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  1746  1747  1748  1749  1750  1751  1752  1753  1754  1755  1756  1757  1758  1759  1760  1761  Next

Comments 87651 to 87700:

  1. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    I'm not sure if this has been enough stressed on the original post, but AFAIK the "cooling prediciotns" were based in good science. It's just that the scenarios of aerosol emissions never actually happened. So first, most of the studies by that time already projected warming. Second, the cooling papers did not deny the warming properties of GHG. And third, I don't think anyone would say the emission scenarios used today will not happen in a business as usual projection.
  2. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    95, Ken, As Tom already pointed out, the annual average insolation in the Arctic is greatly influenced by the seasons, such as the 24 hour long sunless days through most of the winter. As I already said, the season we're talking about is at peak insolation when hours of daylight would be higher. Using the annual average is clearly wrong. This is a fairly obvious factor, and demonstrates a distinct lack of thought on your part. I also already used very conservative numbers for many other items, such as the change in albedo. Again, the impact to the climate of increasing summer Arctic ice melt will be anywhere from 0.67˚C to 1.3˚C. All other arguments are moot unless I've made a (real) mistake in my calculations. The question at hand has been whether or not the melting of summer ice in the Arctic will have any impact on climate. The proposal was that the increased positive albedo feedback would be significant. The argument was that the Arctic only covers 4.4% of the globe, so the feedback cannot be significant. The numbers show that the positive feedback is more than merely significant, but downright scary. Case closed.
  3. Harry Seaward at 01:03 AM on 24 April 2011
    A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Sweet @ 50 Three factors contributed to the Texas wildfires 1. Heavy rains from Hurricane Alex last summer caused a huge increase in biomass (plant blooming). 2. The winter of 2010-2011 was extremely cold and caused a massive die-off of plant life. 3. Texas then entered the spring of 2011 in a drought situation with March being the driest March in state history. Those 3 factors created a tinderbox situation that is fueling the fires. High winds and hot weather are exacerbating the situation. I suppose you could take those 3 factors and link them to AGW in some way and make a statement that these fires were caused by AGW. But, that is far different from using science to prove it. We can have a scientific discussion about this if you desire and are capable. This ain't handwaving and I'm no troll. This thread has meandered a bit between climate displacement and environmental displacement and the line between the two is a bit fuzzy. I believe that area-wise the current fires are greater in size than anything recorded. That alone can increase the effect impact to humans, however it must be considered too that the increasing population and building of homes in areas historically prone to wildfires have factored into financial losses. It is no different than building more and grander homes on beaches prone to being hit by hurricanes, or increasing human populations in areas prone to flooding like the Indus River in Pakistan.
  4. Wakening the Kraken
    Ron #14 Thanks, it does help. So the timescale for the 25 figure is indeed those 100 years. But I still don't understand that result I got with the Modtran. CH4 was just 50 times stronger there, and I assume it calculates just the immediate forcing, not averages over time. It should have shown something larger than that methane Global Warming Potential of 72 over 20 years I saw in your Wikipedia link. Am I still missing something?
