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  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  Next

Comments 98951 to 99000:

  1. Eric (skeptic) at 22:46 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    Historic Australian floods: http://www.ga.gov.au/hazards/flood/flood-basics/historic.html are correlated with La Nina http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/climaterisks/years.risk.html plus cyclones.
  2. The Queensland floods
    James Hansen wrote earlier this summer concerning the heat in Moscow and floods in Pakistan: "Finally, a comment on frequently asked questions of the sort: Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is "you cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming." That answer, to the public, translates as "no". However, if the question were posed as "would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?", an appropriate answer in that case is "almost certainly not." That answer, to the public, translates as "yes", i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event." I am sure the same answer would fit the Queensland flood. It would not have happened without AGW. I lived in Acacia Ridge in western Bisbane for three years. I think of my Aussie friends all the time.
  3. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #40 Chemware Modern synthetic rubber contains anti-oxidants and UV protectants, and it does not degraded to any appreciable extent when exposed to air, sunlight, and microbes. I have used tires that are over 20 years old and they haven't changed much at all in physical appearance. And there is no mold or moss growing on them.
  4. The Queensland floods
    Current status of La Nina: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf BTW: I was just searching the web for the place where John lives when the new article appeared - all Australians I ever knew came from Sydney so I sort of assumed that he must be from Sydney as well and so was not worried about him - a classical example of wrong generalization
  5. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:01 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    Glad things are not too bad for you, John - here's hoping it stays this way. The scale of this disaster is unimaginable.
  6. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG Read this document (The Absence of Stratification and Rapidity of Mixing of Carbon Dioxide in Air Samples) from the Journal of Biological Chemistry (1927), about the diffusion of CO2 in air, in particular the summary: http://www.jbc.org/content/73/2/379.full.pdf The point is that if you were correct about CO2, then we would be detecting stratification of gases in the atmosphere and we would all be CO2 breathing creatures, not air/oxygen breathing creatures.
  7. Eric (skeptic) at 21:53 PM on 12 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG, I second the start here recommendation. The only argument of yours that I haven't previously read here was the atmospheric pressure increase. This paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.017 says that "a crepuscular atmosphere having a carbon dioxide content of 683 ppm, ... a pressure of 1.021 bar,..." so that argument is wrong too.
  8. The Queensland floods
    Best of luck to you and your family John! RE: #2 - the extreme events case has already been pretty well explained. As well as extreme events, there are expected to be regional changes in precipitation. Total global precipitation is expected to go up because of more water vapour in the atmosphere, but some regions will see less & others more. Summary of IPCC graphs here!
  9. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG, before your first post, you should have read Beginners Start Here, The Big Picture, and Most Used Skeptic Arguments. If you had read all that first, your post would have had very little left that hadn't been already looked at, discussed and countered.
  10. The Queensland floods
    Glad you are ok John. Keep smiling.
  11. The Queensland floods
    Looking out the window I'm seeing the highest piles of snow in S Finland for my lifetime (under 40 of them) and more coming from the sky. Glad of not to have to go to the store today. Inquiring how are your food supplies? You hang in there.
  12. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG building new theories from a measured event is a nice intellectual exercize. But before claiming its validity you need to confront it with reality. There are several troubling claims in your comment, starting from the sinking of CO2, the flooding (sic) of the Atlantic Ocean, the cooling from 1998 and the halving of the european population in the 17th-18th century during the so-called little ice age. Your theory does not stand even the most trivial sanity check.
  13. Philippe Chantreau at 19:07 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    Glad to know you're safe and sound John.
  14. Philippe Chantreau at 19:06 PM on 12 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    13MPG, this has to be the most grotesque conflation of nonsense and misinformation I have ever seen. Thanks for the laugh.
  15. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 18:33 PM on 12 January 2011
    The science isn't settled
    @aspiratelooksat50 - 'pro' means 'for', 'anti' means 'against'. I don't know of anyone who is 'pro-AGW', although I have read facetious comments, mostly on denier sites, saying 'warming will be good'. I don't imagine any thinking person wants earth to be hotter than it's ever been since humans evolved.
