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  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  Next

Comments 98901 to 98950:

  1. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    apiratelooksat50's Roy Clark cite is from Energy and Environment, a "journal" that openly admits it is politically driven. Is this what science teacher apiratelooksat50 believes should be the future of science? Journals explicitly stating their political bias and saying they'll publish damn near any paper that fits their *political*, not scientific, gateway?
  2. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    208, apiratelooksat50, appinsys is a joke. If that's where you go for "information" then you are a lost cuase. The link you submitted is hysterical. What is most laughable (aside from the fact that his argument is so far out of the mainstream as to be the equivalent of alchemy) is that he went to such lengths to disguise his litany in the form of a published, peer-reviewed paper. Please don't quote from such nonsense and expect to be taken at all seriously.
  3. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Muoncounter @203 - The point of my post is to demonstrate that though CO2 and temperature are inexorably linked, this is a clear example of an external factor causing changes in both. It supports the orbital changes theory as an initiator of change
    There's got to be a name for the "if X can cause Y, Y must always be caused by X" fallacy. This guy apiratelooksat50's teaching science to kids, right? Grrr ... So apiratelooksat50 accepts mainstream science (orbital changes can initiate change) but rejects the fact that increased CO2 can initiate change ... due to ideology. That's the only possibility. There's no logical connection between the two positions. Rockfalls can kill people, therefore guns can not kill people. An exactly congruent analogue to his point.
  4. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    " The point of my post is to demonstrate that though CO2 and temperature are inexorably linked," Yes. However, rising temperatures are NOT the cause of this CO2 rise. Eventually those carbon feedback will also cut in (very slow feedbacks) and FURTHER raise the temperature. You seem to have ignored so far the fact isotopic signature of CO2 in atmosphere is fossil based whereas isotopic signature in ice bubbles from past show CO2 from carbon cycle. Try reading some peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
  5. Seawater Equilibria
    @50 muonocounter What hfranzen is talking about is equilibrium over open sea. Ice covered sea is not open sea, hence, for all intents and purposes, no exchange. If the Arctic ever is ice free it will still be close to 273K reducing the average temperature of the ocean. This will tend to push CO2 down based on averages.
  6. apiratelooksat50 at 15:21 PM on 11 January 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Muoncounter @203 - The point of my post is to demonstrate that though CO2 and temperature are inexorably linked, this is a clear example of an external factor causing changes in both. It supports the orbital changes theory as an initiator of change, and gives further credence to at least the possibility of even more external factors influencing the rise and fall of temperature and CO2. To Sphaerica @204: I've never stated, nor do I think that temperature always precedes CO2. I do think they are linked and driven by other more dominant and stronger variables. Try reading this which states in the summary. "The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s surface are examined from first principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago." Author: Roy Clark
  7. Seawater Equilibria
    And there is the Chewbacca Defense also. Personally, I like the HamHightail. I think the GishGallop can be quite useful in bringing perspective. It seems like hfranzen is saying that the average temperature of the ocean is not rising. Am I missing something in conclusion #2?
  8. Seawater Equilibria
    #49: "an ice free Artic will lower atmospheric CO2? " How on earth do you take that conclusion out of this analysis? From #43: "Increased average temperature will drive some of the dissolved CO2 out of the ocean" From #46: "this translates out as a 12 ppm increase in CO2 concentration for each 1 degree C increase in SST."
  9. Not So Cool Predictions
    Daniel Baily, How about this one then, this one has graphs and comes straight from the CDC. You please tell me how from the graph in figure 1 (shows generally over 600 deaths a year caused by hypothermia) you can go down to just 18 deaths a year? If one is too high, then the NOAA one is certainly far too low to be of use. Just shows how different sources can really generate vastly different results. Thanks for the response to my post. Yearly Hypothermia deaths in US.
  10. Seawater Equilibria
    So an ice free Artic will lower atmospheric CO2?
  11. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    hfranzen, I've taken a look at GWPPT6. I don't see that you have accounted for potential cloud and/or water vapor overlap in your calculations. These are major contributors to net effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere - both of which significantly diminish CO2. Also, it's not clear to me how much additional absorbed power from increasing CO2 your inputing. Maybe I missed that? On page 44 you do apparently state that only half of the absorbed power affects the surface. Can you clarify?