  5. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Ken Lambert @91, in fact I do "get it", but you continue to ignore the relevant facts which allow me to get more than you will allow yourself to understand. Consider the cumulative incoming additional energy flux from ice albedo effects relative to 1979 for successive five year periods from 1979 to 2008: 1979-1983: -7.40E+020 Joules 1984-1988: -4.18E+020 Joules 1989-1993: 8.24E+020 Joules 1994-1998: 1.41E+021 Joules 1999-2003: 2.06E+021 Joules 2004-2008: 6.97E+021 Joules If you pay attention you will notice that for the first 10 years, the value is negative. In fact, for eleven of the first eighteen years between 1979 and 2008, the ice albedo effect was a negative feedback relative to 1979 levels (though a positive feedback if compared to 1950 levels). The reason for this is that 1979 set a new record for summer minimum ice extent, so natural variation took the ice extent above that record in a significant number of the following years. The most important consequence of that for this debate is that the cumulative increase in incoming flux relative to 1979 levels (ie, your chosen comparison period) does not become positive until 1995. In other words, the doubled figure which will only be "...2.8% of accumulated heat from 4.4% of the Earths surface area over the last 31 years of official AGW" will in fact only be accumulated energy over something less than 16 years. Further more, for most of those 16 years, the change in the summer accumulated energy flux was only small, with a 6*10^20 Joule increase in the 5 year accumulation. But the last five year period shows a 4.91*10^21 increase over the preceding years. That is nearly half the accumulated value for the thirty years in just the last five years! In fact 2007 alone accumulated more energy (2.54E+021 Joules) than any five year interval ending prior to 2005, and indeed, more than the 10 years from 1989-1998. 2008 (2.05E+021 Joules) is not far behind, and accumulated just 0.5% less energy than the five years from 1999-2003. Clearly the ice albedo effect was not such a big deal 20 odd years ago, but then again, nobody said it was. It is a big deal now. Thirty years accumulation at the average rate of the five years from 2004-2008 would accumulate 4.182*10^22 Joules. By your calculation that you say I don't get, that means it would constitute 5.6% of the Earth's accumulated energy. And that is with a figure very conservatively estimated, which ignores the additional energy gain in any season outside of summer, and in which three years of the five year average come from before the drastic 2007 reduction in summer sea ice. So what I get, but you plainly do not is that the ice albedo effect has gone from "ho hum" 15 years ago to a game breaker today. No matter what contortions you try, and no matter how much you want to include the low values of 30 years ago in your comparisons to mask the high values today, I will not forget this fact. And as clearly indicated in my point three @90 above, all indications indicate that it is going to get worse. In ten years time the ice albedo effect is likely to add 0.18 Watts/meter squared to the global energy imbalance (bringing its total effect relative to 1979 up to 0.24 Watts/meter squared. At that point, the 4.4% of the Earth you think is so trivial will be causing 22% of the total global warming. And that is significant.
  6. Wakening the Kraken
    Global warming potential Hope this helps you Alexandre. According to AR4 over 100 years methane has a warming potential of 25 times that of CO2 and 72 times that of CO2 over 20 years.
  7. Wakening the Kraken
    Wakening is hardly a strong enough word. Hydrates were always considered a 'drilling hazard' and oil companies were required to do a site survey to show that a proposed well would not encounter any deposits. They've been considered the 'fuel of the future' for quite some time, but the risk/economics weren't favorable. Now that's changed and we're poking 'em with a sharp stick: Results from DOE Expedition Confirm Existence of Resource-Quality Gas Hydrate in Gulf of Mexico: A series of test wells in >6000' of water found what may be significant quantities of recoverable methane in hydrate deposits. Make that two sharp sticks: Combine drilling into an unstable substance in deep water, where you are entirely dependent on those subsea BOPs should something go wrong. Exploration of methane hydrate and assessment of resources: A summary of Japan's exploration program for hydrates; a more technical report available here (large pdf). They've apparently made at least one commercial discovery.
  8. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Ken Lambert @95, the annual average for the arctic is indeed just over 50 w/m^2, so Sphaerica ought indeed to divide by three. But then he ought also to multiply by four to eliminate the seasonal parameter he introduced, seeing as how he would be using an annual average. Why is it, I wonder, that you never notice errors or adjustments that favour your argument, but always notice any regardless of their merit, that are not favourable to your argument?
  9. Wakening the Kraken
    Alexandre, "But that's not 20~30 times either, so maybe someone more knowledgeble can help us understand how that number is calculated." The 30 times figure is arrived at as follows: X = the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation if the concentration of CH4 increases from its present level of 2ppm to 3ppm. Y = the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation if the concentration of CO2 increases from its present level of 380ppm to 381ppm. X = 30Y The reason for this is that the curve is much steeper at low concentrations than at high concentrations because at high concentrations the absorption bands are saturated. Here is my reference: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/methane-and-co2/
  10. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    sphaerica According to #73 the Arctic averages about 50 W/sq.m so you had better start by dividing everything by 3.
  11. Wakening the Kraken
    Byron Smith at 22:00 PM on 23 April, 2011 According to Modtran, 1 extra ppm of CO2 traps 9.4mW/m2, whereas 1 extra ppm of CH4 would trap 471mW/m2. That's 50x more, so I'd say the 100 figure can be discarded. But that's not 20~30 times either, so maybe someone more knowledgeble can help us understand how that number is calculated. Probably it's the CH4 degrading to CO2 you've already mentioned - over a longer timescale it averages out to a smaller number. Would that timescale be one century?