  16. The Queensland floods
    Hi John, Fingers crossed-- glad to hear that you are coping. Just to add to your comments above. From Dai, Trenberth and Qian (2004) concluded that: "From 1950 to 2002, precipitation increases over Argentina, the southern United States, and most of western Australia resulted in wetter conditions (i.e., higher PDSI) in these regions. However, most of Eurasia, Africa, Canada, Alaska, and eastern Australia became drier from 1950 to 2002, partly because of large surface warming since 1950 over these regions". And "During the last two–three decades, there was a tendency of more extreme (either very dry or very wet) conditions over many regions, including the United States, Europe, east Asia, southern Africa, and the Sahel." The recent deluges of rain over Queensland are, in part, related to the current La Nina, with the heavy rains likely being exacerbated by the record high SSTs surrounding Australia and attendant increase in water vapour content in the atmosphere. The increase in precipitation and weather extremes is consistent with a warming planet and accelerating hydrological cycle. To quote Trenberth: "Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future."
  17. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    I am a climatologist by hobby mainly because I study and occasionally chase hurricanes. I can use the most basic aspect of science and demonstrate why earth won't become venus. Look at the periodic table. Air is a solution (meaning no molecular bonds) of roughly 3/4 nitrogen and 1/4 oxygen and trace gasses (21%?). When an atom bonds to others to become molecules, the atomic weight combines. When air becomes saturated...when the total atomic weight of water in a given point of the atmosphere grows higher than the total atomic weight of the air that is holding it up, it falls down as rain, snow, dew, etc. Now, Carbon Dioxide has a much heavier atomic weight than air or water vapor. Thus when CO2 gets ejected into the atmosphere, it falls harmlessly to earth where the trees use it for food. To this day, the military uses CO2 as fire suppression on the lower levels of ships (engineering areas) because it naturally sinks in air. Because of CO2's heavier atomic weight, barometric pressure (the weight of the atmosphere on the earth) has not increased at all in the last 150 years. If CO2 were building as they say, the barometric pressure would have increased .5mb at sea level in the last century. That has not happened. The cyclical shift In ocean currents and temperatures gradually went from cool to warm in the '30s and again in the early '80's. this cycle starts in Pacific lags a decade or so in the Atlantic (PDO and AMO respectively). When the Pacific warmed, so did the land next to it then the Atlantic followed. The result was honest scientists seeing actual global warming. Now the pacific ocean is back in it's cold phase and scientists are trying to hide the resulting temperature drop. In the next 5 years the Atlantic will go cold too. The pacific went cold extremely early this time. The only time this can be archaeologically proven to have happened before was in the 13th century when archaeological evidence shows a likelihood of the Northwest Passage being open briefly at the very end Medieval Warm period which peaked drastically then ended suddenly at the end of the 13th and 1st half of the 14th century. To see what followed, google "little ice age". It seems plausible that the opening of the "Northwest Passage" flooded the Atlantic Ocean with cold dense fresh water blocking the Gulf Stream which moderates temperatures along the Americas, West Indies, Europe and even it even impacts Africa as the cold "Canary Current". The sudden drop in temps along the eastern US and Eur-Asia was preceded by a decade or so of slow global cooling and extreme weather in Europe resulting in crop failures, just like the cooling that has been happening since 1998. The last "little ice age" killed half the population of Europe due to starvation and plague. Is it possible that all the crop failures in the news lately are simply history repeating itself? No, and neither are the plunging temperatures, record snows in areas that haven't seen such things since the 1700's which was the peak of the last "little ice age". I have already heard some folks in the weather watching community comparing this winter to the winter Washington and the American Revolutionary Army spent at Valley Forge.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science. First rule to observe here is to abide by the Comments Policy. That means NO accusations of fraud or dishonesty, among other things. Even by intimation. Your comment hangs precariously across that line. Future comments of this nature will be summarily deleted. As to the scientific content of your comment, for someone studying climate science there is so much in error. Please follow the advice and direction JMurphy expressed so well in comment number 47 below. Your compliance is appreciated, as is substantive dialogue. Thanks!
  18. The science isn't settled
    @apiratelooksat50: "Just being curious and not accusatory, do you and/or the other posters here look at other sites that are not pro-AGW? " You seem to be under the impression that this site is "pro-AGW". It isn't. It is pro-science. This isn't an debate of ideas, or of opinion. It is a scientific debate. Sites that have an obvious political agenda (such as WUWT) are not science sites. Your comment about "libs" in a different thread belies your political views. You should really stop looking at the science through a partisan lens.
  19. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    @apiratelooksat50: "Do libs not listen to Buffett?" What's a "lib," and what does it have to do with climate science?
