes and no, but not all that relevant. I'd argue that yes, solar variation can only have so much impact on climate, and must involve a variation over a long time scale, but the 11 year cycle obviously does come into play on short time scales... but not really in climate.
    ...then we cannot accurately determine the gain or loss of energy from TSI.
    This is false. We just got done discussing the papers that attempt to estimate the energy imbalance. Declaring out of hand that we simply can't do so is just wrong.
    If TSI is...
    This is all rather simplistic conjecture and thought-modeling that does nothing to advance the conversation. Certainly, I don't believe you have anything that can support this simple model as a premise, or any conclusions that you might draw from it.
  2. New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
    You can always utilize more advanced snowmaking like at Pitzal Glacier, or a glacier blanket like at Presena Glacier , assuming you have a bit of glacier underneath.
  3. New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
    There's been similar issues for the Scottish ski areas until the last few years - they were really struggling for snow some years. That's changed in the past couple of years to bumper conditions, but of course the cause for that is as likely as not global warming-related too, see Jeff Masters' excellent recent post. It will be interesting to see if NZ can be subject to such climate surprises, but I suspect the stability offered by an ice-covered ocean-surrounded continent will not offer the same potential for Arctic/Antarctic air moving out into temperate regions for the southern hemisphere compared to the north. This has created the illusion of a cold world for some in NH regions who fail to see the bigger picture, but maybe that illusion is not possible in the south?
  4. Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    Camburn, Sphraerica TSI does not have to vary over the short to medium term - years to decades to cause a warming imbalance (Earth to gain energy). Since we don't really know the 'equilibrium TSI' at which Earth is not warming nor cooling in the absence of AG forcings, then we cannot accurately determine the gain or loss of energy from TSI. If TSI is above an 'equilibrium' value and stays constant -there is a constant imbalance in forcing which translates to a linearly increasing gain in energy - and a roughly linear gain in temperature of a fixed mass of ocean, dirt and air and phase change at constant temperature for ice and water.
  5. Sea Level Hockey Stick
    okatiniko wrote : "sean : I'm ready to discuss with everyone. Tamino isn't. That's life." I'm sorry but this can't be allowed to stand without the facts being known. Just in case someone reading this does not go to Open Mind to see why Tamino doesn't put up with such commenters, here are some of the relevant comments from him about okatiniko : Ignorance is reversible. But I don't believe you're really ignorant of these facts. I believe you want to *appear* to ask "questions" but it's just a thinly veiled facade. And when any of your errors are revealed (like your faulty, made-up definition of climate sensitivity of malignant design), you dare not admit any mistake, you just move on to the next talking point. When I first suggested that you might be more interested in arguing than in learning -- I had you pegged. Doubt is your product, it has been your only goal all along. I think everyone should know exactly what type of denial exists out there, and how it is repeated on different sites, often by the same people, and often falsely claiming to ask innocent questions. The question is, though : Why should we put up with it ? Especially from those claiming that they want to disuss things - in the same vein as Creationists do with regard to Evolution.
  6. The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    Robert, I largely agree with your free speech concerns but there are two issues which stand out in this case. 1: In the past the idea of deliberate and ongoing deception by major elements of the news media was unthinkable. Anyone engaging in such chicanery would be run out of the profession. Now, it is practically a job requirement for a position at Fox News and the like. This represents a grave threat (i.e. widespread false beliefs are poison to democracies) which somehow must be addressed. 2: Lying under oath has always been an obvious exception to the 'freedom to lie'. If people can lie with seeming impunity in government hearings and courtroom proceedings it removes any chance of exposing those lies or stopping their effects. I agree that a 'truth commission' isn't a viable solution, but we need some kind of solution. We can't continue to allow 'truth' to be defined by the most practiced liars.
  7. Rob Painting at 23:37 PM on 27 June 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    Dikran/Eric - this seems relevant to your discussion: Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions - Gillett 2011
  8. CO2 has a short residence time
    Eric (skeptic) - "KR, I must have insinuated something I didn't mean to ("50 year time cycle for full equalization")." You're quite correct, Eric, my apologies. I misread your post, which clearly refers to 50 years as the half-life. Sorry about that. That's fairly reasonable - my back of the envelope check on this indicated a half-life of ~40 years assuming absorption rate was proportional to excess over pre-industrial levels. Although, given the 340-350GT we've added to the carbon cycle from sequestered fossil fuels, and the multiple absorption paths with different equalization times, I don't think it's as simple as a single half-life. The rise in temperature from the added GHG's will mean an equilibrium level of ocean absorbed CO2 lower than in pre-industrial times, for example. Oops! Reading the past few posts, it appears Dikran has beaten me to these points with much better information...
  9. Eric (skeptic) at 23:28 PM on 27 June 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    That would make sense since it is a hypothetically plausible scenario unlike my academic cut-to-zero scenario.
  10. Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    Camburn: "It would seem Bertrand's research on solar agrees with Dr. Svalgaard. "Bertrand was investigating the effect of solar and volcanic influence on climate and concluded "these are clearly not sufficient to explain the observed 20th century warming and more specifically the warming trend which started at the beginning of the 1970s"." I don't think Camburn understands that the implication of Bertrand's research (assuming he cites it correctly) is that TSI hasn't caused the warming trend that started at the beginning of the 1970s. In other words "it's not the sun, rather than CO2". Strengthens, not weakens, the case of sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 being higher than denialists like Camburn so fervently want to believe. Now if Svaalgard's paper holds up over time, then yes, there's something not well understood about early 1900s warming. However, it's not claimed by climate scientists that the cause of this warming is perfectly understood. Camburn will be sure, though, that Svaalgard's *reconstruction* regarding TSI trumps all observations regarding CO2's role as a GHG, positive water vapor feedback, TOA satellite measurements, etc etc etc.