  12. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Adelady If that be the case then you have missed the point of this whole exchange between Tom Curtis and me. It is about the extra heat absorbed from the Sun in the Arctic due to decreased albedo from reduced ice coverage. Heat transported from elsewhere is an internal effect - not an external forcing. ie. it is warmer in the Arctic but cooler where the heat originated giving no net overall warming.
  13. CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
    Good letter Alan. Has inspired me to write more myself.
  14. Wakening the Kraken
    AFAIK, methane is some 20-30 times stronger than CO2 at present concentrantions, not 100+ times. It depends on the time frame used, since CH4 degrades to CO2. In shorter time frames, I have heard the 100x figure quoted. I note that the main article says "on a century timescale".
  15. Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
    Just to let you know - my copy of "Climate Change Denial" arrived in the post today. Having skimmed it, it looks a really good read, and Earthscan have done their usual good job on the production ...
  16. Wakening the Kraken
    Excellent but terrifying article. Thanks for bringing together lots of different research and painting the bigger picture. A couple of points: 1: We've already raised the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases enough to cause over 2°C of global warming from fast feedbacks alone. We can't rely on short-term anthropogenic aerosol cooling to save us from that... and given the positive feedbacks we're already seeing from just 0.8°C of warming, it seems wildly improbable to me that 2°C won't be enough to trigger carbon cycle and albedo feedbacks which take the warming completely out of our hands. 2: Where the article says "...total human greenhouse gas emissions (including CO2) since 1750 amount to some 350 billion tons", is that figure measured in tons of carbon or tons of carbon dioxide? I think probably the former, as CDIAC says that we've put about 1.2 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1750, of which around half remains, with the rest being absorbed by natural carbon sinks.
  17. Wakening the Kraken
    Artful Dodger at 16:02 PM on 23 April, 2011 Your data does not match my (limited) knowledge. AFAIK, methane is some 20-30 times stronger than CO2 at present concentrantions, not 100+ times. (like the main post and Wikipedia say). Yes, CH4 has a different absorption band than CO2 (which gives it all this GH potential), but the CO2 saturation argument dos not depend on CH4 emissions to be dismissed. Although CO2 cannot absorb any additional IR at 14um, it continues to increase absorption at wavelengths further and further away from this central frequency. (although, yes, with ever diminishing marginal impact per ppm added) Your last point is an interesting one. Could you please explain the math used? Or maybe point to a reference?
  18. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    #79 SB I think it is fairly obvious that stricter ethical guidelines should be enforced. Not at all to silence scientists, but to make them clearly state when they are speaking as experts commanding public trust, and when they are not. And when they are sure about what they are saying, and when they are not. And the principle I mentioned, that what they say should stand up to peer review, modulo popularizations, is really simple. It also underscores the inherent degree of subjectivity in scientific judgments: Several referees may all come to different conclusions, but more often they tend to agree. When there has been a complaint, and the referees' judgment is clear: This scientist has, as an expert in the actual field, said something in public that would never have passed review if stated in a paper, a warning may be issued. And repeated violations could lead to firing etc. In the actual case of Lindzen, he would probably have been out by now by such rules. He could save himself by a number of measures, some examples: 1. Stating that this is about climate science, and he is a meteorologist, so he isn't really an expert in the actual field. 2. Acknowledging that there are empirically well-founded approaches leading to apparently correct predictions, but noting that he himself thinks the modeling should be done differently. 3. Stating clearly that he uses the models in a non-standard way, so discrepancies must be expected. 4. Pointing to weaknesses or inconsistencies in the work he criticizes, reducing its validity. In this case, he is entitled to state that in public, provided he can back it up scientifically.