  20. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:46 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    As a further addendum, much (most) of Victoria in south eastern Australia has suffered drought for the last decade or more. It is expected to continue to get warmer and drier in Victoria as global warming progresses. A desalination plant is under construction to provide Melbourne with improved water security. Melbourne water storage is currently at 53.7% capacity gaining about 300 gigalitres since June 2010 (about twice the water of 2009 but only a bit more than half the amount of water held in storage in 1997). Yet across the state and in Melbourne this summer we've had a lot of rain, record precipitation events and major floods with this season's La Nina. http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_storages/water_report/zoom_graph.asp A lot of people are commenting on the 'cool' summer. But it only feels cool by comparison with the record heat of recent years. In actual fact, the mean monthly maxima and minima for Melbourne this summer are still above 30 year averages (including the 1981 to 2010 average). Compare recent months in Melbourne here (scroll down for links to recent months): http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW3050.latest.shtml With monthly averages here (you can select the period): http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086071.shtml Melbourne and Victoria are not the world and therefore that data on its own does not allow inferences to be drawn about what is happening at a global level. Nevertheless what's happening here in Victoria does illustrate the local climate change that is already occurring, in line with what Australian scientists have been telling us will happen with global warming.
  21. The Queensland floods
    As an addendum, the drought is still continuing in the South West of West Australia (around its capital) with dams at 30% of capacity, and 15 - 20% of Perth's water coming from desalination.
  22. The Queensland floods
    sout @4, I believe it was November of 2009 that the drought broke in Brisbane with rains that restored Wivenhoe to capacity within a week or so. For comparison, in just 24 hours yesterday Wivenhoes stored water increases by 40% of rated storage capacity whilst letting enough water through its floodgates to cause lead to the expected '74 plus level floods in Brisbane tomorrow. Its maximum capacity is 220% of its normal storage capacity to allow for flood mitigation. Last I heard, it was at 175% of normal storage capacity, or one more days rain had it not (very thankfully) relented.
  23. The Queensland floods
    Hi John, I did not know that you were a fellow Brisburnian. I'm glad to here that you are safe. garythompson @2, the CSIRO has been predicting since at least 2003 that the main effect of global warming on subtropical Queensland and NSW would be longer, hotter, and drier droughts, BUT that when rains came it would be more likely to flood, and to flood more severely (check my blog for links). The reason that global warming will increase the duration of droughts is because it makes it more likely that any given year will be an El Nino year, and El Nino years bring droughts to Australia. It will be drier because it is hotter, which results in more evaporation of moisture stored in the soil. Of course, though it is more likely that any given year will be an El Nino year, La Nina's can still occur, and strong La Nina's bring floods. Hence the current flood. The reason global warming results in more rain when it floods is because warmer Sea Surface Temperatures (currently at a record level in Australian Waters). Warmer sea surfaces means more evaporation, which in turn means more rainfall. Knowing this, it was no surprise to me that the ten year drought we have recently been through was broken by record breaking floods in Queensland in March, with that record now in turn shattered. Brisbane's highest levels of flooding all occured in the 19th century, with river peaks up to 4 meters above what is currently expected. What has changed since the 19th century was the construction of the Summerset Dam which provided for a large measure of flood mitigation. That couldn't prevent '74, so they built the Wivenhoe Dam with an even greater capacity for flood mitigation, and greatly enhanced Brisbane's drainage system. These have greatly helped us, for without them floods in Brisbane would have hit '74 levels last week, well before Toowoomba's "instant inland tsunami". It has still not been enough. What nobody is yet commenting about is that Brisbane's previous episodes of mass flooding have been the result of cyclone remnants hitting Brisbane after a preceding season of massive rainfall. This time we have had the preceding season of rainfall, but no cyclone remnant. Absent global warming, Brisbane would probably only be experiencing minor flooding now, but global warming has been a game changer in the amount of rainfall we can expect from a normal rain depression. http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com/2011/01/under-brisbane-waters.html
  24. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    BKSea, I don't know of any researcher willing to go out on that limb. But, I don't know all. It's a pretty thin branch no matter which side you believe. However, the same question has come to my mind more than once. Looking at ice core data, there appear to be upper and lower limits to "natural" perturbations. At times, there appear to be plateaus of relative stability at the top and bottom of these limits, with rapid changes between them. However, there is also a PETM event which is outside of these limits, as well as broad expanses of geologic time where the temperature has been outside of the recent glacial band. My two cents: We are off the map. There has never been a time like the one we are in the process of creating in terms of layout of the continents, amount of C sequestered in clathrates and permafrost, rate of climate forcing introduced, etc. We can't just can't tell whether the change will be smooth or abrupt. Looking at the forces and feedbacks involved, there's nothing that acts linearly; so, my out-on-a-limb guess is that there will be an abrupt tipping point. Heck, from a geologic time-scale perspective, the recent change in progress would look like some abrupt discontinuity on the graph. Actually, I think the number would be a) too big to be meaningful, and b) depend a lot on how deep you wanted to go in the ocean and land; atmosphere, not so much. I once did a back-of-the-napkin estimate of just the latent heat difference in the loss of Arctic ice. It was huge, and that is just a fraction of the change in heat content of oceans.
