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  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  Next

Comments 92701 to 92750:

  1. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    OT - Help! How do I get to see images from imageshack? All the graphs on this post appear to me as a frozen frog with the imageshack link. I tried to register there, but it did not work.
  2. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    Kevin C, Yes, I understand and have to agree. I have experienced this myself. But the only way to onvercome this (IMO) is to explain the basics to the audience. Then they can see it for themselves (within limits). I'd love to hear alternative suggestions.
  3. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gilles @142, Nice try to reframe the argument, but I can only assume that those practices to which you refer (cherry-picking etc.) are those which have been engaged in by "skeptics" and contrarians, including those who have testified to Congress on behalf of the Republicans. So yes, I hope that you will join us in condemning the misinformation and distortion presented by the likes of Lindzen, Christy, Michaels, Pielke Snr and Monckton (their misinformation has been well documented here at SkS and elsewhere) to the US Congress and people of the USA. And that is before we have dealt with the so-called "post-normal science" crowd, whose scientific misconduct has been well documented and is the subject of at least one investigation. "SRES scenario have no predictive power, they are not based on known and validated laws, they have no associated probability - it is just some set of possible histories, which may all be quite unlikely." Wow, if you wish to have any credibility, at least try and back up your beliefs with some substance, citations, and science. This kind of vacuous arm waving serves no purpose. And yet you somehow feel free to accuse others of not quantifying the probability?.... How do you reconcile this statement made by you: "Most SRES scenarios were already wrong when they were published, because the fuel consumption in the 90's was already greater than their prediction" With your claim that "560 may be reachable in the far future - I don't think that it will be a catastrophe either." You are contradicting yourself, not to mention arm waving again. No supporting evidence, just opinion and unsubstantiated assertions. That is not convincing and is most certainly not scientific. And with that in mind, I am confident that most people here are likely to care what you may or may not think/believe. "where did you see that my position was that we shouldn't encourage the reduction of FF consumption" Well, it is difficult to keep track of your position on this amongst all the arm waving. OK, so we agree that the EPA should be permitted to regulate GHG emissions which will reduce FF consumption and pollution.
  4. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    Alexandre #11: I'm a physical scientist. I agree with you on all of this. We are failing to communicate somewhere along the line. What I've learned from dabbling in sociology and science communication is that you simply can't assume that the man in the street thinks the same way we do. He doesn't. When I point to a paper which contains a reasoned argument from evidence, then the man in the street can't tell the difference from Monkton pointing to a paper and misrepresenting it, or Monkton pointing to a paper by Soon or Lindzen. If he tries to read the papers, he can't understand them. He doesn't know how to pick among experts. The 'balanced reporting' trend in media coverage means he constantly sees expert contradicting one another. So he concludes that expertise is meaningless. So he goes with his feelings. To appeal to a source he can't understand just looks to him like an attempt to pull the wool over his eyes. Do you see the sort of problem I'm getting at?
  5. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    Sorry, Kevin C #9 became #7 now.
  6. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    Kevin #9 In my untrained opinion, your analysis manages to invert the concepts entirely: - Reference to papers with adequate evidence and mathematical analysis are turned into "argument of authority". I wonder what a reference to texts without such detail would be. - Technical (with maths and physics) and non-technical texts alike are implied to be misleading. Of course, on neither case there was an explanation why the contents of the texts were misleading, just a vague insinuation of its possibility. I often see this kind of analysis from people from a social science background. Some of them try to draw conclusions as if they could bypass the (arid, boring) physical understanding of the phenomenon. If you don't want to be mislead, you just can't. You must either understand what goes on and draw your own conclusions, or trust the judgment of someone else. On this latter case, you'd have to choose if you prefer trusting NOAA, JMA, MetOffice, Max Planck Institute (among many others) on issues related to physics and climate, or you feel safer trusting Monckton, Heartland Institutes and the likes for such things.