  19. Wakening the Kraken
    Typo: temeparture/pressure Normally I'd thank you for this piece, but I'm very much in denial over this one. :-(
  20. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    rhjames: what, all three of them? :-P But seriously, you need to go to the right thread to discuss the accuracy of the IPCC reports. [mods feel free to delete this post as off-topic]
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis 1008 You asked: Given these clarifications, does your answer change, and if yes, to what? Unless I'm missing something, and assuming the constraints as outlined, the temperature for both plates is solely based on heating element....303K You said: The simple answer is that if Surface radiation goes above 2*S, or AtmUp, or AtmDn goes above S, then the system losses more energy than it gains, and therefore cools. I suspect we're arguing semantics, but how is that gaining energy cools? If Atm_up and Atm _dn are components of the an equally divided surface radiation, there is no cooling nor a decrease in entropy. The challenge for the alarmist is to find any partition of the system such that conservation of energy is maintained for that partition, and such that the Entropy decreases for that partition. That is, the partition must show an energy flow from E1 to E2 such that E1 = E2, but such that the Entropy of E1 is greater than that of E2. As an example, we have: 1) Insolation + Back radiation => surface radiation I said you said: You said equilibrium will be reached without back radiation being absorbed. Well, first note that in this model there must be back radiation because the "atmosphere" has an emissivity of 1 in IR wavelengths. Tom, do you agree equilibrium is reached WITHOUT back radiation? That is, with surface emission = 240 W/m^2 and only 240 W/m^2 (no additional back radiation) will system equilibrium be reached? Notice I'm not arguing the validity of forcing, at this point, but rather is equilibrium less forcing. So again, do you agree equilibrium is reached WITHOUT back radiation? You said: “With respect to the idealized greenhouse model it is the next step in complexity of atmospheric models from a simple grey slab model. It is still inaccurate...” Can you point me to the least flawed model. Not flippant or snide, but seriously...what is the best (least flawed) atmospheric model?
  22. Artful Dodger at 16:02 PM on 23 April 2011
    Wakening the Kraken
    Nice work. Here's a couple of additional points on Methane (CH4): * Since CH4 is at least 100x more potent as a GHG than C02, the effect of CH4+C02 is the same as 570 ppm CO2 concentration. * CH4 has a different absorption spectra than C02, and captures outgoing radiation in wavelengths where C02 is transparent (the C02 Window). * CH4 is one of the main reasons why the 'CO2 effect is saturated' mime is irrelevant to discussions of Global Warming: releasing CO2 causes warming which causes the release of CH4. * the abundance of Methane Clathrates exceeds that of atmospheric carbon by a factor of two. Over a hundred year time frame, CH4 decomposing to CO2 could take CO2 levels to 1,200 ppm WITHOUT us burning any more fossil fuels.
  23. michael sweet at 15:49 PM on 23 April 2011
    A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Tom: You have found close to or above 50 million refugees in 2008 alone. With the Pakistan floods 2010 must be similar. The total for 2008-2010 would be twice what Meyers estimated, or more. It seems that your actual numbers have quieted the trolls. If they had any real data to discuss, and not just hand waving and doubt, they would come on again. I note the lack of data from them concerning the Texas wildfires. I do not expect to see them again here. Thanks for your numbers. They will be a good resource to refer to in the future.
  24. Wakening the Kraken
    “Evidence supports the theory that sudden and massive releases of greenhouse gases, including methane, caused decade-scale climate changes - with consequent species extinctions - culminating in the Holocene Thermal Optimum.” Wasn’t the Holocene Optimum caused by Milankovitch cycles?
  25. Wakening the Kraken
    Poem from 1830 The Kraken by Alfred Tennyson Below the thunders of the upper deep; Far far beneath in the abysmal sea, His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep The Kraken sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee About his shadowy sides; above him swell Huge sponges of millennial growth and height; And far away into the sickly light, From many a wondrous grot and secret cell Unnumber'd and enormous polypi Winnow with giant arms the slumbering green. There hath he lain for ages, and will lie Battening upon huge seaworms in his sleep, Until the latter fire shall heat the deep; Then once by man and angels to be seen, In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die.
  26. Wakening the Kraken
    Great name for the chemical monster about to awaken. Finally we get a suitable name for an ogre greater than any myth or movie could ever deliver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken_in_popular_culture
  27. Wakening the Kraken
    And we can’t expect the negative weathering feedback to save us, because it takes 100,000 years.