  11. Dikran Marsupial at 23:21 PM on 27 June 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    Eric@107 AFAIK, levels will fall (excluding variability) as soon as we cut our emissions to zero, however it could be that DB knows something about it that I don't (very plausible!). It could be that DB meant cutting emissions to some stabilisation level, rather than to zero?
    Moderator Response: (DB) Dikran, I was referring to something which came up on Dr Franzen's first post several months ago that, as CO2 level stabilize and then fall, that the oceans will begin to outgas CO2 themselves, going from sink to source & preserving elevated CO2 levels (& temps) at elevated levels compared to preindustrial; look in the comments in that post for the direct discussion (I'd link to it but we're camping out in the bush& I barely have a cellphone signal).

    [Dikran Marsupial] Cheers DB, I thought it would be something like that. It's swealteringly hot in my office, I wish I were outdoors! ;o)
  12. Rob Painting at 23:14 PM on 27 June 2011
    New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
    After a record warm May 2011 (2.5°C above average) and (possibly) June looks like we've dodged a bullet, a cold snap and light dustings of snow have finally arrived!
  13. Robert Murphy at 23:05 PM on 27 June 2011
    The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    #11: "Consider Fred Singer... He has been at it for decades and doesn't appear to have ever suffered any sort of 'consequences'" Sure it has - he's a pariah among scientists. He has no academic career to speak of and hasn't for years. What more do you want to do? Send him to jail for saying nonsense? Make it illegal for him to speak in public? Where does it end? Jail the scientologists? The creationists? The flat-earthers? I'm sorry, but free speech entitles one to make a fool of oneself and spout outright nonsense. Yes, that means you can lie, as long as you don't break libel/slander laws. Bill, #12: "News consumers are entitled to believe that they will be given the core scientific information without distortion." No, they are not. They are obligated to check what they read. Caveat emptor. That goes for any kind of information, not just scientific. "Any media outlet that strays so far from the public-interest should risk serious penalty, including revocation of licence." And when your enemies gain control of the bureaucracy, YOUR point of view will suddenly stray from the "public interest". Claim the hockey stick is not broken or that the warming has not stopped? They'll say that's a lie and cut you down with the legal weapons you gave them. '"Free speech" does not run to the right of near-monopolies to propagandise at will' Murdoch's media empire, however widespread, is no monopoly. I can easily get all the information I desire from other sources, with no inconvenience. I personally don't choose to eliminate any news outlet totally, but I could if I wanted to. And frankly, all media outlets, bloggers, pamphleteers, and street corner orators have a right to propagandize at will. In the U.S. we call it the 1st amendment. People, think about what such a Truth Commission would mean in practice. It would do far, far more damage than anything the deniers do now. I shudder at the thought of some nameless bureaucrat deciding whether or not someone's scientific or political opinions are illegal. In that sense I'm a 1st amendment fundamentalist.
  14. Eric (skeptic) at 23:02 PM on 27 June 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    Dikran, it seemed to be suggested in a moderator note here: /news.php?p=2&t=116&&n=790#55671 Did I misinterpret that?
  15. Rob Painting at 22:27 PM on 27 June 2011
    2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Yeah, I'm picking El Nino by years end, based on an Indian Ocean Dipole paper. The NOAA SST page seems to suggest an El Nino might on the way too.
  16. The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    I agree with Tom Curtis. The Murdochracy has really gone out of its way to routinely provide outright disinformation in this matter, and I'm glad it was singled out in The Conversation series. News consumers are entitled to believe that they will be given the core scientific information without distortion. Particularly on such a vital issue. And certainly without the sordid pretense that serving up think-tank spin is some kind of equivalent! Instead, the product is blatantly faulty - so where is the redress? Any media outlet that strays so far from the public-interest should risk serious penalty, including revocation of licence. "Free speech" does not run to the right of near-monopolies to propagandise at will, any more than it entitles corporations to lie in their advertisements - that is an absurd perversion.
  17. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ Link here, seems to be a huge amount of warm water in the Pacific atm.
  18. The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    Consider Fred Singer... the man has been a professional denier for about 40 years now. He has argued that ultraviolet light does not cause skin cancer, CFCs do not cause ozone loss, smoking does not cause lung cancer, asbestos and DDT are perfectly safe, et cetera. He has been at it for decades and doesn't appear to have ever suffered any sort of 'consequences'. Sure, he has been denounced as a fraud many many times... but it doesn't seem to have hurt him any. He is still considered a 'heroic truth-teller standing up to the commie scientists and tree-huggers' by far too many people. I used to think that the only thing which could ever stop such people is if they were foolish enough to lie under oath... but then Monckton got away with even that.
  19. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Brilliant Post Dr Masters, read it over at wunderground. Oh and all SkS readers, check out the current UAH discover websites temperatures we've been near record highs all June.