  7. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    #8 Actually, that's a very helpful link, which I agree with. There's a couple of important distinctions to be made though. Philosophical postmodernism and sociological postmodernism are two very different animals. (As different from each other as either are from architectural postmodernism). The former is a bizarre ivory tower phenomena with almost no connection to reality, the latter is a shorthand for gradual shifts in the worldview of the man in the street - something concrete and measurable. The criticisms you level are against the former, whereas the use in my post and Mooney's are the latter. Mooney's point about social-postmodernism (maybe we should call it postmodernity) is that it doubts the existance of absolute truth. On this basis he argues that the serious deniers are not postmodern - they think they have the truth. And he is exactly right in that. But they are just one constituency. The man-in-the-street is a different constituency - he hasn't read a load of contrarian papers or blogs. But he may well have an increasing distrust of science, an increasing distrust of claims about truth, and an increasing distrust of the opinions of 'experts' of any kind. All of these are relevant to the problem of science communication. And when dealing with this constituency, a 'journey narrative' is probably going to be rather more effective than other kinds of communication. I think that's all roughly right, although again I reiterate this is not my discipline.
  8. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    498 Stamples -
    The questions that really elementary Physics does not ask, are these: Is it possible to use the additional energy in the gas to restore the weight to its original position? If not, why not?
    Surely 'elementary' physics asks and answers that question - although expressed more precisely - with the Carnot Cycle etc. No?
  9. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    Before you start crunching numbers you should ascertion the field resolution of the weather station therometers. In the earlier records of US weather stations, this is 1 deg F. Since 1979 in Canada, this is 0.5 deg C. Any results you calculate has to be rounded to the nearest whole degree for US data and the nearest half degree for Canadian data. Secondly you must check _all_ data for mistakes. For example, here are the monthly mean temperatures for Feb 1900-1909 for Utah, which I obtained from NOAA's "Climate at a Glance" website: 31.6, 30.4, 33.5, 16.0?, 33.6, 29.9, 33.1, 39.8?, 30.5, 28.8 The 16.0 entry is a mistake and should be 36.0. The 39.8 entry looks too big and probably should be 29.8. Errors, like enemies, accumulate and they come back to kick you in the butt. For the Feb temp data, I found 11 mistakes for the interval 1895 to 2010. Calculation of Weather Noise. I propose the following formula for computing "weather noise": WN = AD - RT where WN = weather noise, AD =classical average deviation from the mean, and RT = resolution of therometer. For the Feb temp data, Tmean = 31 +/- 3 deg F Since AD = 3 and FT = 1, WN = 2 The main drawbacks of the procedure for computing weather noise is that it is site and time dependent. Nevertheless, it is method for obtaining an estimate of natural variability for a locality. I see a lot of climate data where a few tenths of a degree C are deemed significant. This is nonsense. Unless you have at least ca 0.5 deg C change or difference, you are probably looking at noise. BTW: I posted my proposal for computing weather noise at WUWT, RC, Climate etc, SOD, and Brigg's site. And I got _no_ comments. [snipped] What do you guys say about my proposal for computing noise?
  10. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel: How can anybody learn anything from the supposed heat transfer shown in the diagram in #491? The author who drew this failed to provide any temperature information anywhere. How can he possibly know the energy tranfers (all over the diagram in W/m^2) without indicating the temperatures? Whoever drew this diagram obviously hadn't the slightest knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Who pays money for 'stuff' like this? The diagram was about the flow in energy which is expressed in units of W/m^2. That is: energy (watts) over a specific area (a square meter). Are you suggesting that it should be "degrees" per square meter? It is the appearance of dagrams like this in IPCC reports that makes one instinctively mistrust all of 'global temperature increase' figures produced by the IPCC. Why, because they used the proper of units of measure instead of the ones you suggest which make no sense whatsoever for describing the flow of energy. Also, why are you criticizing the IPCC when the diagram you are talking about is by Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiel (2009)?
    Moderator Response: [Muoncounter] Damorbel has asked the same question on prior threads. Do not try to rehash the same thing with him or it will never end.
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    How can anybody learn anything from the supposed heat transfer shown in the diagram in #491? The author who drew this failed to provide any temperature information anywhere. How can he possibly know the energy tranfers (all over the diagram in W/m^2) without indicating the temperatures? Whoever drew this diagram obviously hadn't the slightest knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Who pays money for 'stuff' like this? It is the appearance of dagrams like this in IPCC reports that makes one instinctively mistrust all of 'global temperature increase' figures produced by the IPCC.