  28. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    91, Ken Lambert, Sunlight reaching the surface of the earth equates to about an average of 184 W/m2. For 4.4% of the earth's surface, this equates to 184 * .044 = 8.096 W/m2. If the albedo change is from ice (.9 albedo) to open water (.1 albedo), or a change in absorption of 0.8, then 8.096 W/m2 * 0.8 = 6.4768 W/m2. If this change only applies to 3 months out of the year (1/4), that's 6.4768 W/m2 / 4 = 1.6192 W/m2. This does not multiply the number by any factor to account for the fact that the area is under 20-24 hours of high-incidence insolation per day. A forcing of 1.6192 W/m2 is close to one half of the 3.7 W/m2 forcing caused directly by CO2, which would itself cause 1˚C of climate change, and a total of 3˚C with feedbacks. Since those same feedbacks operate regardless of the forcing, we can assume a warming rate of 3˚C / 3.7 W/m2. For our high conservative estimate of 1.6192 W/m2, this translates to an additional warming of 1.3˚C. One could argue that the change in albedo from sea ice (.7 albedo) to open water would be only 0.6, and that the entire Arctic will never (?) melt for an entire 3 month span, so let's make another estimate of only 3% of the earth's surface, and an albedo change of only 0.6, giving 184 W/m2 * 0.03 (%surface) * 0.6 albedo * (1/4 yr) * 3˚C / 3.7 W/m2 = 0.67˚C So with a very conservative estimate, 0.67˚C is still very far from inconsequential when it is being added to other warming that is already at dangerous levels. [Admittedly, this is sort of double counting, since this feedback is already included in the estimated 3˚C of warming from the original 3.7 W/m2 of doubled CO2 forcing. But the point is still the same. This value is not insignificant.] Oh, and please certainly check my math, and my logic. I certainly could have made an error in there.
  29. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Ken, "Unless heat is transported to the Arctic from elsewhere on the planet ..." Until the last couple of decades, this was the *only* way for heat to affect the Arctic substantially - it's the major source of the heat that has melted the ice so far.
  30. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    JMurphy - you challenge me to point out incompetence of the IPCC. I doubt you are serious - it's been well documented before, and to go into detail here would be off topic. They have even admitted publicly to many of their errors.
  31. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    Peter said... "All other environmental issues, pollution, over foresting, over fishing, decertification, clean water and ocean destruction have fallen off the table thanks entirely to 'climate science.'" Hmmm, seems that Peter is unfamiliar with the massive amounts of environmental damage which are attributable to the extraction & combustion of fossil fuels-even if you completely ignore global warming. Mining of fossil fuels consumes large amounts of land & water-& frequently leads to contamination of both with toxic by-products. The combustion of coal produces significant amounts of air pollution-such as particulate emissions, as well as cadmium, mercury & radon gas. Combustion of petrol & diesel fuel also produces particulate emissions, along with benzene & nitrogen dioxide. A tendency to rely on raw over recycled materials-which also contributes to increased GHG emissions-is also a source of increased landfill size & resultant pollution. So actually, dealing with the various causes of global warming will have the effect of dealing with *all* of the environmental issues that Peter Wells lists as important. Of course, I could add that, even were this not the case, the last I checked humans were capable of "walking & chewing gum at the same time". To suggest that dealing with climate change somehow makes us incapable of dealing with other social & environmental issues is just another typical straw-man argument.
  32. A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Tom, I'd raise those numbers for Somalia. The UNHCR has the total number of internally displaced people as 1.5 million. Many of these are, of course, fleeing violence, but seeing as a UN official told the BBC about two and a half million people had been affected by drought I'd say a majority would be on the move for basic subsistence reasons.
  33. Stephen Baines at 13:30 PM on 23 April 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    @ Alec #74 I may have been unclear. I'm not suggesting taking the same path as those who engage in a philosophical scorched earth policy. Quite the opposite. My suggestion is that maybe we need more strict ethical guidelines regarding comunication with the public when scientists are speaking as representatives of scientific institutions. Scientific debate should not be the same as legal or political debate, and that distinction needs to be preserved. There are drawbacks to that approach, however. As is obvious, my opinion is evolving...
  34. Stephen Leahy at 13:23 PM on 23 April 2011
    Wakening the Kraken
    Great summary of a scary situation. Two experts I interviewed in Feb said +2C globally may lead to large scale thaw of permafrost: Permafrost Melt Soon Irreversible Without Major Fossil Fuel Cuts
  35. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Moderators are showing their bias and have snipped two of my reasonable and innocuous comments including the one you have answered Albatross. If that means ridding this site of all contrary opinion - then that is a great pity. Take note John Cook. I will email you privately on this matter again.