  12. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    I wrote this esssay and produced my power point presentation, which presents the argument in detail (GWPPT6 on my web site hfranzen.org), in large measure to refute the argument that, "there already is enough...". The confusion arises because the deniers have presented an argument based upon the linear Beer's Law. On the other hand what is required to understand GW is the Planck averaged broad band diffuse Beer's law (derived in GWPPT6). The difference lies primarily in the fact that the linear law assumes that the absorption is of a nearly single wave length (the bending mode. However the existence of a near continuom of rotational states associated with the bending mode means that the GHG effect of CO2 will continue to increase as long as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. For example, think about Venus with a CO2 atmosphere that raises the surface temperature to above the melting point of lead.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] For those having difficulty with the various states of the CO2 molecule, 3D visualizations of the various modes of CO2 can be found here.
  13. Seawater Equilibria
    Re: Sphaerica (47) Yeah, I kinda remember the article. Was it this one: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/losing-time-not-buying-time/? If so, it was based on this NAS Report/book: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877&page=R1 A PDF of the Executive Summary should be available here. Lemme know if I'm misremembering. These flattening of emissions are all predicated on us actually doing something now. Due to the long tail, the longer we wait, the more likely the ocean-sequestered CO2 (long thought removed from the playing field) will make its triumphant re-entry into the game. Hence the article I alerted you to earlier (and the headline discussed best-case scenarios...). The Yooper
  14. Not So Cool Predictions
    51 Albatross, I am not sure of the accuracy of the NOAA chart you inserted in your post. Really unsure what data source they are using to develop this chart but it is certainly not correct and off by a tremendous margin of error. Here is a quote from an article I will link to: "The National Institute on Aging (NIA) estimates that over 2.5 million older Americans are especially vulnerable to hypothermia, and Dr. Richard Besdine of the Harvard Medical School estimates that 25,000 older adults may die from hypothermia each year in the United States." 25,000 a year may die but only 18 a year do? Seems really lowball to me. Here is a link to the actual article: This claims cold is a much bigger killer than NOAA thinks.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Seriously? You prop up a link to a site trying to pump up Amazon.com booksales vs the linked source Albatross gave you - straight from official US Government (NOAA) statistics of actual CRM (cold related mortality) - and give it equivalence? You really need to up your game, Norman. Because those critical thinking skills are failing you. Actual data trumps hypothetical data every day that ends in "y".
  15. Seawater Equilibria
    Dan, maybe you remember... I saw a post within the last 2 years, maybe the last year, I think it was on RC, about a paper that projected/modeled that if we stopped CO2 generation abruptly, that temperature increases would immediately halt, and even start to fall, as would CO2 levels. This all brought that to mind, and I've been trying to find it, without any luck. I'd like to contrast that with your link, and look at it again with a new (if fractional) understanding of ocean chemistry.
  16. Seawater Equilibria
    Chemware @1, I am not certain as to the correct answer to 3, but Indermuhle et al cite Bacastrow to the effect that: "A change of SST by 1 8C causes a change in the surface ocean's CO2 partial pressure by 4.2% which translates into an atmospheric change of similar magnitude" I believe, but am not certain, that this translates out as a 12 ppm increase in CO2 concentration for each 1 degree C increase in SST. Interestingly, using data from Law Dome, it is apparent that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere varied by no more than 14 ppm between the peak of the MWP and the mimimum of the LIA. On the estimate above, this is a temperature fluctuation of no more than 1.2 degrees C. For comparison, the temperature variation between the minimum of the LIA and 2000 is about 1.6 degrees C (based on Moberg et al) or 1.2 (based on the average of a number of reconstructions. Of course, many sceptics are committed to the views that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures and that the modern rise in CO2 is due the warming of the oceans, an example of massive cognitive dissonance. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/taylor.html http://medias.obs-mip.fr/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf
  17. Seawater Equilibria
    43, hfranzen, Certainly both are frightening, the idea that temperature increases might accelerate if the oceans begin to release instead of absorb CO2, and that even if we get things under control, CO2 levels may continue to rise, or at least will stay elevated for quite a very long while. The analogy that I like is that CO2 is like the thermostat on your house. It's like we've dialed it way up, then broken it so we can't turn it back down. Sure, it's not that hot yet. But it's going to keep getting hotter, and when it's finally bad enough to bother enough people, it's too late. We can't go back and dial down the thermostat, because we "broke it." The other analogy I like, for people who keep saying "this isn't so bad" (yet), is the old story about the guy who jumped off of the top of the Empire State Building. Every time he passed an open window, he was heard to say "so far, so good!"