  12. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    #7, Good, thoughtful post but I have to admit that anything tagged "postmodern" makes me feel queasy. Chris Mooney had a good post on this recently. Climate Denial is not Postmodern If fact I doubt if postmodern said anything new or profound about science. But if you want to believe that climate science is a male-dominated power narrative, I can't stop you. For example, how is a paper from a scientist (male or female) with data and equations an " argument from authority"? The fact is that scientists were oblivious to the postmodern "science wars" going on around them. Those wars were debates, fought mainly by philosophers and post-Marxist literary "critical theorists". Scientists kept doing science as practised by Einstein, Feynmann and Darwin ... and I hope that is what they keep doing.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fred Staples @499, contrary to your claim in 498, your "proof" of the second law of thermodynamics is nothing but hand waving. It seems plausible, and we believe it to be true; but we do so because we are assuming heat loss to the environment through friction, air resistance and imperfect insulation. Absent those assumptions, ie, in an ideal system, it is not clear that the increased pressure and temperature could not be converted to work and raise the weight to its original position. Your merely asserting this is not the case does not constitute proof, and is, contrary to your claim, hand waving. Having said that, why not simply appeal to the second law of thermodynamics:
    "When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itself, but not in equilibrium with each other at first, are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, and they exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium. The sum of the entropies of the initial, isolated systems is less than or equal to the entropy of the final exchanging systems. In the process of reaching a new thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy has increased, or at least has not decreased."
  14. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    Congratulations John Cook for your selfless devotion to duty in the service of climate change awareness. I must admit that I don't bother to look at the other climate science blogs - pap like RealClimate et al...and the other lesser organs of AGW and anti-AGW propaganda. While in a congratulatory mood - I would highly commend BP (not the oil company) for his startling contributions and insight into the subject of GW - which have most influenced and educated me and posed serious challenges to the orthodoxy of the AGW true believers.
  15. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    This is an interesting diversification in the way we communicate climate science - thanks. I talked about this a bit on another thread, and would love to hear more from people like Mike Hulme who understand the sociology, but here's my initial take. I'm seeing three developing strands of communication: 1. Traditional argument from authority. That's what SKS does normally with references into the literature. Effective for people who have a high regard for (non-climate) science. Arguments from authority become much less effective for post-modern audiences. There is a danger here that we are teaching a wrong methodology: giving people the idea that any argument supported by a citation is right. Then all they have to do is find a counter citation, and they've shown that they are right or at least that the science isn't settled. 2. 'Journey narratives'. Stories of the form 'This is the journey I made and here is what I discovered'. Personalises the material for non-technical audiences. The most powerful form is the conversion narrative: 'I was a denier and then I looked at the data'. The latter is open to abuse of course - false conversion narratives. A lot of TV science documentaries adopt this form. The recent BBC4 'Meet the climate skeptics' about Monkton was a good example - and one in which the conversion narrative was present but didn't convince everyone. 3. 'You can test it for yourself'. This post, and the recent 'quick and dirty instrument temperature record' post are good examples. Personalises the material for technical readers. People are much more likely to believe, and to disseminate things they've found out for themselves. Lots of people will also be convinced by the argument being made in this form without testing for themselves. Monkton abuses this form by telling people they can check for themselves knowing that they will not. 'The Da Vinci Code' owes some of it's awful success to this - telling people they can check it for themselves. That's my half-baked untrained observations. But I still think we could learn a lot by lay-targeted presentations by people who understand the sociology.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    To demonstrate the equivalence of work and energy, elementary physics uses the example of a paddle wheel in a gas filled, insulated container, driven by a falling weight. (Page 51 of Schaum’s Themodynamics for Engineers, since this blog likes references) The potential energy of the weight is converted to kinetic energy as the weight falls, and the rotation of the paddle works on the gas content, increasing its temperature. Neglecting frictional losses, the energy content of the gas (its temperature increase) is equal to the potential energy of the weight. The questions that really elementary Physics does not ask, are these: Is it possible to use the additional energy in the gas to restore the weight to its original position? If not, why not? It is not possible because the quality of the energy has changed. It has been dispersed throughout the gas and, unlike the energy of the weight, its possible use is very limited. To recover the energy, even in principle, we would need to treat the gas as a source of energy, and connect it to a sink at a lower temperature. Energy could then be transferred, and some work could be done to raise the weight, but we would have to discharge most of the additional gas energy into the sink, so the weight would not rise very far. If this concept of energy quality is acceptable to advocates of atmospheric back-warming, we can go on to debate that proposition.