    Moderator Response: Comments snipped were due to inflammatory tone - a violation of the Comments Policy. Deleted comments contained accusations of dishonesty and complaints about moderation - each a violation of the Comments Policy.
  36. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    You still don't get it Tom. The Arctic cannot absorb any more heat than falls upon it at its Sun angles of incidence and minimum albedo. Let us assume that there is NO summer Arctic ice at all. Unless heat is transported to the Arctic from elsewhere on the planet, the 4.4% of the Earth's surface cannot absorb more heat than any 4.4% patch of open ocean at a lower ice free latitude. I doubled an average cumulative number to 100E20 Joules which is in close agreement with your maximum number viz "That is comparable to the cumulative additional energy flux compared to 1979, or 1.01*10^22 Joules." That is 101E20 Joules. Even at that level to rephrase my prior point: "Even if you **double** the number to about 100E20 Joules for inside the Arctic circle at 66 degrees N, the proportion is still only 2.8% of accumulated heat from 4.4% of the Earths surface area over the last 31 years of official AGW"
  37. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Ken, It is not everything that I know, it is information that is freely available out there that I am referring to that those in denial about AGW will not be pleased about. I was, for naught it seems, trying to inject some humour-- I hardly see how that can interpreted/perceived as being inflammatory.
  38. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Dan#247: "we already have all the tech we need to move away from FFs" Yet it's not happening. We're still making things worse. Here is a report of state-by-state CO2 emissions from electric power generation in the US. Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants rose 5.56% in 2010 over the year before, the biggest annual increase since the Environmental Protection Agency began tracking emissions in 1995. Electricity generators released 2.423 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2010, compared to 2.295 billion tons in 2009, ... power plant emissions are still below the high water mark of 2.565 million tons set in 2007.
  39. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 143), "We're done. As muoncounter and Alec have pointed out, I've shown way too much patience, and you quite simply don't get it... seemingly because you refuse to. I can't help you with that. Conversation ends." Suit yourself. "Really, the mods should go back and delete every single post, because almost none of them relate in any way to cloud feedback, and where they do, they're tainted by your misinterpretation of Trenberth's simple energy budget diagram." All of the my posts are directly or indirectly related specifically to the cloud feedback issue. If anything, I was the one frequently pushing to keep the discussion on topic, while others digressed.
  40. A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Albatross @44 Thankyou, and I'm glad you appreciated the comment. I spent much of yesterday trying to narrow down how many environmental "refugees" there are, without a great deal of success. Part of the problem is classification. For example, there are about 50 thousand people currently displaced in Somalia at the moment, but do they count as environmentally displaced people because of the drought, or as traditionaly "internally displaced people" because of the fighting that has broken out between neighbouring villages over water rights? What of the 1.4 million Somali's in refugee camps outside the country who have fled over the last decade? Do they count as traditional refugee's because they have fled the civil wars and break down of law inside Somalia, or as environmental refugees because of the extended droughts which partly caused the breakdown of civil society in Somalia? I would say the former are EDP while the latter are not, but there is no hard and fast distinction. Partly it is a problem of the very loose definition of "Environmental Refugees", which includes both (what I would call) environmentally displaced people, ie, people rendered homeless or forced to live in temporary accommodation by deterioration of their environment including by sudden onset catastrophes, and what I would call Environmental Migrants, ie, people who have migrated either internationally or intra-nationally because of a deterioration of their environment. Myers includes both groups within his definition of "Environmental Refugees", but while a displaced person is only displaced until they find a new home, a migrant is a migrant for the rest of their life. There is nothing wrong per se with this inclusion academically, but for policy debate it does render his figures almost completely irrelevant. Looking at the first group, we can start putting some figure on 2008 (for which I have significant data) though not 2010 (for which I do not). Starting with the iDMC report we have 36 million people displaced or evacuated due to sudden onset natural disasters. To that we should add those displaced by drought, which is likely to be a significant number, but for which I do not have a figure. To that we must add (given Myers' very broad definition) the 10 million plus people displaced annually by dam construction and other infrastructure development. That brings us to more than 46 million environmentally displaced persons alone in 2008. To that we must also add the number of environmental migrants. That is far more difficult to quantify because decisions to emigrate are governed by a large number of factors. One attempt to determine the significance of environmental factors in immigration correlated a