  25. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 16:34 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    @ garythompson #2 - flood and drought are not mutually exclusive. You are correct regarding drought predictions for Australia but you might have missed the predictions of record rain events as the higher levels of water in the atmosphere fall as rain. What you may not know is that Australia has suffered extensive drought of extremely long duration and record high temperatures over the past decade. Only a couple of years ago (or less?) the Brisbane water supplies were as low as 16%. Now they are at almost 200% stated capacity, even though the flood mitigation section of the Wivenhoe Dam was emptied in preparation for the current wet season. When it rains it rains more intensely. Many parts of Australia have had unprecedented rain intensity with this summer's La Nina, causing major flooding in Victoria, New South Wales, north west Western Australia and Queensland. This intense rain follows years of drought.
  26. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 16:12 PM on 12 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    John, it's good to hear you and your family are safe on higher ground. I hope things are not too difficult for you. I know there are power outages, phone outages, disruptions to transport and grocery shops sold out or closed from flooding. Today climate specialist Professor David Karoly, on ABC News 24 television, said quite clearly that because the oceans are progressively warming as a consequence of human induced global warming, the strong La Nina is stronger than it would otherwise be. From what I can research looking at flood history of Queensland, larger flood events are occurring more often as is the intensity of precipitation wherever it occurs in Australia (down in the south eastern Australia as well as further north). BTW I hope this does not conflict with comments policy, but anyone who wants to help could donate here: http://www.qld.gov.au/floods/donate.html
    Response: Thanks for the reminder re the donation link - will add it to the main article.
  27. The Queensland floods
    i'm glad you are ok John and i thought about you when i saw this on the news (you being the only "bloke" i know in that country). stay safe. it seems that climate scientists are suffering in the media from conflicting messages and predictions. every weather event from floods to blizzards are being blamed on global warming. a few years ago the news i heard was the global warming would cause drought, not massive rains.
    Response: Global warming leads to an intensification of the water cycle. Drought severity is increasing in some regions and extreme precipitation is increasing in other regions. These are not merely predictions - an increase in drought severity and extreme precipitation have both been observed.
  28. The Queensland floods
    Glad to hear you and your family are ok John.
  29. actually thoughtful at 15:54 PM on 12 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Muoncounters (graph #28 as things are now counted) shows roughly .8C of warming since the zero mark (whatever that is for that graph). It just raised the question in my mind - how many BTUs does it take to raise the temperature of Earth by .1C? This number might be a fun one to help people grasp the magnitude of such a tiny change. Every rock, every house, every leaf, every river, etc. .1C hotter than it was - all at once.
  30. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Pirate, Clark is completely wrong in his assertion of atmospheric gas concentrations being "set", and his timeline is off as well. I'm not going to say more here because I'm already dragging the thread off topic.
    Moderator Response: Yes, that is off topic for this thread.
  31. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    KR, "As has been said here, repeatedly, the 3.7 TOA number means that ~7.4 W/m^2 is being absorbed and radiated isotropically from CO2." Wonderful. Point me to source and/or documentation that says the total absorbed power is 7.4 W/m^2 and that only 3.7 W/m^2 affects the surface because only half of the 7.4 W/m^2 absorbed is re-radiated downward.
  32. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    RW1 - As has been said here, repeatedly, the 3.7 TOA number means that ~7.4 W/m^2 is being absorbed and radiated isotropically from CO2. I know this - because I'm one of the people who has told you this more than once. Halving that number again is completely incorrect. Until you recognize that you will be starting from some very inaccurate premises. The additional energy not radiated to space from the Earth / atmosphere from a doubling of CO2 is therefore 3.7 W/m^2. That number comes from detailed, line-by-line calculations of IR emission across the full spectrum and through the entire atmosphere. hfranzen has done an excellent job of presenting the basic ideas.