  17. TimTheToolMan at 22:48 PM on 15 March 2011
    What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
    "especially the lapse rate, which is very shallow on the winter hemisphere of a snowball due to the inhibition of convection, which in turn eliminates the prospect of a very strong greenhouse effect" I find that looking at the limit of an effect is very useful in understanding the direction an effect will ultimately take. Using the entirely reasonable albedo argument, a snowball earth may well be stable. ...if it could be "forced to exist". However, one cant ignore the path to get there and whether its actually reasonable. Changes in cloud cover combined with increased equator-pole oceanic transfer of heat due to a larger heat differential could compensate for any increasing ice based albedo and decreasing cloud cover is quite a reasonable expectation from a cooling, drying atmosphere. So its not an unreasonable expectation that land masses could tend to ice up locally, particularly the larger ones inland and at altitude, but the oceans remain largely liquid and many smaller land masses largely ice free. AFAIK this doesn't contradict the little evidence of snowball earth that exists either but its a quite different result to a solid snowball.
  18. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "Then there is windpower, which I guess has no appreciable cost to the environment, although as its efficiency goes up, it cant possibly be any cooler in downwind vicinities." Wow, what a load of pseudo-scientific codswollop! Are you *honestly* trying to tell us that the enormous environmental degradation caused by the mining, washing &, in the case of uranium, enrichment of non-renewable fuels is a better environmental & health option than a wind turbine, hydroelectric dam or solar plant? Or what about the toxic emissions from the average coal power station-things like mercury, cadmium, radon & particulate emissions? We all *know* that all energy generation options have some negative environmental impacts, but there is clearly some energy generation options that have far worse impacts than renewable energy technologies.
  19. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "Generally speaking, if so called "alternatives" were so attractive, they wouldn't be alternatives" Wow, good to see you hopping on nofreewind's propaganda bandwagon RSVP. Maybe the reason they're "alternatives" is because the extraction & sale of non-renewable fuels (oil, coal & uranium) is still so lucrative to those that lobby our political representatives-especially when tax-payers continue to subsidize the costs of these enterprises.
  20. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    sorry my bad, that was the cumulative sum... not some index of the relation max vs. min... that's what may happen if one just glances graphs in a hurry.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1 @492-5, "First of all, what is “back-radiation” ? It’s the radiation emitted by the atmosphere which is incident on the earth’s surface. It is also more correctly known as downward longwave radiation – or DLR" There is nothing in that definition that depends on the original source, or penultimate source of the energy in the Downward Longwave Radiation, and with good reason. If you want to use some different concept other than DLR, then find your own term and define it clearly. Don't lazilly misuse an already defined technical term and then accuse people who are using it correctly of doing so incorrectly. Not only is it lazy, it is bound to cause confusion for other when they try to understand you; and yourself when you do the same. The very good reason why back radiation is DLR only is that, when a GHG emits IR radiation, it does not have a phycical state correlating to the penultimate source of the energy it is about to emit. It only has the energy itself. Therefore it can make no difference to the properties of that emitted radiation whether that energy was originally carried into the atmosphere by evaporation, or convetion, or IR radiaton from the ground, of from volcanic emissions, or what ever. Indeed, as most energy transfers in the astmosphere are by collision, it is doubtfull you can say sensibly of any parcel of energy what its penultimate source was. Therefore, energy carried into the atmosphere by evapotranspiration will be radiated to the surface, or to space in the exact ratios as energy carried into the atmosphere by IR radiation, or energy absorbed from SW radiation from the sun. Trying to treat it as a discrete entity after it has been carried into the atmosphere is, scientifically, gobbledy-gook. To finish, Trenberth, Khiel and Fasullo are not obfusticating by indicating some SW radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere. They are describing an indirect emperical result, and one that is more easily determined than, for example the proportion of SW light reflected from clouds, or from the surface. The method is to measure downward SWR at the Top of the Atmosphere, upward SWR at the TOA, and subtract the later from the former. You then measure downward SWR at the surface, and subtract that result from the difference; giving you the amount of SWR absorbed. (Clearly the measurements need to be made at a large number of points and times to determine a global average.) T,K, & F (2009) list a summary of such mesurements on table 2b. It is a telling indictment of your "science" that you cannot use standard definitions correctly, and have to dismiss observational results as "obfustications".