variety of factors including environmental factors. The dominant factors by a very large margin were pull factors - ie, factors determining which country is migrated to once a decision to migrate is made. This include contiguity (shared borders), common language, shared colonial history either directly (immigration to a former colonizing power) or indirectly (immigration to a former colony of the nation that colonized the source country). Clearly when people decide to migrate they migrate to nations in which they have some cultural connection. But as regard push factors, factors likely to lead to a decision to migrate in the first place, environmental factors are significant. Some (eg, lack of potable water, soil salinity) are more significant factors than low GDP in the source nation, or high GDP in the target nation. I think this study does not lend itself to a simple interpretation, but it does show that environmental migrants do exist. It is rather less helpful in quantifying how many exist, however. It could be interpreted to support any figure from around a million annually (5% of total immigration) to 3 or 4 times that figure, which in turn would lead to an estimate of around 10 to 40 million environmental migrants world wide, with a significantly larger number of internal environmental migrants. These figures are, however, nothing to go to the press about. Regardless of the insecurity of some of these figures, it is clear if we just consider environmentally displaced people alone (ie, the 46 million plus in 2008) Myers was in the right ball park. If we include environmental migrants alone, he has clearly underestimated the number of "environmental refugees", but whether by 10% or 50%, how knows. What is also clear that those ridiculing his figures have made no serious analysis of what was actually claimed; nor of how many "environmental refugees" actually existed in 2010. However, I am not inclined to give Myers a free pass on this. I think the choice of the term "environmental refugee" invited the misunderstandings that are all to evident in discussions of this issue. It is not that he was academically wrong, as he was clear in his definition. But he should have been aware of the rhetorical impact of the term, and chosen a more neutral one. He also should have, IMO, provided some clear subcategories, and figures for them as well. In this topic, the subcategories are far more interesting (even academically) than the grand total.
  41. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Albatross #159 "Those in denial had better be careful what they claim concerning the ARGO data....that is all I'll say for now ;)" No one is claiming Argo is perfect - just there is nothing currently measuring the oceans globally which is any better. We all can only deal with the data which is published and available. ( snip ).
    Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
  42. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    #27 Berényi Péter Would you be happy if I were to have phrased it in the following manner: The way in which Lindzen and others portray the science to the public is of little concern to me (they are after all entitled to their opinions, whether correct or not).
  43. Clouds provide negative feedback
    RW1, We're done. As muoncounter and Alec have pointed out, I've shown way too much patience, and you quite simply don't get it... seemingly because you refuse to. I can't help you with that. The diagram is very, very simple. It's really not all that hard to understand, and that you ever thought you had the genius to prove all of climate science wrong through your clever re-interpretation of it just astounds me. You should put less time into your clever numbers, and more time into reading up on the physics behind climate science. It would help you tremendously, and the number of misconceptions and misunderstandings you hold now seem enormous -- they're holding you back. Really, the mods should go back and delete every single post, because almost none of them relate in any way to cloud feedback, and where they do, they're tainted by your misinterpretation of Trenberth's simple energy budget diagram. Conversation ends.
  44. Clouds provide negative feedback
    @muoncounter response to #139 Oh! I see (my Goodness). So, why not a Yogi Berra section? For instance, one of the last comments telling something like "a body that emits energy solely due to its temperature cannot be receiving more energy than that" or "if the square doesn't fit the circular hole then take a drop hammer and, smash it!".
  45. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 130), "As before, I cannot make heads or tails of those numbers. I can see, though, that you are trying to distinguish clear and cloudy sky in your numbers, and since we have already established that that information is not available in Trenberth's diagram, I can dismiss it as inaccurate." Only the cloudy vs. clear sky percentages don't come directly from Trenberth's diagram. Everything else is taken directly from the diagram, as I've explained (or tried to at least). "That running your calculations in reverse brought you back to these numbers is no big surprise, but doesn't validate the logic behind the calculations. That's true, but the point is all the calculations work out with the all 'logic' I've used, and the criticisms of the 'logic' don't work out, as I've shown. For example, it was claimed the 169 designated as being 'emitted by the atmosphere' was for the clear sky, but that doesn't work because only 131 W/m^2 is actually emitted to the clear sky. Can you find a better way to quantify the relationships in a way that results in the appropriate output power and brightness temperature of 255K?