  20. Dikran Marsupial at 21:47 PM on 27 June 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    Eric@105 I don't recall ever having seen a claim that CO2 will continue to rise if anthropogenic emissions stop completely (other than a short term increase due to natural variability). Can you give a specific example? The decay is not a simple exponential, one model the IPCC uses is the sum of four exponentials with differint weights and decay rates. Clearly by that model, CO2 would not increase if anthropogenic emissons stopped tomorrow. The argument about the new equilibrium seems risky to me as the oceans will influence the new equilibrium as well as the terrestrial biosphere. I suspect the calculation is in one of Archer's papers.
  21. Eric (skeptic) at 21:24 PM on 27 June 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    KR, I must have insinuated something I didn't mean to ("50 year time cycle for full equalization"). Let me sum up my view which seems to match what Dikran has been posting to me. There is an exponential decay of CO2 back to some equilibrium. It is sometimes posted on other threads that even if mankind stopped producing CO2, CO2 would continue to rise. Although a completely academic argument, the opposite will happen, CO2 will immediately drop about 1/2 way back to preindustrial within 50 years. However the final equilibrium will take much longer, essentially forever as has been mentioned above (but again, that time scale is academic since it is the effects that matter not the amount). Also the new equilibrium will be higher than the preindustrial equilibrium due to our added CO2. That new equilibrium is pretty easy to estimate, we added 340 GtC since preindustrial and the total carbon in the ocean, soil, and biosphere is roughly 3000 Gt, so the new equilibrium is roughly 10% higher than the old as of the end of 2007. Also there will be other rises in that equilibrium due to warming feedback. Those feedbacks are modest right now, but might not be in the future. Finally, I agree with Dikran that there is unrealized warming, but most of that warming is already reflected in sea level since that is where it is stored. But the atmosphere would continue to warm if we (academically speaking) stopped producing CO2.
  22. andrew.glikson at 21:16 PM on 27 June 2011
    The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
    Agnostic. Unfortunately I think you are correct ... Andrew 27-6-11
  23. andrew.glikson at 21:11 PM on 27 June 2011
    The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
    Steve. You write: "Does this mean that increasing levels of CO2 do not cause global warming after all? Climate always changes and we have nothing to worry about, right?" Unfortunately I can not see that. An alternative explanation is that CO2 levels of ~300 ppm, a mere 20 ppm above pre-industrial Holocene, may be sufficient to raise tempratures by <1 degrees C and sea levels by ~5 meters, implying significantly higher climate sensitivity than Charney's 3+/-1.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2, as indicated by recent papers by Pagani et al. 2010 (PNAS)indicating CS values higher than 6C. Second, the GROWTH RATE of GHG rise may be just as important as the absolute level of CO2. The current rise rate of ~2 ppm/year is higher by a large factor than that preceding the Eemian interglacial, indeed it is the highest recorded in the Cainozoic geological record, and may constitute an important factor, for example in destabilizing methane locked in permafrost. According to Hansen et al. 2011 and Hansen and Sato 2011 total forcing has already reached 3.1 Watt/m2, although about half of this is currently mitigated by transient sulphur aerosols without which we are committed to +2.3 degrees C. These are Pliocene-like levels, well above the Eemian. Andrew Glikson 27-6-2011 Which means, consciously or unconsciously the world is already practicing geoengineering.
  24. The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    RobertMurphy @9, I am inclined to agree with you. However, I do think a very interesting case could be run against many News Limited outlets on the basis of false advertising in that they promise to bring us news, but bring us lies instead.
  25. Bob Lacatena at 20:49 PM on 27 June 2011
    Sea Level Hockey Stick
    127, okatiniko, It is unfortunate that you need to have climate change literally slap you in the face before you are willing to recognize it. Still, your obstinate denial in the face of clear evidence will help others to realize that a lot of the people that refuse to recognize climate change are doing so in clear denial of the facts, no matter how cleverly they can package or re-interpret them. More specifically, however, you need to understand the science, and the forcings. The lack of volcanic activity combined with an increase in solar insolation, a rebound from previous volcanic activity, and minor increases in greenhouse gases are all sufficient to account for the warming until 1945. No such forcings exist after 1970. The sun became more quiet, there were notable volcanic eruptions, etc., etc. At the same time, the rate of warming after 1970 is clearly faster than at any other point in the temperature record. That is the blade of the hockey stick, and it doesn't require a strong understanding of statistics to see it. At the same time, Greenland has been losing ice mass at an accelerating rate since 2000. That is the blade of another hockey stick. Arctic ice since the eighties is in an unending downward spiral. That is the blade of another hockey stick. Within a decade or two, increasing droughts will begin to seriously affect agriculture and water supplies in already water starved areas. That will be the rather painful blade of yet another hockey stick. At the same time, sea level rise is certainly going to accelerate, and that will be the blade of yet another hockey stick. That you cannot see any of this, because desperately don't want it to be true, does not change the facts. That you choose to interpret everything as a steady, unending and inexplicable heating of the planet ("Not our fault! Can't be CO2!") does not change the fact that this is clearly not the case, and that any rational, responsible and open minded person can see this for themselves. Anyone who doubts this can use the links and pages on this site to educate themselves, to understand the physics behind CO2, and to understand why it would actually be puzzling if all of this weren't happening. And anyone with an ounce of sense and responsibility will look at the Arctic, Greenland, the temperatures, the Amazon, sea levels, the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, and more, and will come to the conclusion that those who are in denial are seriously damaging everyone's future.