  22. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    #3, owl905, As colleagues of mine often say "the data are what the data are!". At least no one can argue it shows global cooling. A slowdown in the rate of warming in the last decade (at least up to 2008) is certainly arguable, but I think that is "cold comfort" for the global coolists.
  23. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    Thanks for this analysis, I won't go in to details now but just note that the if the 'lazy S-slope' levels out at 70 that only means the acceleration (or the speed of?, didn't read the article in detail yet...) of warming is at maximum.
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    The moderators, plural, at this site ensure that the contributions from all of us conform to the Comments Policy... This might mean that this comment disappears along with your #495 but that doesn't matter. To comply with the policy, your statements must avoid politics, accusations of dishonesty, against anyone, and your scientific statements have to have some backing or reference to the scientific literature. You've set yourself a difficult task in trying to overturn 150 years of physics and nearly as many years of observations from glaciology, biology and the rest. But if your science is sound, you should be able to point out scientific references that support whatever limited statements you do make about your new theory. There is an agenda. "Stick to the science" best describes it. There are some exceptions but this thread isn't one of them.
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    The moderator of this website has an agenda to prevent a free and open discussion on important subjects. He deletes postings that are totally relevant to the subject at hand but do not conform to his ideology or agenda.
    Moderator Response: Discussion of hockey sticks and the little ice age are not relevant to this thread. You have already been pointed to the appropriate threads for discussion of these topics, feel free to post your comments there.

    In addition, your latest comments have been peppered with inflammatory invective. This will not be tolerated. You are a guest on this site, and as such you are expected to abide by this site's comment policy. Please try and behave like a mature adult if you want to be taken seriously.
  26. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    dana1981 "Most alternative energy sources do not have these external costs." Is nuclear power considered an alternative energy source? Just wondering... and you might want to also clarify if it is considered "renewable". Part two: Hydroelectric, and you might want to add a comment or two about salmon runs and other environmental effects. Then there is windpower, which I guess has no appreciable cost to the environment, although as its efficiency goes up, it cant possibly be any cooler in downwind vicinities. Generally speaking, if so called "alternatives" were so attractive, they wouldnt be alternatives.
  27. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    Great analysis, but be prepared for the pro-pollution camp to hijack the analysis - and say it "shows" global warming just about coming to a halt. From 1980 to 1998, the jump is almost 60 maximums. Since then ... 11. Take the fitted curve away, and there's a lazy S-slope. What it needs is an energetic gopher to do the decline in minimums and tower chart it, like the US example:- http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/files/2010/01/temps_2med.jpg
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    161 W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 = 239 W/m^2 post albedo at the surface. 239 W/m^2 from the Sun + 157 W/m^2 downward emitted from the atmosphere = 396 W/m^2 emitted by the surface.
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    If you notice, even Trenberth is showing 169 W/m^2 emitted by the atmosphere and 70 W/m^2 passing through completely unabsorbed (40 W/m^2 through the atmosphere, 30 W/m^2 through the clouds) for 239 W/m^2 leaving. This means that of the 396 W/m^2 emitted by the surface, using Trenberth's numbers at least, 157 W/m^2 of it has to be 'back radiation' from the atmosphere. He's obfuscating this by absorbing some of the post albedo energy by the atmosphere and returning it as 'back radiation' when it's really 'forward radiation' that last originated from the Sun - not the surface. He's then returning the latent heat and thermals as 'back radiation' to come up with at total downward emitted of 333 W/m^2, which he incorrectly designates as being all 'back radiation'. It's a mess.