  46. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    Rob @76, This is getting OT, and we are debunking quite an old contrarian myth here-- AGW has drawn attention to protecting the rain forests, for example (REDD). So if anything, b/c of AGW, there has been a big push to protect forests. Additionally, ocean acidification is also making people more aware of the many stresses that the ocean ecosystems are facing. The reasons for the seemingly perpetual failure of enforcing reasonable fishing quotas has everything to do with greed and politics, and ignoring the scientists, and has been an ongoing saga for decades now. I could go on about pollution, but I do not want to contribute to derailing this thread. The continued misconduct and failings of Lindzen are what at issue here.
  47. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: my 136), "But you are wrong in saying it is returned to the surface. The same goes for the energy absorbed by the atmosphere from the sun. You can't say where it goes versus other energy. The atmosphere is a big pot, and all of the energy is part of the stew. Once it's been added, you can't say "this part of the broth came from here and has to go there." You can derive them with the constraints COE puts on the system. There is only one source of energy - the Sun. You can't count energy twice, which is what Trenberth does in the diagram by designating 78 being absorbed by the atmosphere and also having it part of the 333 of back radiation to the surface. The atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own - the energy either last originated from the Sun or surface emitted.
  48. Clouds provide negative feedback
    @Sphaerica RW1 has made 52 comments to this post, so far. Virtually none of that deserves a reply. He or she went on commenting virtually because you continue to reply to him/her. In my opinion it is most of all off-topic because all those additions and subtractions don't make to "feedback". I don't want to point nothing specifically because I didn't read -nor did nor will, most of the visitors- that ping-pong of some 100 of comment. I'm saying I don't want to point, but I suspect that somebody might try to get some 70W/m2 reflected upwards and some whatever, say, 40W/m2 downwards and "declare" a negative feedback from that when the feedback resides in the change of cloudiness, the type of clouds and the altitude of the clouds so those 70/40 would change maybe to 71/42 or maybe to 72/38 what provides the feedback and its sign. I'm not sure what are you two discussing, but I don't see in Trenberth's figure nor in those finger calculations the feedback that may confirm or falsify the myth subject of this post. If you stop replying I think RW1 messages will end the same way foam vanishes once shaking ceases.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] This is deja vu all over again; by the standards of the Lindzen and Choi thread, its just getting warmed up.
  49. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: my 136), "[The kinetic energy isn't part of the equation]. You're right, it's lifted up, and then falls down. What is being transported is the heat. Thermals are bodies of air that are heated by the surface, and rise. The heat doesn't fall back down through the pull of gravity. It stays in the atmosphere until it is radiated away. Evapotranspiration puts the energy into vaporizing the water. When the water condenses in the atmosphere, that energy is released -- to the surrounding atmosphere -- as latent heat. When the rain falls, it's a cool rain, having left its heat behind in the atmosphere." Thermals and latent heat are in the form of kinetic energy. They are totally separate from and in addition to the 396 emitted radiatively by the surface. I do not dispute that some of the kinetic energy moved from the surface to the atmosphere is radiated into the atmosphere and finds its way radiated out to space. Regardless of whether it's most or only a small amount (Trenberth has all of it being returned), it's net effect is still zero on the radiative budget. I think you may not understand that the surface is emitting 396 solely due to its temperature and nothing else. As a result, it cannot be receiving more energy than this.
  50. Clouds provide negative feedback
    (RE: my 134), I wrote: The point is 239 W/m^2 from the Sun gets to the surface and becomes 396 through 157 of back radiation from the atmosphere. 333 - 97 - 78 = 158 coming back from the surface emitted of 396. This should say: The point is 239 W/m^2 from the Sun gets to the surface and becomes 396 through 157 of back radiation from the atmosphere. 333 - 97 - 78 = 158 coming back to the surface for a total of 396 (239 + 158 = 396) (Trenberth purposefully has an extra watt in there).

Prev  1746  1747  1748  1749  1750  1751  1752  1753  1754  1755  1756  1757  1758  1759  1760  1761  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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