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Bob, that part (ocean inertia) plays a pivotal role in this breaking news release.
  18. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    apiratelooksat50 - AGW is not so much an hypothesis as an outcome from the current theory of climate. There obviously is no "official" version in science, but if you want to avoid strawman arguments, then its best to refer to IPCC WG1 reports. That way instead of claiming "AGW states this", you can instead say "the consensus view as expressed on pg xxx of WG1". This gets everyone on the same page immediately. For arguments about past CO2 level, you want Ch6 - paleoclimate.
  19. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    One criticism of GW that I have seen is that there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the earth's black body radiation at the CO2 frequencies within a few hundred meters of the surface. Therefor, the argument goes, any addition of CO2 to the atmosphere can't possibly make any difference. I believe the first assertion is correct, but the second is not. HFranzen might enjoy expanding on this.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The second is most definitely incorrect due to the broadening in the wings (see here). If you thought about it some, you'd realize why the first is wrong as well. Mandatory reading is this guest post by Spencer Weart over at RC. Enjoy!
  20. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Apiratelooksat50, It would be very helpful if you would take time to consider what you are going to type before you make your next post. So far you've been less than coherent, making it difficult to determine what point (if any) you are attempting to make.
    Moderator Response: Also please look for the most appropriate thread on which to comment. Don't worry about your comment being overlooked because it's on a different thread. Most regular readers check the "Recent Comments" page you can get to from the link in the horizontal blue bar at the top of the page.
  21. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to a different part of #41: A caveat: What I presented above relates to a model of the ocean as it is now. The bicarbonat, which is more than 90% of the dissolved carbon dioxide, clearly has a terrestrial origin. I can state this because it carries an anionic charge and therefore (by electrical neutrality) must be accompanied by a cation. At pH 8 this cation is clearly not hydrogen ion. So the compensating cationic charge must come from among the oceans total dissolved cations. This in turn means that the bicarbonte entered the oceans from the land (and/or the ocean bottom) and I would guess that entering has been going on for millenia. The equilibria I describe are based upon the current pH and thus also the bicarbonate and carbonate molalities (which are fixed by the pH and the partial pressure) and probably do not provide an accurate description of the ocean's inorganic chemistry thousands of years ago.
  22. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to 41. Increased average temperature will drive some of the dissolved CO2 out of the ocean (a new, lower dissolved concentration will be established) as shown by the main result above. But the scary thing to me is the effect of partial pressure on the equilibria. If we succeed in decreasing our production of CO2 so its parial pressure would drop all things being equal we will find that all things aren't equal and, even at constant average temperature (which seems unlikely on the time scale of decades) the amount by which the atmospheric ppm is decreased will be slowed by evolution of CO2 from the ocean as the partial pressure drops. That is, if from the described system you remove some of the partial pressure of CO2 (decrease the ppm) the equilibria in the ocean will shift to increase that partial pressure above what it would have been without the evolution from the ocean.
  23. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Hugo, don't get me wrong, I think you did a good job and the result is absolutely in the right ball-park. When I first saw it I thought that you replicated the calculation for the no-feedback-climate-sensitivity. But when I checked it, the result was different. Apparently that calculation is based on a more complicated model using clouds and convection. Even seasonal, latitudinal and height distribution of gases are important as you can see in this paper.
  24. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to 24 and 38. Thanks - I got rid of the offending grammatical errors. It took me a long time to find them, but there they were. If I only knew how to type.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Dr. Franzen, what aids me greatly in the spelling department is to take advantage of Skeptical Science's preview feature. When typing within the window, any text not in the dictionary will have a red underline to bring it to your attention. Right-clicking on the red line brings up suggested alternative spellings for the word in question. You can also check the formatting of your tags as well.