  33. The science isn't settled
    Re: apiratelooksat50 (35) Hmm, good question (no one's ever asked me that). I try to keep up on the literature itself as it comes out while reading older stuff I missed earlier as I find the time. That means reading a lot of stuff from NATURE, AGU, PNAS, GRL, AMS (I'm sure I'm forgetting some of the biggies; that's what links are for). Full studies I have access to or can find a free PDF of somewhere (Google Scholar is your friend in this regard). Abstracts and review articles also. Science sites. As for blogs, I pretty much limit myself to the science-based ones that have proven themselves over time (RC, Open Mind, Skeptical Science, Science of Doom, Chris Colosse's place, Neven's Sea Ice blog, etc). I frequent ScienceDaily and ReportingClimateScience for hints to advance notice of breaking papers. To boil that down: Peer-reviewed articles are the core. Augmented by commentaries in both scientific venues and scientific sites & blogs proven trustworthy. And then distill it down to this: Is it credible? Does it agree with what we have established as foundational? Why or why not? If not, what significance does that have (if any)? If it seeks to overturn established tenets, then exceptional claims require an even greater level of exceptional evidence. Etc. We were all given a mind. Some choose to use it for thinking. Some let others do the thinking for them. Our choice. (Apologies to any here whose site I didn't specifically name; I blame senescence) Oh, I listen to Buffett (and pretty much everything from 1960-2000 or so). And I'm pretty conservative. The Yooper
  34. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    39, BKsea, Off the top of my head, from what I observe and understand, the answer is "both." That is, the ocean is a vast heat/CO2 sink, so it is damping both the warming and the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere. On the other hand, from what we've seen of past events, such as the termination of interglacial periods and other events, there can be spikes when certain tipping points are reached. These don't need to be the same "tipping points" people think of in relation to runaway warming... just points where "slow-and-steady" abruptly transitions to "oh-shi*". But right now I'd say "more slowly and monotonically drifts" is the better description, with the understanding that that same damping will apply to trying to slow things down now that they've started. That is, even if we stopped all CO2 emissions right now, that "slowly and monotonically drifts" would continue for a very, very long while.
  35. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #18, h pierce Sorry, you are wrong about rubber. It does degrade, though it does take a while. Sunlight is pretty vicious to rubber and plastic, and rubber eventually degrades because of the initiators used in its synthesis.
  36. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    From a basic systems perspective, a system's response to a perturbation can either be underdamped, in which case the system rapidly changes, overshoots and oscillates to a new equillibrium. Or, it can be overdamped, in which case it more slowly and monotonically drifts to a new equillibrium. Is there any evidence whether climate response to CO2 behaves in either of these fashions?
  37. Eric (skeptic) at 10:55 AM on 12 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #18 keithpickering and #21 Sphaerica, I never figured trend was relevant in those variables (AO, etc). The relationship of those to global average temperature is not linear, and the variables themselves are somewhat cyclical (not linear). However, the AO to amplification link that I talked about doesn't seem to be evident. AMO being oceanic rather than atmospheric looks a little more promising. I am only trying to explain fluctuations in the rate of global temperature increase to help determine the factors that control amplification of warming from CO2 or ocean storage of CO2 warming, both of which fluctuate.
  38. keithpickering at 10:46 AM on 12 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #20 Robert Way: I quite agree, and I'm in the process of redoing all these graphs with explicit y-scales. See my post from a few days ago, "Graphs from the Zombie Wars" for an example. #28 Rob Honeycutt Please use these any way they might be useful -- if you can get that right-click thing working. #29 H Pierce Yes indeed. One needs to remember that AMO and PDO are temperature indices, i.e., they are detrended subsets of the global temperature dataset. Therefore one expects to see short-term correlations. It's the long-term trend that's the issue.
  39. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Thanks for the suggestions re: images - I am on the lookout for something to visually break up the page and enhance understanding.