  30. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "Globally averaged incoming SW radiation at the Earth's surface is shown to be 184 w/m^2, of which 23 w/m^2 are relfected back to space. Total backradiation (all sky downward long wave flux) globally averaged is 333 w/m^2. Total upwelling engergy from the Earth's surface, globally averaged is 17 w/m^2 (thermals) plus 80 w/m^2 (evapotranspiration) plus 396 w/m^2 (upwelling long wave radiation), or 493 w/m^2. Downward = SW + LW = 161 + 333 = 494, the difference between them being the net absorbed. So, no contradiction of conservation of energy involved." But latent heat and thermals are kinetic (not radiative) - meaning their energy moved into the atmosphere didn't come from from surface emitted radiation. So even assuming all the latent heat and thermal energy is ultimately returned to the surface as downward emitted radiation (highly unlikely), the net effect is zero relative to surface emitted radiation. It has to be for Conservation of Energy to be met. The bottom line is only about 150 W/m^2 of the surface emitted radiation can be returned as 'back radiation'. By 'back radiation' I specifically mean radiation that last originated from surface emitted (this is a key distinction, especially since all the energy ultimately originated from the Sun). You do know that the surface emitted radiation of about 390 W/m^2 is directly due to its temperature and nothing else, right?
  31. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    From Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiel (2009): Globally averaged incoming SW radiation at the Earth's surface is shown to be 184 w/m^2, of which 23 w/m^2 are relfected back to space. Total backradiation (all sky downward long wave flux) globally averaged is 333 w/m^2. Total upwelling engergy from the Earth's surface, globally averaged is 17 w/m^2 (thermals) plus 80 w/m^2 (evapotranspiration) plus 396 w/m^2 (upwelling long wave radiation), or 493 w/m^2. Downward = SW + LW = 161 + 333 = 494, the difference between them being the net absorbed. So, no contradiction of conservation of energy involved. That wasn't so hard, was it?
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    PhysSci, "RW1, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with comments like the ones you made in 482 to 484" #484 I was guessing. #482 - are you claiming that the post albedo energy of 239 W/m^2 does NOT become about 390 W/m^2 at the surface? Are you claiming that 390/239 is NOT about 1.6? Are you claiming that this does NOT mean that it takes 390 W/m^2 at the surface to allow 239 W/m^2 to leave the planet, offsetting the 239 W/m^2 entering? If yes, please explain why in detail and then we'll discuss via give and take.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please be aware that this is not necessarily the best forum for such give and take. Much of this detail has already been the subject of numerous comments, both on this thread and climate sensitivity threads.
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    PhysSci, "RW1, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with comments like the ones you made in 482 to 484 ... I'm not even going to respond to a such a profound lack of understanding. You are totally excused, if you are not a scientist, but if you are, then you've got a BIG problem with basic physics ..." Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that.
  34. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    PhysSci, Sorry, clarification to my own #481, I meant 'back radiation'- meaning the downward emitted that last originated from the surface.
  35. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    General Response to RW1: RW1, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with comments like the ones you made in 482 to 484 ... I'm not even going to respond to a such a profound lack of understanding. You are totally excused, if you are not a scientist, but if you are, then you've got a BIG problem with basic physics ... Thank you for participating and good luck!
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    PhysSci, "Forgive me, but comments like yours make me smile and really wonder what's the level of scientific expertise on this blog?... A global down-welling thermal flux of over 320 W m-2 has been extensively measured and confirmed by both satellite and surface observations for 15 years now! The actual estimates vary between 324 and 348 W m-2. This is now considered a basic information about Earth's radiation budget!!" I'm not referring to the total downward flux, but the downward amount that last originated from the surface emitted. I think you're forgetting that a good amount of incoming solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere/clouds and emitted down toward the surface. Conservation of Energy dictates that the downward emitted amount that last originated from the surface cannot be 300+ W/m^2. If you are claiming this is so, show me the power in = power out calculations that prove it.