  25. Seawater Equilibria
    Dr. Franzen, Thinking it through just a little more, I suppose a major difference between the current environment and the glacial/interglacial transitions is the fact that in the current environment, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is very high, as opposed to the normal glacial/interglacial transition, where it is much lower. This must also affect things greatly. In fact, I am only just now realizing that there are other complications due to a partial pressure of CO2 being now historically inconsistent with other factors... for example, the fact that this imbalance between atmosphere/ocean is currently causing oceans to absorb CO2, but eventually, as temperatures stabilize relative to the new CO2 levels, that process will inevitably slow, halt, and possibly reverse, allowing much of the CO2 which has been absorbed to date instead make it into the atmosphere, raising CO2 levels even higher. So the ocean has been acting as a CO2 speed bump that will eventually be overwhelmed.
  26. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #39l I guess many readers are thinking of long term events while the strength (and the weakness) of what I have to say is that it pertains to right now. The strength lies in the fact that I do not have to worry about how well we know what was happening many, many years ago. Because that is my time frame, and the only one to which I can possibly have anything to say, I do forget that others are worrying about what happened in the distant past. On the other hand, if we can apply strightforward science to what is being observed right now I feel it is worthwhile to do so. I just have to remember to quality my remarks and conclusions by including the relevant time frame! So thanks for the comment!
  27. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    204, apiratelooksat50, Thank you! You've provided a wonderful example of more evidence that the overly simplistic thinking that CO2 must always lag temperature is childishly flawed. The mechanisms involved are fairly easily understood, even if their interplay is at times surprising, but the point is made. One cannot simply say "this is what happened before, so it must always happen that way." The system is reasonably complex, and every factor affects other factors, which feedback on the system and affect everything else. One must understand how it all fits together to make a rational, intelligent statement about the system as a whole. The "CO2 lags temperature" statement is thus demonstrated to be insufficiently sophisticated to be used as an argument against the current effects of CO2 on climate. It's rather like a child who knows that 2+2=4, and so argues that it is therefore quite obvious that 2+3=4 and 2+4=4, and in fact 2+anything=4. It's clearly wrong, to anyone that understands 2nd grade math, although convincing the child of his naivety may be difficult. But your example does help to demonstrate the point. Well done.
  28. Seawater Equilibria
    Dr. Franzen, I've noticed that some people are confused by your statements about the small amount of CO2 released with one degree change in the temperature of the water. I was also a little perplexed by that, since the absorption/release of CO2 from the ocean is the major feedback factor in the transition into/out of glacial periods. It might help if you were simply a little more direct in explaining that you are referring in your post to daily or seasonal changes in temperature of regions of the ocean, not long term changes in temperature of the oceans as a whole, and that it is the net exchange over the entire ocean on which you are focusing — so it is not so much "how much" that is important as "this offsets that". You might also alter the phrasing of this statement:
    This means that the mtotCO2 locally in the ocean decreases by only 13.5 micromoles per kg for each degree that T increases.
    The use of the word "only" implies that CO2 release from the ocean is inconsequential with change in temperature, when that is clearly not the case in the transitions between glacial and interglacial periods, as evidenced by the ice cores.
  29. Seawater Equilibria
    29, hfranzen (responding to 24, MattJ) You can find the errors by using your browser's search (find) function. "Restaraint" is in the third sentence of the first paragraph. The "of dissolved of boric acid" phrase comes in "The molality of hydrogen ion is fixed by the measured pH, and the observed quantity of dissolved of boric acid yields" just before your second embedded equation. As a side note, you could also make it a little more readable by using HTML instead of images for things like CO3-2(aq). You just need to use the sub and sup tags around subscripts and superscripts.
  30. Seawater Equilibria
    Thanks - I did get it. and it is a very good argument. Thanks for the references.