  26. Robert Murphy at 20:48 PM on 27 June 2011
    The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    Liam23@7, Licensing journalists (or bloggers, or whoever else decides to speak) would be a hideous assault on freedom of speech. Who is going to decide those things? Some bureaucratic licensing board? Who is going to decide what was a mistake and what was intentional? What happens when "the other side" gets to run such an agency? What if a Monckton or Plimer type were to head such a board? No, we do not need a Ministry of Truth. For all it's imperfections, the marketplace of ideas needs fewer, not more controls.
  27. Sea Level Hockey Stick
    127 - okatiniko Just in case people get confused by this statement:
    but between 1900 and 1970, there was nothing really unusual in forcings, nowhere. http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-9-12.jpg
    due, clearly to the very poor practice of linking to a graph with no axis labels or comments... it comes from here. I think people can draw their own conclusions from the text. As always, beware the eyeball-O-matic; it is not a tool best suited to statistical analysis.
  28. Dikran Marsupial at 17:31 PM on 27 June 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    Eric wrote: "Simply put, the top layer ocean carbon has to go somewhere each year so that the top layer can soak up more the next year." This is incorrect, unless the surface waters are saturated, then if atmospheric CO2 rises, then the surface waters will take up more CO2 even if the previous anthropogenic emissions have not been drawn down to the deep ocean. This is because the air-surface ocean flux is proportional to the difference in partial pressure. Even if the surface waters are equilibriated, that does not mean they are saturated. It is correct that, should we stop carbon emissions tomorrow, then levels will fall halfway back to pre-industrial levels within about fifty years. However, that doesn't mean that temperatures won't continue to rise or that sea levels won't rise. The reason is that the excess CO2 that remains still means that the Earth is not in radiative balance, and won't be fully in balance until the oceans have warmed as well as the land. This is why climate sensitivity is equilibrium climate sensitivity, so there is "unrealised" warming yet to come, no matter what we do (of course that doesn't mean we should do nothing).
  29. Sea Level Hockey Stick
    120 okatiniko - you really have to make your mind up: either the 'hockysticks' show features you feel they should show and, therefore, are not creating artefacts; or everything they show are artefacts. However you have decided - and this is clearly only based on your bias and, self-declared ignorance of statistics - that the hockey-sticks are real because they show up the LIA (and, indeed many other ancient climatic conditions). But are artefacts because they don't - in your opinion - show modern features pinned to a particular date. And as evidence? You dismiss the need for established science as being just a bias of mine, don't present any statistical analysis (because you can't) but use the good old eyeball-o-matic on graphs that you feel support your case (cherry picking). I still await your substantial demonstration of your claims, supported through published material, other than McIntyre's work which, as KR has pointed out, if not reliable. You cannot avoid that by claiming my incompetence. You will note, finally, that I am not presenting any "graph" showing a pick-up in 1970. That is, first, a total red-herring. Second, your dismissal of the indication of AGW through this data will come back, clearly, to your confusion about random noise, variance etc. which ... you have not substantiated . So, no I'm presenting nothing that allows you to spin around a circular argument.
  30. emilio.gagliardi at 15:35 PM on 27 June 2011
    Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    Hi everyone! my first comment on the site. First off, thank you all for your efforts; I love this resource. Secondly, I try to communicate climate change to interested people who more often than not lack the formal training necessary to understand the three types of science posted in the article. My job has been to try and personalize and create stories/parables that people can feel into so that climate change moves beyond the alienating double talk of politicians and the cold abstract language of the likes contained within this thread. My question is, does someone have another way of characterizing the three kinds fo science in a way that is more approachable with examples of the kinds of science at that level? Imagine my market is dominated by aging baby boomers that sadly watch a lot of tv. They relate to stories much better than theories and facts. Thanks again!
  31. The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
    Re 40 Michele - The transformation heat->photons and vice versa requires the cohesive contribution of a very an very large amount of gas, so it cannot occur within a little rising particle or if there is present also the sole temperature gradient. Almost completely untrue. A single molecule with the necessary properties can emit a single photon (or absorb one). The only need for a large number of molecules (but still a very small amount of material) is in order to be statistically sufficient for fitting the distribution of energy at LTE (PS photons could still be emitted and absorbed when not at LTE, it would just be quantitatively different. Heck, you could even(theoretically) have a greenhouse effect based on fluorescence). The only need for a large amount of material (relatively speaking, and depending on optical properties of the material) is to provide sufficient optical thickness to be able to emit a given fraction of the blackbody flux for the temperature (or a representative temperature, etc.) of the material. The sizable isothermal regions exist at least in part because the solar heating is not more concentrated into even thinner layers or excluded from only even thinner layers. Regarding your comment 39: Yes, the ability to emit more radiation while absorbing less at a given temperature will cause the temperature to fall (unless solar heating and convection or diffusion make up the difference). Relative to optical thickness, the closer one goes towards TOA, aside from other factors, the less downward LW flux there is to absorb, so aside from other factors, equilibrium temperature tends to decline with height. Yes, the temperature at the base of a convective layer (a sufficiently vigorously convective layer, (?perhaps with sufficient localized overturning in particular?) is to a first order approximation coupled to the temperature at any other height in the same layer including the top of that layer, by a convectively-sustained lapse rate. This doesn't