  37. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Response to RW1 @ 481: Forgive me, but comments like yours make me smile and really wonder what's the level of scientific expertise on this blog?... A global down-welling thermal flux of over 320 W m-2 has been extensively measured and confirmed by both satellite and surface observations for 15 years now! The actual estimates vary between 324 and 348 W m-2. This is now considered a basic information about Earth's radiation budget!! Here are some references (in chronological order) to help you update your knowledge base on this: Rossow, W. B. and Zhang, Y.C. 1995. Calculation of surface and top of atmosphere radiative fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP data sets, 2, Validation and first results, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 1167–1197. Trenberth, K. E. 1997. Using atmospheric budgets as a constraint on surface fluxes. J. Climate, 10, 2796–2809. Gupta, S. K., Ritchey, N. A., Wilber, A. C., and Whitlock, C. A. 1999. A Climatology of Surface Radiation Budget Derived from Satellite Data, J. Climate, 12, 2691–2710. Pavlakis, K. G., D. Hatzidimitriou, C. Matsoukas, E. Drakakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, and I. Vardavas. 2003. Ten-year global distribution of downwelling longwave radiation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 3:5099-5137. Trenberth, K.E., J.T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl. 2009. Earth’s global energy budget. BAMS, March:311-323 Also, look at the NASA's Surface Radiation Budget (SRB) project page, where you can get global maps of LW and solar fluxes on a monthly basis for 24 years, where you'll clearly see that LW fluxes at the surface exceed incoming SW fluxes by a large margin: http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/las/servlets/dataset?catitem=21
  38. What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
    No one denies that there are many factors which are very difficult to simulate in simple models, and it's far more constructive to discuss these issues and their relevance, rather than just labeling it as an issue. For the snowball problem, inherent uncertainties in estimating parameters for a number of factors are problematic(especially the lapse rate, which is very shallow on the winter hemisphere of a snowball due to the inhibition of convection, which in turn eliminates the prospect of a very strong greenhouse effect, other factors include surface albedo, clouds, and boundary layer dynamics). Different models and the sensitivity to different parameters are discussed in a number of papers on snowball Earth already, as well as Ray P et al's coming review paper. Isolating the impact of paramters on initiation/deglaciation is one purpose of the Snowball model intercomparison project (SNOWMIP). GCM's are also prone to physical uncertainties, though assumptions one needs to make will at least lie closer to the fundamental underlying physics That some of the most powerful computers in the world can get into a snowball however, and rather easily, suggests that no robust barriers to the initiation of such a state exist.
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    PhysSci, "Why do variations in global temperature over the past 27 years correlate much better with observed changes in cloud albedo than with those in GH gases?" My guess is because the temperatures are tied mostly to the available energy in the system (i.e. the amount of post albedo energy from the Sun), rather than GHG concentrations or atmospheric opacity.
  40. What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
    Okay, I jumped too quick on that one. However, how robust is the development towards snowball. Given increasing albedo, decreasing water vapour, that heat balance is going south for all values of parameterizations that seem reasonable. The interesting question is whether its complete snowball or there is enough tropical heat generating water vapour to be partially ice-free. Ask another, if had snowball, (100% ice cover), no water vapour (and thus no cloud), is there enough heat to create significant water vapour? This is at least an easily scenario to model. If this leads to a melt, then CO2 free atmosphere can be confidently stated as leading to only partial snowball.
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    PhysSci, BTW, I agree that Conservation of Energy is the biggest Achilles heel of the entire CO2/AGW theory but not for the reasons you claim.
  42. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    PhysSci (RE: 459), "As I said in my previous posting, the lower troposphere contains more energy than supplied by the Sun. Where is that energy coming from?" It's coming back from the atmosphere. The rate at which the energy is coming in from the Sun is faster than the rate at which it's able to leave to planet. In essence it takes 1.6 W/m^2 at the surface to allow each 1 W/m^2 to leave the planet, offsetting each 1 W/m^2 entering the system from the Sun. (390 W/m^2 at the surface divided by 239 W/m^2 from the Sun = 1.6).
  43. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    PhysSci (RE: 458), "If the GH effect were due to absorption and re-emission of IR energy by greenhouse gases ultimately traceable to solar input as claimed by the current theory, then how is it possible that the down-welling thermal flux exceeds the total solar input by 44% (343/239 = 1.44)." This is not correct. The downward emitted flux is only about 150 W/m^2. The surface on average emits about 390 W/m^2. About 90 W/m^2 passes through unabsorbed and goes straight out to space. About 300 W/m^2 is absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere, of which half goes up and half goes down (150 W/m^2 up and 150 W/m^2 down).