  40. Seawater Equilibria
    Sphaerica, Yeah, was afraid I was explaining a point already well understood. Mice work as well; the same principles apply, but I like the net as an analogy for a boundary layer. In any event, I think you have hit on the problem being related to timescales. Organic matter decays a lot faster than permanent snow cover advances; I would think. I suspect the Nat. Geoscience article linked by D Bailey was the primary source for the Science Daily article linked earlier. I'd also like to add some more complexity to the model by observing that there is an overturning of benthic ocean with the surface layers. I'm not sure what the rate of that is compared to the rate at which the surface layers find equilibrium with the atmosphere in terms of CO2. But in any event, I'm thinking that the upwelling water went down in a lower CO2 world; so, it might have a higher capacity to absorb CO2 than the water going down now will have when it returns. So, I'm forming a hypothesis that there will be echoes of past CO2 levels as the oceans overturn. Can't claim to sufficient knowledge to know if this hypothesis has any merit. My guess is that any echoes that do exist would be pretty blurry, considering there will be other factors at work and the rates of overturn for the worlds oceans are highly unlikely to be the same. It could also be that it stays down long enough that it is buffered back to a consistent level by chemistry that takes place with the rock and falling organic matter down there. I'll risk exposing a potentially foolish thought.
  41. Seawater Equilibria
    @#34: Just to be clear, I do not think the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution is due to the ocean outgassing. However, the well-seasoned skeptic will point out that all of the ocean deepwater has very high DIC concentration. Therefore, the observed meridional CO2 distribution with higher concentrations in the N. Hemisphere could be due to upwelling deepwater in the N. Pacific (for example). I doubt that time-dependent CO2 concentration measurements would show the rise in CO2 at Mauna Loa precedes the rise at Cape Gearheart by a few days (or whatever the mean transit time of tropospheric air masses across the Pacific), but that doesn't mean a skeptic wouldn't try to make the case. And it would be a bitch to beat down, in my opinion, because they would provide all sorts of wacked-out measurements showing you needed to bring a relatively small amount of deepwater to the surface and that area could easily be missing by the relatively coarse measurements over that huge area. No doubt this argument from the skeptic would contain several delusional assumptions, and violate some principles of ocean physics, but sorting out all the misconceptions would take days. Furthermore, at each turn the skeptic would layer on another level of scientific weirdness so you would be nearly literally tied in knots sorting out what was factual and what was fantasy. In order to avoid that waste of time (and this whole website is designed so that people will waste less time debating known science with skeptics), it is a good idea to nip it in the bud and understand the isotope argument *before* the whole upwelling line of attack gets started. I say this mainly because whatever you can do to create a latitudinal distribution of atmospheric CO2 from continental sources can also be done with some creative ocean physics and upwelling.
  42. apiratelooksat50 at 10:04 AM on 12 January 2011
    The science isn't settled
    KR, Thanks for the links. It will take me a while to check them out. Just being curious and not accusatory, do you and/or the other posters here look at other sites that are not pro-AGW? Pirate
  43. Seawater Equilibria
    "Adds a bit of credence to the clathrate-gun hypothesis". I've discussed this a no. of times with our researchers in this area and while clathrates might be important for PETM, what evidence we have is negative for much influence on glacial cycle. If there was a significant contribution from clathrates to atmosphere, then surely you expect a fossil signature in ice core methane? What measurements I am aware of (sorry dont have reference as away from office) show CH4 is swamp origin.
  44. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    hfranzen "Clarification: The absorption is a process in which carbon dioxide is excited from some rotational level in the ground vibrational state to some rotational level in the first excited vibrational state. The short explanation of the fact that half is returmed to the earth is: absorbed radiation is then reemitted through any of a number of processes and this emission is in all directions, i.e. half up and half down. Thus half the reemitted absorbed radiation returns to the earth as GHG flux. A slightly longer explanation of the reemission follows. Once this excitation has occurred the molecule either relaxes to the ground state or, more frequently, gives up the energy to the translational motion of another molecule (e.g. nitrogen) through collision. In the more probable collisional dectivation case this energy then becomes part of the thermal bath in which the molcules reside, in other words the atmosphere is locally heated above its steady state temperature. This excess bath energy is then lost through any of a myriad of collisional processes, say with the ubiquitous water molecules. This excitation is then lost through emission. In either case - direct emission or collisional deactivation follwed by remission from some other infrared active molecule the remmission is isottropic, i.e. nondirectional, and thus occurs with equal probability up or down." Thanks for the detailed reply, but I was looking for an actual number. The IPCC says a doubling of CO2 results in an intrinsic increase in surface power of 3.7 W/m^2. I've said before on here that if only half of the absorbed power affects the surface, the actual is only 1.85 W/m^2. What are you inputing in your formula? Since we both agree that because the re-radiation is isotropic, only half of the absorbed power can affect the surface and the other half is radiated in the same general direction it was already headed. The question then is specifically how much gross additional power is absorbed from a doubling of CO2?