determine the temperature of the whole layer, merely the lapse rate of the layer. But it is entirely mistaken to assume that the net radiant cooling which balances convective is isolated to the top, or near the top, of such a layer. It is possible to have such a situation but it is also possible to have net radiant cooling of almost the whole layer. What determines the temperature of any reference level in the layer, given the lapse rate it will have, is the balance of non-radiant fluxes going into the top or base of the layer - THIS DOES NOT MEAN THOSE FLUXES ARE EMITTED OR ABSORBED ONLY AT THE BOUNDARIES; they can be emitted or absorbed anywhere within the layer. The only caveat is that the distribution of net non-convective heating and cooling must not stabilize the layer to convection, or else the convection would stop shaping the lapse rate, and we'd be back to a radiative or radiative-diffusive/conductive equilibrium. Regarding Venus vs Earth - and now I see why some are saying that Earth would be like Venus without oxygen (I used to think they just meant that there wouldn't be a stratosphere/mesosphere division without an ozone layer, or some equivalent UV-shield operating in a sufficiently similar manner) - Take away the ozone layer and the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere get colder. That's pretty much it. There isn't much change to the troposphere; except there is some added warming effect because some portion of the solar heating of the ozone layer is now solar heating below the tropopause (warming effect for the surface and troposphere - small, nothing that would get you anywhere at all near Venus, not even close, not even remotely), while the downward LW flux from the ozone layer is also gone (cooling effect - reduces the greenhouse effect). Why wouldn't the troposphere extend up to much greater height? ****Because the radiant heating and cooling just aren't there to support it.***** Most, maybe nearly all, of where the stratosphere is now would remain stable to convection in pure radiative equilibrium there. If you tried to heat the surface up to 700 K, without adding a sufficient amount more CO2, etc, then the surface and troposphere would be emitting a lot more radiation then they'd be absorbing (LW + solar) and they'd cool off. There is no physical basis for the idea that photons are emitted to space just from the two cold layers or levels. CO2 does not form a layer just at the mesopause and tropopause - it is almost evenly distributed up through the mesopause and I think a little beyond that. How could you get CO2 at the mesopause emitting to space and not CO2 just above it or (given the thinness of the layer and CO2 spectral properties) just below it? How could tropopause CO2 emit radiation and not the CO2 in the stratosphere or stratopause or lower mesosphere? It makes absolutely no sense. Line broadenning and line strength vary but they don't take everthing away and they tend to vary gradually with height withe the pressure and temperature that determine them. Photons are emitted whereever molecules with sufficient energy can emit them, and also tend to be emitted more at higher temperatures; it's just that photons are also being absorbed and not all emitted photons escape to space or travel beyond any particular given distance. Cooler temperatures tend to be found where there is less radiant energy (including solar) available to be absorbed (and less convective heating - where some of the troposphere is, it would be colder without convective heating), so equilibrium requires less emission. At any given location, generally the flux of photons reaching that location are emitted over a range of distances away. Sometimes there is a concentrated source, like a surface, or the boundary of a cloud layer, but otherwise the source of the photons reaching some location is not a single level but a distribution. On Earth, the photons escaping to space come from all levels of the atmosphere, but more from one or another depending on frequency and the thickness of that layer. Adding greenhouse gases changes that distribution. Yes, at sufficient heights CO2 is reduced by photolysis, but that is just reducing the optical thickness there, making that layer of the atmosphere thinner in terms of optical thickness - it's like lowering the TOA. It's not that special. And conduction/diffusion becomes significant at some height because of long mean free paths. The vast majority of the mass of the atmosphere is below such levels. And the mesosphere is not convective - at least not in the sense that the troposphere is. Not all positive lapse rates imply convection.
  32. The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    Liam23 @7 Here in Australia we have the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) but unfortunately it is a bit of a toothless tiger and rarely issues penalties harsher than slaps across the wrist with a piece of wet lettice. (For more information refer to ABC Media Watch website.)
  33. Sea Level Hockey Stick
    121 : Sphericae : again, which of these hockey sticks show an unusual rise after 1970, rather than after 1900 ? but between 1900 and 1970, there was nothing really unusual in forcings, nowhere. http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-9-12.jpg KR : same can be said with Taminos' HS of course. and the choice of random proxies correlated with instrumental temperatures is normal. After all, there are considered as proxies BECAUSE they're correlated with modern temperatures, so you also have a selection effect in real life. Again, it would be surprising that there is no temperature signal in them, but again the issue is just : lower variance. Philippe : I'm sorry that you didn't understand of what I said. I cannot be clearer. But you're free also to propose a hockey stick starting after 1970 if you know one ! sean : I'm ready to discuss with everyone. Tamino isn't. That's life.
  34. Bob Lacatena at 14:26 PM on 27 June 2011
    Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    Camburn, Again, you are offering Dr. Svalsgaards paper as evidence... yet we cannot read it. We can only trust you, and your glowing endorsement of him as a scientist. He is a good scientist, from what I see... but I don't know why you simultaneously dismiss all of the other work (and the scientists who have come before him), yet put so much weight on a paper that has not yet been published... except that it obviously draws a conclusion which you'd like to see. I really don't care that you've read it, or what you think of it, or him. None of that is valid if I and the rest of the world can't see it. If you can't provide a link to a paper, you can't use it as evidence. That's how this game is played. Everything else is hearsay and inadmissible in the court of convincing anyone that you know what you're talking about.