  44. TimTheToolMan at 13:37 PM on 15 March 2011
    What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
    "The gross parameters of energy balance dont depend on any parameterizations" In what sense? Of course they do in any sense we care about unless you're trying to obfuscate by indirectly noting the fact the sun hasn't changed. "Which parameterizations do you think are so critical as to make this impossible?" In general...all of them. Clouds. Precipitation. Any parameters concerning the movement of energy from the equator to the poles. You name it, they'll be significantly wrong on the way to any "end point" and therefore may contain surprises that have considerable impact on that "end point" Your way of thinking assumes snowball earth is inevitable and therefore the path to that point is pretty much irrelevent. At the end of the day, its not a scientific result having used models to determine the earth's climate response to CO2 removal, its just an interesting play with the models given the assumptions upon which they've been built.
  45. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I hope the answer is still YES to my actual question not your rephrasing of it. ie "do you also accept the principle that your claims must account for empirical results? Ie if the textbook interpretation of thermodynamics accounts for observation results and yours do not, then perhaps the textbook is correct and you need to do more reading? " You have untold empirical mountains to climb and excuse my extreme skepticism until that is presented. My money is on you not being able to get published given what you said to date.
  46. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "Albatross : as a scientist, I cannot support any attitude of contempt of science. My criticisms about climate science are precisely issued when I find that it becomes less scientific - mixing up probabilities and certitudes, underestimating uncertainties, doing undue extrapolation, cherry picking data without a global view of realities, confusing numerical simulations and experimental evidence - all these things aren't for me good science." Well as a scientist myself, Gilles, I've yet to see any evidence that climate scientists have ever been guilty of the things you accuse them of-in spite of numerous attempts by contrarians to impugn their reputation. The Contrarians, by contrast, have a long history of misrepresenting the science to advance their own political agenda. Sorry, Gilles, but your attempts to pass yourself off as neutral on this issue just aren't backed up by your comments to date.
  47. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    Thank you for an interesting article - Figure 2 certainly tells a story! As does Figure 3, actually - while it certainly hasn't been cooling since 1998, the rate of warming has certainly slowed down. In fact, it looks to me like a warming trend that is modulated by other oscillations. What this means is that if it doesn't start to cool shortly (and not many climate scientists are expecting that), we'll probably see the warm phase of that oscillation kick in, and the warming rate will meet or exceed rates during the 80s and 90s. Another couple of decades of that rate of warming will put us well into uncharted territory, w.r.t. global temperatures. It will make it a lot more difficult to deny that global warming is a serious problem, though being a few decades down the track, it will also be considerably more difficult to fix the problem. I'd love to perform a similar analysis done on individual station records around the world, but that would require access to all the data from all the stations, and a lot more time than I can spare!
  48. Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
    OK, I've read through this twice now. I don't have the skills, but I would happily supply as much coffee, pizza, scones or biccies as demanded by someone who does while they do a bit more work on this. It looks like a candidate (which could very well not pan out as I naively expect) for one of those barely hidden human fingerprint indicators. The jump in average atmospheric temperature the first half of 20thC is always 'explained' as due to variations in solar and volcanic activity. This looks very much as though someone was lifting the trampoline under the obvious jumping so that, when particular causes for the jumps dissipated, we were left with a new baseline rather than the one we started with. Someone's name might just start with 'C'. Though much of that C would likely have come by way of releases from soil during the extended period of worst farming practices ever known to man rather than from industrial releases.
  49. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    adelady @ 477: Sorry for the missing word in that sentence. What I meant was "(Note that IPCC is no longer using the hockey-stick graph)" .. The problem of perception in scientific inquiry is a psychological issue and a topic of another discussion ...
    Moderator Response: Your change in phrasing doesn't make your claim correct. You have been pointed to the Skeptical Science thread where your claim is rebutted, and where you must post any further comments on that particular topic.
  50. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    scaddenp @ 474: The short answer to your question is YES - my new theory fully accounts for known observational results AND is in full compliance with standard thermodynamics theory, which is not the case with the current GH concept as I explained in #458. It also perfectly predicts the observed temperatures on hard-surface planets in the solar system! This is actually one of the main strengths of the new theory ... Ladies & Gents, I will be leaving you now for a while, since I've got work to do and have already stirred enough the pot for couple days ... Keep thinking about this discussion in an open-minded way and wait till my paper is published ... We will continue the discussion then. Good luck to all of you!

Prev  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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