  31. Polar bear numbers are increasing
    a broader context: Ecol Appl. 2008 Mar;18(2 Suppl):S97-125. Quantifying the sensitivity of Arctic marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change. doi:10.1890/06-0546.1 http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/06-0546.1
  32. Seawater Equilibria
    #35: By land sources, I refer to Anthropogenic use of fossil fuel. The northern hemisphere as a whole emits more CO2 than the southern, primarily due to the greater land area. If the global ocean is a primary CO2 source, I have difficulty understanding how places like the Azores, Easter Island, Bermuda, Midway, etc don't see it. See the flux maps and flux time series displays here for some comparative rates, organized by geographic setting. Also look at CO2 weather while you're on that ESRL site; you can literally see the seasonal cycles of atmospheric CO2. Oceans are complicated, as you well know. There are some comments and maps of locallized ocean sourcing in the deep southern hemisphere vs. sinking elsewhere on the ocean acidification threads here and here.
  33. One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
    To further enhance linkability, the domain name sks.to is available from the Tonga Network Information Center for $100 (2 years @ $50). e.g. sks.to/change => skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
  34. Seawater Equilibria
    Very nice! I had to think some about your last sentence - is the point that land sources are located primarily in ranges of latitude whereas the ocean as a source goes from the equator to the pole?
  35. Seawater Equilibria
    #25: "if you dodge the jab if he follows with a crushing uppercutwelling." Good one! However, look at the monthly records of atmospheric CO2 concentration at various monitoring sites around the world. Within a band of latitudes, there is no measurable difference between island stations and mid-continent stations. There are significant differences according to latitude. If CO2 is primarily sourced from the oceans, the former requires immediate mixing throughout the atmosphere; the latter says its not mixing. That's a TKO by contradiction. Land sourcing of CO2 does not face this problem.
  36. apiratelooksat50 at 06:54 AM on 11 January 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    I have a comment pertaining to GC's post @ 197. But, first I would like to know if there is an official AGW hypothesis so I don't get accused of being in error. Thanks.
    Moderator Response: This is the wrong thread for that. Look through the Arguments list to see if you can find a more appropriate thread.
  37. apiratelooksat50 at 06:49 AM on 11 January 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    From Roles of Volcanic Eruptions, Aerosols and Clouds in Global Carbon Cycle Gu, L., et al, University of California - Berkeley Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, "Roles of Volcanic Eruptions, Aerosols and Clouds in Global Carbon Cycle", 2001 After Mt. Pinatubo erupted in June, 1991 several observations were made by scientists. Ash and other particulate matter created a haze around the Earth in the upper atmosphere and effectively lowered the global temperature by about 0.9 degrees F. This is a clear case of cause and effect. (Less energy input into the system results in lowered global temperatures.) Also, the rate of which CO2 was added to the air was noticed by scientists to slow down for the next two years. From the article, "Many scientists previously thought the reduction in sunlight lowered the Earth's temperature and slowed plant and soil respiration, a process where plants and soil emit CO2. But this new research shows that when faced with diffuse sunlight, plants actually become more efficient, drawing more carbon dioxide out of the air." Again, a clear representation of cause and effect. (Diffuse sunlight leads to more efficient photosynthesis. Then, the more efficient photosynthesis leads to a drop in the atmospheric growth rate of CO2.) The lowered temperature also contributed to lower CO2 inputs to the system by slowing down plant and soil respiration. Cause and effect once again. Therefore, we have the dominant factors of a volcanic eruption and the resulting diminishment of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. The diffuse sunlight allowed plants to conduct photosynthesis more efficiently (uses CO2). The lowered temperature slowed down cellular respiration (produces CO2). While temperature and CO2 did respond in kind, neither factor was directly responding to the other. A clear case of an outside factor(s) influencing both dependent variables. Also, it should be noted that this rapid decrease in temperature that persisted for two years, is almost as great as the gradual change in global temperature being attributed to AGW over the last 150 years (0.9 versus 1.4). I don't recall any environmental catastrophes during that time perioid.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You continue to take this thread off-topic. Pinatubo is well-researched and included in climate modeling. Your post has no apparent point.