  35. The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    Personally, I think media outlets and journalists should have a regulatory body and a license to practice, like doctors and solicitors. If a journalist prints a story they know is untrue, their licence is revoked, and they can't be a journalist again. If a newspaper publishes a story that misrepresents the truth, then it should be shut down. Democracy depends on a well informed public, and that depends on the public receiving accurate information.
  36. Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
    Norman. Munich Re's prime source of information is their own records of claims against insured risks. Being a reinsurer they have a much wider base of information than an individual insurance company. When assessing risks related to floods, storms and like events they take account of known meteorological and other science relating to the areas in question. So they have a fairly comprehensive set of data available. Their own problem is that the information they are most comfortable with relates to insured risks. If there is information out there on events in areas where people don't insure, it doesn't get directly into their database where they can analyse how well events line up with actuarial assessments of risk at the time policies were negotiated. Their general advice about climate overall is an amalgam of climate science at large combined with their own oversight of how well risk assessment lines up with insured events. So they're pretty confident about their assessment of trends in flooding in Europe and USA, but far less directly knowledgeable about south Asia and Africa. Seeing as their claims records about European floods line up very well with what meteorology and climate science say, they're pretty comfortable relying on meteorological records and climate science alone for areas where they have less claims experience.
  37. CO2 has a short residence time
    Eric (skeptic) - Regarding speed of CO2 uptake, I would strongly suggest you take a look at the IPCC report, Section 7.3, The Carbon Cycle and the Climate System, and in particular 7.3.4.5 Summary of Marine Carbon Cycle Climate Couplings, where this is discussed. Given that the various mechanisms (uncertain as to positive/negative feedbacks) have time ranges from 1 year to 50K years, with high capacity negative feedback mechanisms kicking in around 5-10K years, a 50 year time cycle for full equalization is quite an underestimate.
  38. Eric (skeptic) at 13:17 PM on 27 June 2011
    CO2 has a short residence time
    Tom, on point 5, if my argument is void because "seasonal variations have a half cycle significantly less than the typical time to reach equilibrium with the surface", then it seems that it would also void your argument that 50% of fossil fuel contribution is soaked up each year, rather than roughly 2% of the excess over full system equilibrium. It is the reality of full system equilibrium (not just surface ocean0 that allows the consistent soaking up of CO2 year after year. Simply put, the top layer ocean carbon has to go somewhere each year so that the top layer can soak up more the next year. The only possible place is the deep ocean and it must have been consistent the past 100 or more years to reach the level we are now at given all those past releases. We have the needed data to quantify the actual amount of CO2 emitted by the decay of the NH biosphere in autumn. It is in the paper that I referenced. I could not provide a link since I had to purchase the paper, but here's the abstract: http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1997/97GB02268.shtml I'd be happy to send the paper if you want me to upload it or send it somewhere. For your point 2, I did take Archer and Brovkin somewhat out of context. But their context is not as simple as you suggest, an equilibrium between the deep ocean and top layer / atmosphere. That is not a slow process as you suggest and they imply. The main reason they get away with that implication is that they are adding warming feedbacks to the analysis without explicitly saying so (although it is obvious from the rest of the paper). The deep ocean and top layer have a sufficiently rapid exchange to sequester roughly 40% of the warming expected in the atmosphere / top layer from AGW. That same turnover sequesters CO2. But that also fills the deep ocean reservoir which is the other (an important) reason for the very long tail described by Archer and the graphs earlier in this thread. My essential point in the carbon sequestration process is that CO2 can drop half way back to preindustrial in 50 years as shown in my spreadsheet and .the charts in this thread. The reason it is able to do that is relatively rapid deep ocean sequestration. Archer does not fundamentally contradict that, but he does posit lots of changes to that rate based mainly on warming (also acidification). I think that point also argues against your point 3. I think your charts A and C in your point 4 don't contradict either of our positions. It can be visualized either way, the 40% of annual emissions that are absorbed or the 1.6% of total anthropogenic carbon that is absorbed. The real question is, what does the carbon system do, does it quickly absorb the annual anthropogenic CO2 into the top layer for a variety of effects including acidification and deep ocean sequestration? Or does it behave more simply as a deep ocean sequestration system albeit with a rapid top layer interface, but the long term rate (1.6%) being determined by the deep ocean turnover? I think the answer is both are true because across the world from the tropics to the arctic, the ocean are doing all of the above all of the time. There are always places with lots of deep ocean sequestration (e.g. the arctic before freezeup) and places with very little (the tropics most of the time). The mix of those conditions is what supports the current atmospheric levels over the long run but the multi-year changes in that mix is what also causes the fluctuations seen in the charts you posted.
  39. There is no consensus
    Sorry, forgot to cover the important thing, but two essays is enough or one day. Very briefly, it is the nature of the IPCC consensus. The positions taken by the IPCC are the position that nearly all scientists have least disagreement with. Some might disagree significantly with some points, but an equal number will disagree just as much in the opposite direction. A rough measure the level of disagreement is the statement of the likelihood of the claim (which should be paid careful attention to.) If something is considered very likely, there is very little disagreement, and those who disagree do not disagree by much. If something is "more likely than not" then there is wide disagreement, but the IPCC position is still the position from which there is least disagreement.