  45. apiratelooksat50 at 09:53 AM on 12 January 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    To Trueofvoice @215; Nice catch on the JB reference. First person on any of these sites to do that. Do libs not listen to Buffett? ;) Also, Roy Clark was not referring to the climate holding steady, but instead to the establishment of the current climate and it's basic ranges of gaseous concentrations. It took billions of years of photosynthesis from cyanobacteria and blue-green algae to oxygenate the atmoshpere. Thanks for being civil.
  46. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Cruzn46, "Really? Tell me in PPM, like they do with CO2, how much water vapor is in the earth's atmosphere today. Then tell me how much was in the atmosphere in 1800." This is off topic. But how about you do calculations? And absolute WV content is measured in g/kg either as specific humidity or as mixing ratio (r). We know that mean RH is ~70%, and we know that the saturation vapor pressure (es) is determined by temperature alone. Between the equations for r and es and RH, and with knowledge of the mean global SAT (and applying) the assumption for constant global RH of 70% you could probably get an estimate of the mixing ratio circa 1880. It would be an interesting exercise, but completely unrelated to this post. Trenberth et al. (2005) found that from 1988 to 2003 the global precipitable water vapour (PWV; vertical integral of r though the atmospheric column) content increased by about 1.3% per decade over the oceans, and that this increase was in turn because of an increase in air temperature, with about a 9% increase in PWV per Kelvin, again over the global oceans. Results form that paper also offer a clue as to the value of mean r circa 1880. But again the answer would be off topic.
    Moderator Response: If anyone insists on pursuing this topic further, they should do so on a thread revealed by typing "water vapor" into the Search field at the top left of the page.
  47. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Thanks Sphaerica! I just got this new track pad so I'm still learning it. That's a great tip. Sorry for the OT comments.
  48. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    hfranzen, "I have not accounted for water vapor overlap. Since the absorptions are basically lines in the spectrum (a quantum mechanical effect -see the specrum from the astrophysics group at Ohio State in GWPPT6) it is only the occasional overlap that will have an effect and that to reduce the absorption by CO2 slightly. My guess is that this would result in less than a 10% reduction in the absorption and a far lesser effecct in the change in absorption with increasing CO2 ppm. Since my earth-year temperature increase result fits very well with what is actually observed (see #25 above) I am quite certain that overlap is not serious problem and what GWPPT6 shows is the basic thrust of what is occurring. The increase that I am calculating comes directly from the increase in the broad-band diffuse transmissivity as a result of the increase in the ppm of CO2. The latter is measured by the Keeling curve. The former results directly from the physics of GWPPT6 generalizing Beer's Law from s linear absorption of intensity to a broad-band, diffuse abosrption of flux. I input nothing that is not calculated or observed." With all due respect, you can't just make these assumptions. Water vapor absorbs a significant amount in the CO2 absorbing bands, especially on the high end above 15u but below too. Water vapor also exists in much higher concentrations than CO2. Then you have the issue of clouds as well. That is anywhere that is cloud covered, incrementally more power from additional CO2 would have little effect because the clouds would absorb the increased power anyway. Also, there is generally more water vapor in between the surface and the clouds, which would further reduce any effect from additional CO2 because of water vapor overlap. On top of all this, in really dry and cloudless areas where there is the least amount of overlap - i.e. where more CO2 has the highest potential to increase the total surface power, is also where IR heat energy most easily and quickly escapes out to space. This is easily demonstrated by how cold it gets at night in very dry areas with little water vapor or clouds in the atmosphere, such as the desert. Even during the summer, the nights can be very cold - much colder than more moist and/or cloudy areas at the same latitude. Unless you can properly account for and quantify all these things, your numbers really don't have much bearing on reality.
  49. Seawater Equilibria
    71, Dan Bailey, Not a problem. For safety I only drink Medieval Warm Beverages when reading about climate science.
  50. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    30, 31, Rob Honeycutt, How to right click with a Mac trackpad (without using the dang control key).

Prev  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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