  38. Seawater Equilibria
    Additional response to #12: It is important to distinguish in these discussions between an arbitrary process and a net process. It is logically impossible for the ocean to be both a net source and a net sink. One must decide upon a time scale, e.g. one year, and then one can ask two entirely distinct questions. 1.Does the surface ocean give off carbon dioxide at some times and in some places? The answer to this, as given by the major result above, is "without a doubt". 2. Is there a net gain or a net loss of carbon dioxide in the oceans? Here again the answer is certain - a net gain . This follows immediately from the known increase in the partial pressure of CO2 (the Keeling curve)and Henry's Law (and the resultant shifts in the CO2-bicarboante-carbonate equilibria). It is impossib;e to think about this problem without a clear understanding of what a net process is and how such a process is relaed to a definite time scale.
  39. Seawater Equilibria
    #28 sure, I just feel that kinetics arguments are more easy to grasp - but maybe just for me
  40. Seawater Equilibria
    Dr. Franzen could you elaborate as to the effect of adding organic carbon into the equation in the context of your response #10. Thanks.
  41. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Response to #42: To what model do you refer? In what way is it fla]wed? In the broadest context all models are flawed by their very essence. The question is not whether or not they are flawed it is whether the flaws are sufficient ot negate the conclusion. Of course since I do no know to what model you are referring I cannot respond. But i might no be able to respond anyhow because it is essentially in criticising a model that you be specific about what the flaws are and how they effect the result.
  42. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Using the things we don't know as an argument in favor of complacency would make no logical sense even if competent, peer-reviewed science supported doing so, which it certainly doesn't. Garbled that, sorry. I mean that it would make no logical sense even if the science were far more uncertain than it actually is.
  43. One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
    The fixed numbers argument page already has short names for many of the arguments. A 404 redirect could be set up to use that table. e.g. skepticalscience.com/sun => skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
  44. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    gallopingcamel: As "apiratelooksat50" and others including myself have pointed out many times, the uncertainties are great. Your own rhetoric in this thread strongly suggests that you don't actually believe this. What you seem to believe — with an amazing degree of certainty - is that any potential negative consequences of AGW are negligible, or less dangerous than taking action. In the real world, "uncertainty" means that things could be worse than the best available science predicts. Using the things we don't know as an argument in favor of complacency would make no logical sense even if competent, peer-reviewed science supported doing so, which it certainly doesn't.
    Moderator Response: ... and discussion of that topic belongs on the Argument thread "The science isn’t settled."
  45. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #12: To what wonderful news are do you refer? What I said was that the CO2 in the ocean responds to two "external" variables, namely temperature and partial pressure. The former, if it increases, forces the CO2 to come out of the ocean, if it decreases the ocean dissolves more. The partial pressure of CO2 also can serve to cause the process to go in one direction or the other. As long as it continues increaing more CO2 enters the ocean - sadly if we should ever get the partial pressure to decrease the result is that CO2 will then enter the atmosphere from the ocean. I cannot see that I am neglecting either of the things that you say I am - read it again.
  46. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #24: I appreciate the help but cannot for the life of me find the errors you point out. I am looking at my orginal submission at the top of the page. I know I am a lousy proofreader so I definitley need all the help I can get!
  47. One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
    Tom, I agree that shorter URLs would help, as would longer one-liners, which are short in order to fit on the argument one-liners webpage (link). But unless John wants to add more fields to his DB for these, it's probably not worth the effort to cobble them up separately.
  48. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #22. There is a fundamental divide between reasoning from thermodynamics and reasoning from kinetics, Your discussion about bicarbonate and carbonate (I ignore carbonic acid - to my mind it is more aptly described as hydrated CO2 - the only disticntion between dissolved CO2 and carbinic acid is that in the later case there must be identifiable species with one water moleclule attached to the CO2 as oposed to a cage of water molecules with some leaving and some entering the cage over time.)At any rate, the species are all included in the thermodynamic treatment and the temperature deoendence is also. That's how I was able to arrive at a total carbon dioxide solubility as a function of tamperature, which is the main result of what I presented.
  49. Seawater Equilibria
    gcnp58 #25 It´s difficult to say "skeptics don't say this". They claim anything that would suggest emissions don't have to be cut. That includes "skeptics" implying the chemistry above does not take place, like Monckton here on page 47: "this minuscule and chemichally-irrelevant perturbation". So yes, I'd say that Franzen's post does address skeptical claims.
  50. Seawater Equilibria
    Response to #25 Good points!

Prev  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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