  40. A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
    [ -snipped-] and although Okatiniko may not have expressed the issues particularly well, there is every reason to turn a critical eye on much of the material in a situation where non-hydro, non-biomass renewables currently supply such a tiny portion of world energy consumption. For me, and I suspect many people, that is simply common sense. It should be pointed out that documents such as the EREC "Re-thinking 2050" are not plans as referred to above. They are scenarios. There is a big difference. Although the EREC document is cited as supporting the claim that renewable energy can provide baseload electricity, as far as I can see, it does no such thing. It hardly mentions variability of electricity production. It just stacks up various resources and makes assumptions about projected growth in each. There is plenty of material in the EREC document to raise an eyebrow at. It projects 90 GWe of EGS (aka hot dry rock) geothermal electricity generation capacity by 2050. Until we see at least something like 500 - 1000 MW of EGS running commercially for a number of years, that sort of projection should be taken with a grain of salt. What could possibly go wrong 4 kms underground in hot granite? EGS theoretically ticks all the right boxes and is a very "likable" technology, but commercially completely unproved. There has been some interest and research for decades, that that is where we are today. Another and probably more serious issue with the EREC document is the huge fraction of bioenergy in their 2050 scenario at ~36% of their projected final energy consumption - more than wind, CSP and PV combined. Is this really where we want to be? How much land needs to be taken over for growing the feedstock? From memory, the Zero Carbon 2030 "Plan" for the UK advocates turning over 80% of the UK's grazing land to growing biomass. One might observe that restoration of some of that land to native broad leaf forests might be a better thing to do. It is not over generalizing to say that there is a tendency to take a cavalier attitude to "energy sprawl" in much of the advocacy for the renewables only line. This is not only a matter of aesthetics and nimbyism - there are also quite real ecological issues involved. But even if it were just a political issue, it still needs to be taken much more seriously. A bit of hand waving about "political will" does not cut it. There is political push back against energy sprawl from multiple sources, including conservationists, and there will be more of it. There is much more that could be said, but the bottom line is that there is much uncertainty in the future transition from fossil fuels. Furthermore the uncertainties come from multiple directions - not only the technologies for energy production, but also from population growth, magnitude and nature of economic growth, especially in the developing countries and claims of realizable energy efficiency. Ascribing unrealistic degrees of certainty to scenarios, and wrongly elevating them to "plans" very much looks like a politically driven agenda to shut out nuclear power. There is nothing scientific or skeptical about this and in view of the multiple uncertainties, the very least that could be said is that it is a high risk path.
  41. Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    Camburn - You might also be interested in Benestad and Schmidt, 2009, where they examined Scafetta's simple regression method, found the reported error bars far too small, and concluded: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7±1% for the 20th Century, and is negligible for the warming since 1980."
  42. There is no consensus
    mik_rosser @355: Consensus: I think there are two important things to understand about consensus and climate change. The first and most important is that arguments about consensus are not an argument from authority, it is an argument about who is an authority. It is an unfortunate fact of life that most things that we "know" we accept on authority. It can hardly be any other way - there is simply to much to learn, and to much to analyse for anybody to have more than a passing understanding of more than a small range of topics. Even in those topics where we claim some expertise, most of what we know we know on authority because we have not done the experiments or made the observations ourselves. To give just one example, how do I know that man has ever trod on the moon? The answer is, on authority. I was not on any trip to the moon, nor part of the effort to get man there. I have not myself seen footprints on the moon. Consequently, at some level I must accept the theory that man has walked on the moon on authority. There are those who do not accept that theory, who dispute the claims of those who could actually check for themselves (such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin). I can, and have, looked at the evidence the lunar landing deniers present, and see that their claims are unsupported. That means I can show that they do not have a reason to believe the various films of men walking on the moon are doctored, or staged. But what I can't do is prove that they were not doctored or staged because there is no in-principle limit on how well such doctoring or staging can be done. At some point I just have to trust that the films are not fakes - but when I do, I am accepting something on authority. Now, it is obviously best to rely as little on authority as you can, especially in matters of importance. In climate science, if you don't want to rely on authority at all, you first need to get yourself a PhD in physics, making sure you are well qualified in programming and statistics. You then need to read carefully around a thousand scientific papers. That's less than a quarter of all the relevant papers, but it should get you up to speed. You then need to start a major program of experimentation that will require an annual budget of millions to sustain. Even then you will need to accept the authority of various space agencies to make use of satellite data. But you will probably then be in as good a position as anyone to not rely on authority at all in your beliefs about climate change. Of course, not everyone in the population is going to do that. Indeed, only a tiny fraction of the population will undertake the limited measure or reading multiple books, about 100 scientific papers, and several excellent essays need to become, not expert, but moderately competent in understanding the arguments about global warming. Consequently, most people will have to accept most of what they believe about global warming on authority. If anybody ever tells you different, they are lying to you*. Not only are most people going to have to accept most of what they believe about global warming on authority, it is vital that most people actually have an opinion about global warming. This is because we live in a democracy, and there is not substitute for democracy as legitimate government. Given the risks involved, is is therefore vital that people have informed opinions about global warming. But to do that, they must accept much on authority. So the essential issue for most people is this: Whose authority do you accept? So called "climate change skeptics" claim that they are the authority that you should listen to. They say that they are scientists (and some of them are); and that they have studied the issue (and some of them have even done that); and the implicit claim is that you should accept them as your authority. I disagree. If you are not very well informed on a subject, and do not intend to become so, the only rational choice is to accept on authority the consensus opinion of the people who are most informed, and who have studied the issue most closely. Recently Lord Monckton described this as a "fascist point of view", but to me it is just common sense. So common that we govern our lives by it for almost every major decision, whether that be what medicines to take, and when, or what foods to consider safe. In fact, for all their posturing, the so-called "climate skeptics" recognise that this is rational approach. They recognise it by continuously portraying the actual scientific consensus as being smaller than it is; as being perhaps a small majority at most rather than the over whelming majority that it is; and portraying there numbers as being much larger than they actually are by misleading comparisons. They compare, for example, the total number of scientists involved in the IPCC (which they drastically and deceitfully understate) with a list of "scientists" by which they mean anyone with a medical or engineering degree a if that where the appropriate comparison. In fact, comparing like with like, deniers make up around 3% of actively publishing (and hence researching) scientists of any type, and just 1% of actively publishing climate scientists. But they want you to ignore the reasoning and evidence that has raised acceptance of AGW among climate scientists from around 40% two decades ago to around 97% today. The argument from consensus points out that ignoring that evidence is not a reasonable thing to do. So, while I definitely encourage anyone interested to become genuinely familiar with the science of climate change (which is fascinating in its own right), if you are not willing to do so, don't be conned into accepting a false authority by inaccurate comparisons with Galileo. * Lord Monckton actually begins his seminars by saying he will not ask anyone to accept anything on authority. He then proceeds to tell whopper after whopper secure in the knowledge that most of his audience won't check. In other words, he is banking on their accepting his authority, and the disclaimer is a sham. This is a common tactic among deniers, and is equivalent to the "cockroach trap" mail order scam. In that scam a cockroach trap is advertised with a money back guarantee. It turns out the "trap" is just two bricks and instructions to bang them together with the cockroach between. The business is legit in that the money is give back to those who apply, but the scammers make a fortune because most people don't make the effort.
  43. The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
    We need new laws to deal with this deliberate mis-reporting, and with climate change denial in general. Just as marketers are not allowed to lie in their advertisements, media needs to be held to the same standard. Alternatively, I can see the day coming when denial of climate change is just as serious a crime as holocaust denial is in some countries today.
  44. Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    Camburn - Scafetta has previously published papers of, well, questionable value on this subject, and in his 2009 paper has failed to provide enough information for replication and testing. In particular, Scafetta seems to attribute all climate changes to TSI, neglecting land use changes, internal variation, and volcanic activity. This 'single cause' approach is inherently flawed (see CO2 is not the only driver of climate). I cannot take Scafetta seriously until he improves his game considerably - and your consideration of that as a source indicates that you're not checking them very carefully. --- As to climate estimates - checking the IPCC, the likely range (>60%) is within 2C to 4.5C per CO2 doubling, with much less certainty on the upper end of the range. There is estimated to be <10% chance of it being below 1.5C. You seem to keep betting on the low end - the odds are against you.
  45. Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    KR: Even with present papers there is a large range of uncertainty. From less than 1 to more than 4.
  46. Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    KR: And then we have this. A paper that discusses the range of different TSI measurements in the present and its potential effects on climate. The TSI undertainty is not insignificant and has a large bearing on understanding. This is crucial to modeling etc. Scafetta
  47. A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
    One aspect of climate change denial that has not been commented on as yet is that of psychological projection: projection ... is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. I, and most others here, have observed that many climate change deniers project their own disowned attributes, feelings, and thoughts onto those who disagree with them, and accuse climate scientists of their very own mis-deeds and mis-behaviors. For example: It would be interesting to have some comment from trained and experienced psychologists on this aspect of climate change denial.
  48. Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    Camburn At the core, your issue appears to be confusing the fact that "There are uncertainties of some level in all things" with "We cannot be certain about anything". This is an error. As an example, Barton Paul Levenson has assembled a list of historic climate sensitivity measurements. Examining this list, the uncertainties in sensitivity have decreased as our knowledge increases: The more we learn, the less uncertain we are. There's no justification for claiming otherwise.
  49. Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
    Sphaerica: I have read Dr. Svalsgaards upcoming paper. He is so pre-eminent in his field that what he authors will for sure be robust. As far as Bertrand, I got the reference from this site from a link you posted for me to read. It was referenced by the author of the thread how do the volcanoes drive climate. I do not dismiss the science that already exists. I examine the papers, in fact I have purchased papers just to read them if I feel they are credible. I have read the 2007 IPCC report from cover to cover. Not the political one, but the WG report. Peer review is peer review. Some poor papers get through it, some good papers don't survive it. Just because a paper is peer reviewed does not make it credible. It is the aftermath, once one can view the source codes and supporting documents, that makes it credible. I will use TSI as an example. There are many peer reviewed papers that show different levels of TSI. This is one of the reasons that Dr. Svalgaard started looking for other proxies to form a credible record. We shall see how it stands the test of time. I don't make up data. I posted the source. Woodfortrees.org is a most wonderful site that allows one to do analysis.
  50. Sea Level Hockey Stick
    SEAN O'FARRELL - Thanks, that gives me some much appreciated context. okatiniko - You are not discussing science. At all. Looking at a few of your past comments, you are pumping out disinformation, ideas that have been disproved fully a thousand times (DFATT), and not critically reading any of the references provided. That, in my view, makes you a troll. I will not respond in detail to any more comments of yours unless they have significant scientific content. Although I might decry bad posts a bit...

Prev  1619  1620  1621  1622  1623  1624  1625  1626  1627  1628  1629  1630  1631  1632  1633  1634  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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